video
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Cyprus Bank Balance Confiscation: What Would John Adams say?
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Harry Reid Seeks Background Checks for Private Gun Sales
Reid to Include Background Checks in Gun Control Bill
If Harry Reid is concerned with gun safety, he might learn to keep his finger off the trigger until his sights are on target.
The Hill is reporting that Harry Reid (D-NV) will include a "controversial" expansion of background checks to include private sales in his gun control bill.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
If Harry Reid is concerned with gun safety, he might learn to keep his finger off the trigger until his sights are on target.
The Hill is reporting that Harry Reid (D-NV) will include a "controversial" expansion of background checks to include private sales in his gun control bill.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Friday, March 22, 2013
Colorado's Fight for Gun Rights Turns to Recall of Governor
Petitioning Hickenlooper
Colorado Residents who Support our Rights: Recall John Hickenlooper
Petition by
Chris Schomp
Parker, CO
Hickenlooper actively supports recalling 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens, so let's recall him. He ignores Colorado's voice, the voice of our law enforcement, and instead reads cue cards from out of staters like Michael Bloomberg...It is time to tell him we are not New York, and we do not appreciate our rights being taken. By supporting these gun laws he removed 200+ jobs from Colorado in a time when we need them most, and cost the state millions in tax revenue. How is this good for our state? They created recall elections for a reason, so let's show him that he is not representing us as he is required to do by the Colorado Constitution. We need at least 447,000 Colorado resident signatures, so let's show him we mean business!
This is in efforts to make sure that we have the necessary support before filing, since you only have 60 days to gather 400k+ signatures after formally filing a recall petition. So this is not the official petition, but a way to drum up support, and allow us to easily reach those in support if we can reach necessary numbers.
To:
Hickenlooper
Recall John Hickenlooper. Let's tell him that he doesn't represent his people anymore, and that it is time for him to go.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Hickenlooper
Recall John Hickenlooper. Let's tell him that he doesn't represent his people anymore, and that it is time for him to go.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
Thomas Paine Knew Obama
"Is the power who is jealous of our prosperity, a proper power to govern us? Whoever says No, to this question, is an Independant for independency means no more than this, whether we shall make our own laws, or, whether the King, the greatest enemy this continent hath, or can have, shall tell us there shall be no laws but such as I like." --Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
GOP Budget Includes Real Cuts
House Conservatives Unveil Plan to Balance Budget in 4 Years
On Monday, the House Republican Study Committee unveiled an aggressive plan to balance the federal budget in just 4 years. The plan, from the internal conservative caucus of the GOP Conference, achieves balance must faster than Rep. Paul Ryan's budget released last week. Ryan's plan would achieve balance in 10 years.
The RSC budget is built on many of the same elements in the Ryan plan. It just implements them faster. The RSC moves up the implementation of Ryan's Medicare reform proposal five years earlier, for example. It also imposes lower caps on non-defense discretionary spending, achieving a net reduction in actual spending. The Ryan plan, by contrast, simply lowers the rate of increase in discretionary spending.
MORE
and from Yahoo! News with a heavy liberal slant on "cuts to vital. . . "
House passes GOP budget plan promising deep cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Moving on two fronts, the Republican-controlled House on Thursday voted to keep the government running for the next six months while pushing through a tea-party flavored budget for next year that would shrink the government by another $4.6 trillion over the next decade.
On Monday, the House Republican Study Committee unveiled an aggressive plan to balance the federal budget in just 4 years. The plan, from the internal conservative caucus of the GOP Conference, achieves balance must faster than Rep. Paul Ryan's budget released last week. Ryan's plan would achieve balance in 10 years.
The RSC budget is built on many of the same elements in the Ryan plan. It just implements them faster. The RSC moves up the implementation of Ryan's Medicare reform proposal five years earlier, for example. It also imposes lower caps on non-defense discretionary spending, achieving a net reduction in actual spending. The Ryan plan, by contrast, simply lowers the rate of increase in discretionary spending.
MORE
and from Yahoo! News with a heavy liberal slant on "cuts to vital. . . "
You get the picture.
House passes GOP budget plan promising deep cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — Moving on two fronts, the Republican-controlled House on Thursday voted to keep the government running for the next six months while pushing through a tea-party flavored budget for next year that would shrink the government by another $4.6 trillion over the next decade.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Madison: A Power Divided and Checked
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others." --James Madison, Federalist No. 58, 1788
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, March 21, 2013
White House: Obama Never Attacked Fox or Limbaugh
Jim Messina: Obama Never Attacked Fox News, Rush Limbaugh
In another video from Talk Radio Network chief investigative reporter Jason Mattera, Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager and director of Organizing for Action Jim Messina denies that Obama has ever attacked Fox News or Rush Limbaugh—a funny claim, considering the wealth of evidence to the contrary.
On February 20, 2013, Mattera caught up with Messina in Washington, D.C. “Do you think it’s unbecoming of the president to be constantly attacking Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?” Mattera asks. “I don’t think that’s what he’s doing,” says Messina, as a staffer tries to usher him away from Mattera.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commnetary
In another video from Talk Radio Network chief investigative reporter Jason Mattera, Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign manager and director of Organizing for Action Jim Messina denies that Obama has ever attacked Fox News or Rush Limbaugh—a funny claim, considering the wealth of evidence to the contrary.
On February 20, 2013, Mattera caught up with Messina in Washington, D.C. “Do you think it’s unbecoming of the president to be constantly attacking Fox News and Rush Limbaugh?” Mattera asks. “I don’t think that’s what he’s doing,” says Messina, as a staffer tries to usher him away from Mattera.
MORE
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commnetary
We the People. . . Constitution Letter Newsletter
If you want to learn the Constitution, you need to subscribe now!
Go to douglasvgibbs.com/newsletter.php to subscribe.
Executive Branch Introduction, Temecula Constitution Class
Tonight's class begins at 6:00 pm Pacific in Temecula, California at Faith Armory, 27498 Enterprise Circle West. Join us as we begin to work through Article II, which establishes the Executive Branch. . .
-4-
Executive Branch
4.1 - Article II, Executive Power Established
Article II establishes the Executive Branch. The Founding Fathers were anxious regarding the creation of the office of the executive because they feared that a leader with too much power had the potential of being tyrannical. Many of the founders even argued that there should not be one executive, but many, so that they may serve as checks against each other. Their concerns were well placed, if one considers that their frame of reference was the authoritarian king of the British Empire.
Despite their fears, they knew that the authorities of the president under the Articles of Confederation were too few, leaving the office of the president much too weak to adequately serve the union. The founders were looking for a strong leader that also recognized the limitations on the authorities of the federal government as granted by the States through the articles of the Constitution. The best model for the presidency was a simple choice. Article II was written, some believe, with George Washington in mind.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states that the powers of the executive are “vested.” This word, as we learned when we went over Article I, Section 1, carries a meaning similar to that of the word “granted.” Vested means “legally transferred.” The President’s authorities are powers given to him through a legal transfer of authorities. The powers vested to the Executive Branch were granted by the States.
The founders understood that whenever there is a “leader,” there is a struggle for power. America has been no different. The office of the president has increased its powers over the years, mostly through unconstitutional means. The Founding Fathers sought to limit the powers to the executive. Among those limitations of powers is also a term-limit. The executive is limited to a term of four years, as is the Vice President.
Election
The election of the President and Vice President is not accomplished by direct election. Appointed electors vote for the President and Vice President. The electors were originally appointed by the States during the early elections of American History. The formula for determining the number of electors is determined by taking the number of Representatives and Senators the State is entitled in Congress, and combining those two numbers. This method of indirect election is also known as The Electoral College, which was designed in this manner specifically to protect the United States against the excesses of democracy.
After the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency because he did not win the fight for electors, questions regarding the Electoral College arose. It was only the fourth time in history such an event occurred. To find precedents resembling the 2000 election one has to go back to the 19th century, to the elections of 1888, 1876, and 1824. Those were the only elections in American history prior to the election in 2000 where a winner in the popular vote was denied the presidency through the Electoral College system.
Recently, there has been a number of officials promising to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming that it no longer serves a good purpose in modern politics. The reasoning of these folks that oppose the Electoral College suggests that the United States should simply allow the popular vote of the American people be followed every four years when we elect our president.
A number of Americans have voiced their agreement with this opinion, arguing that the individual running for President receiving the most votes should win. An indirect election such as the Electoral College, argue these folks, is simply unfair and undemocratic. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The Founding Fathers purposely did not make this country a democracy. The United States is a Republic, equipped with checks and balances at all levels of government, including the voting process. Democracies were proven, according to the founders, to be failures.
John Adams was quoted to say, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
The founders are not the only historical figures to recognize that a democracy opposes liberty.
Karl Marx once said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Karl Marx, the father of communism, understood that the implementation of a democracy is a necessary step in the process of destroying our Constitutional Republic. Once the people are fooled to believe that they can receive gifts from the treasury rather than achieve for their livelihood, they will continually vote in the people who ensure the entitlements continue to flow. Eventually, this mindset becomes the majority. This group then changes over time from an involved and informed electorate to a populace that lacks the understanding of the principles of liberty and can easily be manipulated into believing that sacrificing individual liberty in exchange for social justice and security is a price that we must be willing to pay. A group that is dependent upon the government in such a manner, then, is prime to vote into power a tyranny. Eliminating the Electoral College would make it easier for these members of our society to vote into office those that promise more entitlements.
Once the majority of the voters in a Democracy become the recipients of benefits from the Federal Government, the government achieves unchecked power, and may then violate the property rights of the productive members of society in order to provide benefits to the non-productive members of society. This is best characterized in the "tax the rich," or “redistribution of wealth,” scheme we are now seeing emerge as the rally cry by the current administration. The founders called this method a “scheme of leveling.”
The founders were aware of this danger, which is why they established our system of government, and the electoral college, in the manner they did. A true democracy becomes “mob rule,” and the principles of liberty become a target for elimination.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” -- Thomas Jefferson
In order to preserve our Constitutional Republic it was imperative for the vote of the people to be indirect, except when it came to voting for their representatives in the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers divided power as much as possible, including the power of the vote.
Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the electors that cast their votes in the Presidential Election. That changed in 1824 when all but six states decided the electors should to vote in line with the popular vote.
U.S. Senators were initially appointed by the State Legislatures, which ensured the voice of the States was present in the federal government. That changed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment, which transferred the vote for the U.S. Senators to the popular vote. The 17th Amendment took away from the States their representation in the federal government.
The Founding Fathers divided the voting power as they did partially because if the power to vote for president, the House, and the Senate all fell to the people, and if the people were fooled by some political ideology that wished to destroy the republic by fundamentally changing the American System, a tyranny could be easily voted into control of all parts of the government without any checks present whatsoever. When the majority of voters are uninformed in such a manner, and are given the full voting power, tyranny is inevitable.
Winston Churchill understood the dangers of trusting an uninformed electorate with the capacity to govern. He was quoted as saying, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
The elimination of the Electoral College would take away the voice of the smaller states, give the election of the President to the seven largest metropolitan centers in the United States, and lead America even closer to becoming a democracy.
Democracy is a transitional governmental system that ultimately leads to tyranny. This was true in the days of the French Revolution no less than it is true today.
While democracy lasts it becomes more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy…Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. -- John Adams
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner” -- James Bovard
Our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic. The indirect election of the President through the Electoral College reflects that truth, and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the system of checks and balances as they apply to the voters.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 indicates that the Congress may determine the time and day the electors are chosen, and give their votes. The day they vote for President and Vice President, according to this clause, will be the same day nationally. The rules for the popular election, if you will remember from Article I, are to be established by the State legislatures.
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that the eligibility for President includes the requirement that the individual be a natural born Citizen.
Notice that the Constitution says a natural born citizen, “or” a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This was to ensure that anyone alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who was a citizen was eligible, and anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a natural born citizen to be eligible. The word “or” gives us a clue that there is a difference between “natural born citizen,” and “citizen.”
Some people will use the Fourteenth Amendment as an argument regarding the definition of natural born citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Fourteenth Amendment, in this clause, as it states, only addresses “citizenship” - not the concept of being a natural born citizen. Therefore, it does not apply when discussing the concept of natural born citizenship. The clause was written as it was to protect the citizenship of the children of the emancipated slaves. The word “jurisdiction” was placed in that clause to mean “full allegiance.” There was a fear during that time, as there had been during the founding of this nation, of divided allegiance, or divided loyalties.
Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge. People understood what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant.
Today we have a number of terms that are understood without needing to be defined. One of those terms is “fast food.” Without needing a definition provided, most people know what “fast food” is. That does not mean the term will be readily understood by some historian of the future. He may ask himself, when he comes across that term in our literature, “Why is it their food was fast? Did it run quickly away from them?” To understand what “fast food” meant to us, he may have to refer to a number of writings before he finally comes across the definition.
One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was Vatell’s “Law of Nations.”
Vatell’s Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell’s writings.
Recently, it was discovered that George Washington failed to return a couple library books to the New York City Public Library. One of those books was Vatell’s Law of Nations. Washington checked the book out in 1789, shortly after the Constitutional Convention, probably because of the heavy influence the definitions in Vatell’s Law of Nations played on the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the Law of Nations - two for the convention, and one for his personal use. He received those copies from the editor, Dumas, in 1775.
Vatell’s Law of Nations Section 212 indicates that to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child. As with the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a fear of divided allegiance.
Vetell’s Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil, but if you read further down the section addresses other possibilities. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 confirmed the definition not requiring the child to be born on American soil, but still requiring that both parents be American citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I am referring to specifically reads: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Note that the fifth word, citizens, is in the plural, which means it requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Article II also establishes that in order to be eligible for the presidency the candidate must be at least the age of 35. This requirement, reasoned the founders, would ensure that the immaturities of youth had passed away. Along with a relatively mature age, the Constitution indicates that the president must also have been a resident of the United States for the last fourteen years. This, once again, was a guard against divided loyalties.
The Vice President must also meet all eligibility requirements. In the 18th century the Vice President was the second place winner in the election, and therefore had to be eligible because he was originally running for President. Now, the Vice President is elected as a part of the presidential ticket. However, to ensure it was clear that the Vice President also had to be eligible for the presidency, especially since he was next in line for the presidency should the Office of President be vacated, the 12th Amendment ends with a sentence that demands the Vice President is eligible for the presidency.
In Case of Death
Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 was changed by the Twelfth Amendment. This clause established the rules in case of the death of the President while in office. The clause gave the Office of the President to the Vice President in the case of death. The ambiguity of the clause, however, created confusion. In the case of President Benjamin Harrison who died after only 30 days in office, it created a constitutional crisis. The officials of that time did not know what to do. When old Tippecanoe died, he was succeeded by his Vice-President John Tyler, but since no President had died in office before, no one was quite sure how Presidential succession worked. The Constitution stipulated that the Vice-President should become the new President, but it was not clear if the Vice-President should be considered a "real" President, or if he only “acted” as President. The Tyler administration made it clear that Vice-Presidents who became President after the death of the elected President should be treated as legitimate Presidents.
The Twelfth Amendment later addressed the problem with more specified rules. Later, succession was resolved once and for all with the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Compensation
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 allows for the President to be compensated for his service as President of the United States. This salary is not to be increased or diminished while the President serves. The President, according to this clause, is also not allowed to receive any other governmental salary from the federal government during his term as President. In George Washington’s First Inaugural Address, he announced that he would accept no salary as President.
Oath or Affirmation
In the final Clause of Article II, Section 1, the Oath or Affirmation for the Office of President was established.
The reason for the clause indicating Oath “or” Affirmation was because an Oath is to God, and an Affirmation is not. The founders understood that not all Americans believe in God, therefore an option needed to be available for non-believers. Affirmation was also included as an option because there were some Christians that believed swearing to God to be a sin. Offering the opportunity to “affirm” gave these Christians an opportunity to take the affirmation of office without compromising their religious beliefs.
Note that the President is expected, according to the text of the oath or affirmation, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
You will also note that placing one’s hand on a Bible is not in this Article. The placement of a hand on a Bible while reciting the Oath or Affirmation was something that George Washington chose to do, and it has been a tradition ever since.
Terms:
Democracy: A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Such a system includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.
Electoral College: A body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the President and Vice President of the U.S.
Executive Branch: The branch of government responsible for executing, or carrying out, the laws. An executive in government can be a president, or a governor.
Leveling: Moving money from one group of people to another by raising and lower taxes accordingly in an effort to achieve economic equity in society.
Republic: Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why didn’t the Founding Fathers make the President a king?
2. How does the Electoral College ensure fairness for the minority States?
3. What is the difference between a democracy and a republic?
4. Why did the Founding Fathers divide the voting power?
5. How is “citizen,” and “natural born citizen,” different?
6. Why were the Founding Fathers concerned about divided loyalty?
7. How does the eligibility requirements ensure that the President, especially as Commander in Chief, holds full allegiance for the United States?
8. How was the way the Vice President was chosen in the 18th century different from how the Vice President is chosen today?
Resources:
Alexander Hamilton, The Law of Nations and the U.S. Constitution, http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html
Associated Press, “Hillary Clinton Calls for End to Electoral College,” CBS News (2009) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml
George Washington, The First Inaugural Address of George Washington, The Avalon Project - Yale University (1789/2008) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/wash1.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Marjorie Kehe, “How George Washington racked up a $300,000 fine for overdue library books,” Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
Mountain Publius Goat, “Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen,” Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20081212%20Law%20of%20Nations.pdf
Naturalization Act of 1790, Harvard University: http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/viewtext/5596748?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no
Ron Paul, “Hands Off The Electoral College,” Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul226.html
Ron Paul, “The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule,” Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Sean Rooney, “The Death of President William Henry Harrison,” Associated Content (2008) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/518591/the_death_of_president_william_henry.html?cat=37
Vatell’s Law of Nations: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
-4-
Executive Branch
4.1 - Article II, Executive Power Established
Article II establishes the Executive Branch. The Founding Fathers were anxious regarding the creation of the office of the executive because they feared that a leader with too much power had the potential of being tyrannical. Many of the founders even argued that there should not be one executive, but many, so that they may serve as checks against each other. Their concerns were well placed, if one considers that their frame of reference was the authoritarian king of the British Empire.
Despite their fears, they knew that the authorities of the president under the Articles of Confederation were too few, leaving the office of the president much too weak to adequately serve the union. The founders were looking for a strong leader that also recognized the limitations on the authorities of the federal government as granted by the States through the articles of the Constitution. The best model for the presidency was a simple choice. Article II was written, some believe, with George Washington in mind.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states that the powers of the executive are “vested.” This word, as we learned when we went over Article I, Section 1, carries a meaning similar to that of the word “granted.” Vested means “legally transferred.” The President’s authorities are powers given to him through a legal transfer of authorities. The powers vested to the Executive Branch were granted by the States.
The founders understood that whenever there is a “leader,” there is a struggle for power. America has been no different. The office of the president has increased its powers over the years, mostly through unconstitutional means. The Founding Fathers sought to limit the powers to the executive. Among those limitations of powers is also a term-limit. The executive is limited to a term of four years, as is the Vice President.
Election
The election of the President and Vice President is not accomplished by direct election. Appointed electors vote for the President and Vice President. The electors were originally appointed by the States during the early elections of American History. The formula for determining the number of electors is determined by taking the number of Representatives and Senators the State is entitled in Congress, and combining those two numbers. This method of indirect election is also known as The Electoral College, which was designed in this manner specifically to protect the United States against the excesses of democracy.
After the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency because he did not win the fight for electors, questions regarding the Electoral College arose. It was only the fourth time in history such an event occurred. To find precedents resembling the 2000 election one has to go back to the 19th century, to the elections of 1888, 1876, and 1824. Those were the only elections in American history prior to the election in 2000 where a winner in the popular vote was denied the presidency through the Electoral College system.
Recently, there has been a number of officials promising to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming that it no longer serves a good purpose in modern politics. The reasoning of these folks that oppose the Electoral College suggests that the United States should simply allow the popular vote of the American people be followed every four years when we elect our president.
A number of Americans have voiced their agreement with this opinion, arguing that the individual running for President receiving the most votes should win. An indirect election such as the Electoral College, argue these folks, is simply unfair and undemocratic. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The Founding Fathers purposely did not make this country a democracy. The United States is a Republic, equipped with checks and balances at all levels of government, including the voting process. Democracies were proven, according to the founders, to be failures.
John Adams was quoted to say, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
The founders are not the only historical figures to recognize that a democracy opposes liberty.
Karl Marx once said, “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Karl Marx, the father of communism, understood that the implementation of a democracy is a necessary step in the process of destroying our Constitutional Republic. Once the people are fooled to believe that they can receive gifts from the treasury rather than achieve for their livelihood, they will continually vote in the people who ensure the entitlements continue to flow. Eventually, this mindset becomes the majority. This group then changes over time from an involved and informed electorate to a populace that lacks the understanding of the principles of liberty and can easily be manipulated into believing that sacrificing individual liberty in exchange for social justice and security is a price that we must be willing to pay. A group that is dependent upon the government in such a manner, then, is prime to vote into power a tyranny. Eliminating the Electoral College would make it easier for these members of our society to vote into office those that promise more entitlements.
Once the majority of the voters in a Democracy become the recipients of benefits from the Federal Government, the government achieves unchecked power, and may then violate the property rights of the productive members of society in order to provide benefits to the non-productive members of society. This is best characterized in the "tax the rich," or “redistribution of wealth,” scheme we are now seeing emerge as the rally cry by the current administration. The founders called this method a “scheme of leveling.”
The founders were aware of this danger, which is why they established our system of government, and the electoral college, in the manner they did. A true democracy becomes “mob rule,” and the principles of liberty become a target for elimination.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” -- Thomas Jefferson
In order to preserve our Constitutional Republic it was imperative for the vote of the people to be indirect, except when it came to voting for their representatives in the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers divided power as much as possible, including the power of the vote.
Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the electors that cast their votes in the Presidential Election. That changed in 1824 when all but six states decided the electors should to vote in line with the popular vote.
U.S. Senators were initially appointed by the State Legislatures, which ensured the voice of the States was present in the federal government. That changed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment, which transferred the vote for the U.S. Senators to the popular vote. The 17th Amendment took away from the States their representation in the federal government.
The Founding Fathers divided the voting power as they did partially because if the power to vote for president, the House, and the Senate all fell to the people, and if the people were fooled by some political ideology that wished to destroy the republic by fundamentally changing the American System, a tyranny could be easily voted into control of all parts of the government without any checks present whatsoever. When the majority of voters are uninformed in such a manner, and are given the full voting power, tyranny is inevitable.
Winston Churchill understood the dangers of trusting an uninformed electorate with the capacity to govern. He was quoted as saying, “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
The elimination of the Electoral College would take away the voice of the smaller states, give the election of the President to the seven largest metropolitan centers in the United States, and lead America even closer to becoming a democracy.
Democracy is a transitional governmental system that ultimately leads to tyranny. This was true in the days of the French Revolution no less than it is true today.
While democracy lasts it becomes more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy…Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. -- John Adams
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner” -- James Bovard
Our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic. The indirect election of the President through the Electoral College reflects that truth, and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the system of checks and balances as they apply to the voters.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 indicates that the Congress may determine the time and day the electors are chosen, and give their votes. The day they vote for President and Vice President, according to this clause, will be the same day nationally. The rules for the popular election, if you will remember from Article I, are to be established by the State legislatures.
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that the eligibility for President includes the requirement that the individual be a natural born Citizen.
Notice that the Constitution says a natural born citizen, “or” a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This was to ensure that anyone alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who was a citizen was eligible, and anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a natural born citizen to be eligible. The word “or” gives us a clue that there is a difference between “natural born citizen,” and “citizen.”
Some people will use the Fourteenth Amendment as an argument regarding the definition of natural born citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The Fourteenth Amendment, in this clause, as it states, only addresses “citizenship” - not the concept of being a natural born citizen. Therefore, it does not apply when discussing the concept of natural born citizenship. The clause was written as it was to protect the citizenship of the children of the emancipated slaves. The word “jurisdiction” was placed in that clause to mean “full allegiance.” There was a fear during that time, as there had been during the founding of this nation, of divided allegiance, or divided loyalties.
Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge. People understood what the term “Natural Born Citizen” meant.
Today we have a number of terms that are understood without needing to be defined. One of those terms is “fast food.” Without needing a definition provided, most people know what “fast food” is. That does not mean the term will be readily understood by some historian of the future. He may ask himself, when he comes across that term in our literature, “Why is it their food was fast? Did it run quickly away from them?” To understand what “fast food” meant to us, he may have to refer to a number of writings before he finally comes across the definition.
One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” was Vatell’s “Law of Nations.”
Vatell’s Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell’s writings.
Recently, it was discovered that George Washington failed to return a couple library books to the New York City Public Library. One of those books was Vatell’s Law of Nations. Washington checked the book out in 1789, shortly after the Constitutional Convention, probably because of the heavy influence the definitions in Vatell’s Law of Nations played on the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the Law of Nations - two for the convention, and one for his personal use. He received those copies from the editor, Dumas, in 1775.
Vatell’s Law of Nations Section 212 indicates that to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child. As with the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a fear of divided allegiance.
Vetell’s Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil, but if you read further down the section addresses other possibilities. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 confirmed the definition not requiring the child to be born on American soil, but still requiring that both parents be American citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I am referring to specifically reads: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
Note that the fifth word, citizens, is in the plural, which means it requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a “Natural Born Citizen.”
Article II also establishes that in order to be eligible for the presidency the candidate must be at least the age of 35. This requirement, reasoned the founders, would ensure that the immaturities of youth had passed away. Along with a relatively mature age, the Constitution indicates that the president must also have been a resident of the United States for the last fourteen years. This, once again, was a guard against divided loyalties.
The Vice President must also meet all eligibility requirements. In the 18th century the Vice President was the second place winner in the election, and therefore had to be eligible because he was originally running for President. Now, the Vice President is elected as a part of the presidential ticket. However, to ensure it was clear that the Vice President also had to be eligible for the presidency, especially since he was next in line for the presidency should the Office of President be vacated, the 12th Amendment ends with a sentence that demands the Vice President is eligible for the presidency.
In Case of Death
Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 was changed by the Twelfth Amendment. This clause established the rules in case of the death of the President while in office. The clause gave the Office of the President to the Vice President in the case of death. The ambiguity of the clause, however, created confusion. In the case of President Benjamin Harrison who died after only 30 days in office, it created a constitutional crisis. The officials of that time did not know what to do. When old Tippecanoe died, he was succeeded by his Vice-President John Tyler, but since no President had died in office before, no one was quite sure how Presidential succession worked. The Constitution stipulated that the Vice-President should become the new President, but it was not clear if the Vice-President should be considered a "real" President, or if he only “acted” as President. The Tyler administration made it clear that Vice-Presidents who became President after the death of the elected President should be treated as legitimate Presidents.
The Twelfth Amendment later addressed the problem with more specified rules. Later, succession was resolved once and for all with the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Compensation
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 allows for the President to be compensated for his service as President of the United States. This salary is not to be increased or diminished while the President serves. The President, according to this clause, is also not allowed to receive any other governmental salary from the federal government during his term as President. In George Washington’s First Inaugural Address, he announced that he would accept no salary as President.
Oath or Affirmation
In the final Clause of Article II, Section 1, the Oath or Affirmation for the Office of President was established.
The reason for the clause indicating Oath “or” Affirmation was because an Oath is to God, and an Affirmation is not. The founders understood that not all Americans believe in God, therefore an option needed to be available for non-believers. Affirmation was also included as an option because there were some Christians that believed swearing to God to be a sin. Offering the opportunity to “affirm” gave these Christians an opportunity to take the affirmation of office without compromising their religious beliefs.
Note that the President is expected, according to the text of the oath or affirmation, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
You will also note that placing one’s hand on a Bible is not in this Article. The placement of a hand on a Bible while reciting the Oath or Affirmation was something that George Washington chose to do, and it has been a tradition ever since.
Terms:
Democracy: A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Such a system includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.
Electoral College: A body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the President and Vice President of the U.S.
Executive Branch: The branch of government responsible for executing, or carrying out, the laws. An executive in government can be a president, or a governor.
Leveling: Moving money from one group of people to another by raising and lower taxes accordingly in an effort to achieve economic equity in society.
Republic: Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why didn’t the Founding Fathers make the President a king?
2. How does the Electoral College ensure fairness for the minority States?
3. What is the difference between a democracy and a republic?
4. Why did the Founding Fathers divide the voting power?
5. How is “citizen,” and “natural born citizen,” different?
6. Why were the Founding Fathers concerned about divided loyalty?
7. How does the eligibility requirements ensure that the President, especially as Commander in Chief, holds full allegiance for the United States?
8. How was the way the Vice President was chosen in the 18th century different from how the Vice President is chosen today?
Resources:
Alexander Hamilton, The Law of Nations and the U.S. Constitution, http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html
Associated Press, “Hillary Clinton Calls for End to Electoral College,” CBS News (2009) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml
George Washington, The First Inaugural Address of George Washington, The Avalon Project - Yale University (1789/2008) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/wash1.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison’s Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Marjorie Kehe, “How George Washington racked up a $300,000 fine for overdue library books,” Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
Mountain Publius Goat, “Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen,” Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20081212%20Law%20of%20Nations.pdf
Naturalization Act of 1790, Harvard University: http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/viewtext/5596748?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no
Ron Paul, “Hands Off The Electoral College,” Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul226.html
Ron Paul, “The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule,” Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Sean Rooney, “The Death of President William Henry Harrison,” Associated Content (2008) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/518591/the_death_of_president_william_henry.html?cat=37
Vatell’s Law of Nations: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama: We have no debt Problem - Voters in Fox Poll Says Otherwise
Fox News Poll: Voters say debt is immediate problem, nervous about economy
American voters are nervous about the economy and -- unlike some leaders in Washington -- they think the country’s growing debt needs to be dealt with now.
That’s according to a Fox News poll released Wednesday.
About two-thirds of voters are feeling nervous about the economy -- more than twice the number that feels confident. And not just Republicans are nervous (although most are). Independents are three and a half times more likely to feel nervous than confident. Democrats are a bit more likely to feel confident.
The good news: the 65 percent who say they are nervous is down from 70 percent who felt that way in 2010.
Both President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner recently said the country doesn’t have an immediate debt problem. Nearly 7 voters in 10 say they are wrong. Conversely, 27 percent agree the debt can be handled several years down the road.
Voters are similarly at odds with Washington on the budget deficit. Almost all think the federal government should be required to balance its budget (85 percent) and believe reducing the budget deficit is a worthy goal “in and of itself” (85 percent).
Read more at Fox News
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Boy's Gun in New Jersey Brings Welfare Worker Visit
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The political establishment of the liberal left, save for a few gun-toting democrats, fear guns, see them as a symbol of violence, and consider giving a child a gun akin to giving that child arsenic. We have seen busy-body leftists freak out over a piece of pizza chewed into the shape of a gun, a total freak out over a child wearing a shirt with the image of a gun on it, and cupcakes rejected by a school because it was decorated with toy army men.
Now, in New Jersey, a boy's gift for his 11th birthday was a brand new .22 caliber rifle, and after an image of the boy with the gun was posted by dad on Facebook, child welfare case workers showed up on their doorstep, asking to see the guns.
Someone, another liberal left busy body who wants the government to dictate to people what they can and can't do, called anonymously to New Jersey's child abuse hotline.
“They said they wanted to see into my safe and see if my guns were registered. I said no; in New Jersey, your guns don’t have to be registered with the state; it’s voluntary. I knew once I opened that safe, there was no going back.”
This all happened while the lawyer listened in on the phone. After asked for a warrant, the visitors from the government said they had no warrant. When they said they had no warrant, he asked them to leave.
They departed, and there has been no incident since.
The political establishment of the liberal left, save for a few gun-toting democrats, fear guns, see them as a symbol of violence, and consider giving a child a gun akin to giving that child arsenic. We have seen busy-body leftists freak out over a piece of pizza chewed into the shape of a gun, a total freak out over a child wearing a shirt with the image of a gun on it, and cupcakes rejected by a school because it was decorated with toy army men.
Now, in New Jersey, a boy's gift for his 11th birthday was a brand new .22 caliber rifle, and after an image of the boy with the gun was posted by dad on Facebook, child welfare case workers showed up on their doorstep, asking to see the guns.
Someone, another liberal left busy body who wants the government to dictate to people what they can and can't do, called anonymously to New Jersey's child abuse hotline.
That's right. The person considered the boy getting a gun for his birthday to be a form of child abuse.
I went shooting when I was that age.
I remember a friend telling a story about how back in the early sixties, when he was a kid, riding his bike through Redondo Beach, California with his .22 rifle up on his handlebars. A police car spotted him, and pulled up, asking, "Hey, young man, where are you headed with that rifle?"
He replied, "Going up to the row of eucalyptus trees to practice shooting."
The cop replied, "Well, there's some construction going on up there, so be careful."
"Yes, Sir."
"Yes, Sir."
My, my, my, how things have changed.
New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families declined to comment specifically on the case but says it often follows up on tips. Everybody is pretty jumpy with the school shootings, and all.
New Jersey already has among the nation’s strictest gun laws and is considering strengthening them.
The gun was given to the child for when the family goes on hunting trips. The father called his lawyer, who specializes in Second Amendment cases, and had him on speakerphone.
The gun was given to the child for when the family goes on hunting trips. The father called his lawyer, who specializes in Second Amendment cases, and had him on speakerphone.
“They said they wanted to see into my safe and see if my guns were registered. I said no; in New Jersey, your guns don’t have to be registered with the state; it’s voluntary. I knew once I opened that safe, there was no going back.”
This all happened while the lawyer listened in on the phone. After asked for a warrant, the visitors from the government said they had no warrant. When they said they had no warrant, he asked them to leave.
They departed, and there has been no incident since.
“I don’t like what happened,” he said. “You’re not even safe in your own house. If they can just show up at any time and make you open safes and go through your house, that’s not freedom; it’s like tyranny.”
The police accompanied the child welfare workers, something that only happens if the caseworkers feel their safety could be compromised. Since guns were involved, the caseworkers assumed the gun owners were crazy enough to shoot them, I guess.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The police accompanied the child welfare workers, something that only happens if the caseworkers feel their safety could be compromised. Since guns were involved, the caseworkers assumed the gun owners were crazy enough to shoot them, I guess.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Hostile American President Obama Visits Israel
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Barack Obama is all about perception, and nothing about substance. If he does something, there is no doubt always a hidden motive, and the motive is usually about appearance.
After having been constantly criticized about his hostile policies towards Israel, Obama figured it was time to make people think otherwise, and so he is now in Israel, and it is being covered by all of the media outlets.
The Jerusalem Post, however, is confused. Caroline Glick, Senior Contributing Editor of the Jerusalem Post said the Israeli people consider President Obama "a hostile president overall."
Glick said the Israeli people "can't figure out what he's doing here," when asked about the mood in Jerusalem as the President's plane touched down for the first time in his presidency.
"Essentially his goal is to empower the un-electable, incredibly radical left in Israel to put pressure on the Israeli government for whatever concessions he wants it to make to the PLO," said Glick in evaluating the reasons why Obama will be meeting with university students and members of the Palestinian Government during his visit.
When asked about how the installment of Chuck Hagel as the Secretary of Defense was received by the Israeli people, Glick said, "It's a hostile act."
Glick said the Israeli people "can't figure out what he's doing here," when asked about the mood in Jerusalem as the President's plane touched down for the first time in his presidency.
"Essentially his goal is to empower the un-electable, incredibly radical left in Israel to put pressure on the Israeli government for whatever concessions he wants it to make to the PLO," said Glick in evaluating the reasons why Obama will be meeting with university students and members of the Palestinian Government during his visit.
When asked about how the installment of Chuck Hagel as the Secretary of Defense was received by the Israeli people, Glick said, "It's a hostile act."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Fighting for our Rights Using the Constitution, and the Power of Numbers
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Brazilian jiu jitsu is a fascinating martial art to watch. Made famous by Royce Gracie in the UFC, the combat technique involves a series of moves designed for self-defense against attackers without the need to strike a blow. The moves are a coordinated combination of escape maneuvers, and offensive techniques that can lead to the opponent "tapping out" in submission. When training for jiu jitsu, one learns that for every attack there is a specific response. The response to one kind of attack, or "hold", may require a certain adjustment of the hips, or movement of the limbs. In the end, for everything the opponent can use against you, you learn a response that will enable you to escape, reposition, and go on offense.
When it comes to our rights, the first thing we must understand is that there is no such thing as "constitutional rights." No rights are granted by the Constitution, the government, or any declaration or bill of rights. Rights come from natural law, meaning that your rights belong to you because you were born, because you walk this Earth, and you breath the air. Or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The declaration goes on to say "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers form the consent of the governed."
Your rights are God-given, and the government is there to ensure your rights remain in place.
If no government was in place, and therefore no law enforcement, either, your freedom would be greatly diminished because you would have to spend your time protecting your rights, and your property, yourself. You would not be able to go get a job, or work the fields, because you would be sitting on your front porch all day, rifle in hand, protecting your home and family against bandits. Protecting your rights would be solely your responsibility.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it."
Like the bandits, if not closely watched, government can, and will, work to betray your rights, as well.
James Madison wrote, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
If government was controlling itself, there would be no need for me to be writing this on our rights, in the first place.
Despite the brilliance of the Constitution, and its chains designed to restrain government, Thomas Jefferson believed there would need to be a bloody revolution every 20 years. John Adams also recognized the continuous danger of the rise of tyranny, and proclaimed that virtue was necessary to maintain liberty. He said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Ben Franklin concurred, saying, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
The government has positioned itself in a way to enable itself to take away rights it has no right to take away, and the people have been conditioned to ask the government to do it. Laws are being passed negating our rights, and they are criminalizing those that dare stand against them. Because of this intricate web of laws and court rulings they have created, our ability to protect our rights is nothing like Brazilian jiu jitsu. There is no thing to say or do to disarm those endeavoring to betray our rights. First we must change the system by legal means. If that becomes fully unsuccessful, there will then be Jefferson's bloody revolution.
This government is not our ally when it comes to our rights. While demanding we are read our Miranda Rights, to ensure we understand our rights, including due process, they are ignoring due process with drones, phone tapping, and electronic record searches. While telling us we have a right to defend ourselves, they are trying to tell us what we are allowed to defend ourselves with. While telling us we still have a right to choose in our lives, they are telling us what we must choose when it comes to health care, energy usage, and in some places, whether or not you can drink a "Big Gulp."
With your rights, and freedom, comes responsibility. We must be responsible in how we use our rights, and we must be responsible in defending those rights.
The Constitution, and our rights, are nothing more than words of ink on paper if we don't defend them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Brazilian jiu jitsu is a fascinating martial art to watch. Made famous by Royce Gracie in the UFC, the combat technique involves a series of moves designed for self-defense against attackers without the need to strike a blow. The moves are a coordinated combination of escape maneuvers, and offensive techniques that can lead to the opponent "tapping out" in submission. When training for jiu jitsu, one learns that for every attack there is a specific response. The response to one kind of attack, or "hold", may require a certain adjustment of the hips, or movement of the limbs. In the end, for everything the opponent can use against you, you learn a response that will enable you to escape, reposition, and go on offense.
When it comes to our rights, the first thing we must understand is that there is no such thing as "constitutional rights." No rights are granted by the Constitution, the government, or any declaration or bill of rights. Rights come from natural law, meaning that your rights belong to you because you were born, because you walk this Earth, and you breath the air. Or, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, we are "endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The declaration goes on to say "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers form the consent of the governed."
Your rights are God-given, and the government is there to ensure your rights remain in place.
If no government was in place, and therefore no law enforcement, either, your freedom would be greatly diminished because you would have to spend your time protecting your rights, and your property, yourself. You would not be able to go get a job, or work the fields, because you would be sitting on your front porch all day, rifle in hand, protecting your home and family against bandits. Protecting your rights would be solely your responsibility.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say, "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter, or abolish it."
Like the bandits, if not closely watched, government can, and will, work to betray your rights, as well.
James Madison wrote, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
If government was controlling itself, there would be no need for me to be writing this on our rights, in the first place.
Despite the brilliance of the Constitution, and its chains designed to restrain government, Thomas Jefferson believed there would need to be a bloody revolution every 20 years. John Adams also recognized the continuous danger of the rise of tyranny, and proclaimed that virtue was necessary to maintain liberty. He said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Ben Franklin concurred, saying, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
The government has positioned itself in a way to enable itself to take away rights it has no right to take away, and the people have been conditioned to ask the government to do it. Laws are being passed negating our rights, and they are criminalizing those that dare stand against them. Because of this intricate web of laws and court rulings they have created, our ability to protect our rights is nothing like Brazilian jiu jitsu. There is no thing to say or do to disarm those endeavoring to betray our rights. First we must change the system by legal means. If that becomes fully unsuccessful, there will then be Jefferson's bloody revolution.
This government is not our ally when it comes to our rights. While demanding we are read our Miranda Rights, to ensure we understand our rights, including due process, they are ignoring due process with drones, phone tapping, and electronic record searches. While telling us we have a right to defend ourselves, they are trying to tell us what we are allowed to defend ourselves with. While telling us we still have a right to choose in our lives, they are telling us what we must choose when it comes to health care, energy usage, and in some places, whether or not you can drink a "Big Gulp."
With your rights, and freedom, comes responsibility. We must be responsible in how we use our rights, and we must be responsible in defending those rights.
The Constitution, and our rights, are nothing more than words of ink on paper if we don't defend them.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Chemical Weapons Used in Syria
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The rebels fighting against the Syrian government have been accused of firing a chemical weapon, killing at least 25 people in the Aleppo province. Rebels quickly denied the report and accused regime forces of firing a chemical weapon on a long-range missile.
White House spokesman Jay Carney says the Obama administration has no evidence to suggest the rebels have used chemical weapons. He said, "We are looking carefully at the information as it comes in... This is an issue that has been made very clear by the president to be of great concern to us."
It is believed by many that when the United States went into Iraq seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction, that Saddam Hussein had those weapons moved to Syria. The testimony of former Iraqi general Georges Sada revealed that the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein’s WMD threat.
White House spokesman Jay Carney says the Obama administration has no evidence to suggest the rebels have used chemical weapons. He said, "We are looking carefully at the information as it comes in... This is an issue that has been made very clear by the president to be of great concern to us."
It is believed by many that when the United States went into Iraq seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction, that Saddam Hussein had those weapons moved to Syria. The testimony of former Iraqi general Georges Sada revealed that the Iraqi Revolutionary Guard moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria in advance of the U.S.-led action to eliminate Hussein’s WMD threat.
The reported chemical attack in Syria was said to be in an area east of the city of Aleppo, where fierce fighting has engaged for weeks before rebels took over a government complex there. The military compound is thought to include several military posts and a police academy that Assad's forces have turned into a military base that regularly fires shells at nearby villages.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Surprise! WMDs from Iraq were moved to Syria by Saddam Hussein - World Net Daily
Seven Marines Killed in Nevada
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A training accident in Nevada killed seven Marines from a North Carolina unit, according to the United States Marine Corps on Monday evening.
Several people were also injured. The injured were taken to local hospitals.
A training accident in Nevada killed seven Marines from a North Carolina unit, according to the United States Marine Corps on Monday evening.
Several people were also injured. The injured were taken to local hospitals.
The democrats didn't waste anytime politicizing the tragedy, blaming it on the sequester, a budget cut that does not actually cut any actually spending, but reduces the increase of future spending.
Harry Reid specifically said, "As I indicated, it was quite a big explosion. We’ll follow this news very closely. I will do whatever I can going forward to support the United States military and the families of the fallen Marines. Mr. President, it’s very important we continue training our military, so important.But one of the things in sequester is we cut back in training and maintenance. That’s the way sequester was written."
Our prayers and thoughts are with the families and friends of these fallen Marines. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the democrats. They wish to only try to gain political ground as a result of the deaths of these fine military members.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Harry Reid links Marine deaths to sequestration - Human Events
Chase Bank Account Holders Drop to Zero
The timing with the money grab in Cyprus was eerie.
The Chase Bank confiscation was not a confiscation at all, but a glitch which resulted in account balances in checking and savings accounts to drop to a zero balance for several hours.
Coming after the news of Cyprus grabbing 10% of people's monies in that Meditterainean country, the zero accounts made customers think the same thing was happening in America. The bank blamed an “internal” issue for the glitch, and it was resolved by the evening.
The Chase Bank confiscation was not a confiscation at all, but a glitch which resulted in account balances in checking and savings accounts to drop to a zero balance for several hours.
Coming after the news of Cyprus grabbing 10% of people's monies in that Meditterainean country, the zero accounts made customers think the same thing was happening in America. The bank blamed an “internal” issue for the glitch, and it was resolved by the evening.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Feinstein Gun Control Not Included
Assault weapons ban now unlikely to pass. What happened?
Majority leader Reid says the assault weapons ban will not be included in the gun control legislation he'll bring to the Senate floor, giving the other measures a better chance at passage.
Majority leader Reid says the assault weapons ban will not be included in the gun control legislation he'll bring to the Senate floor, giving the other measures a better chance at passage.
Anti-gun measures have been losers for the liberal left in the past, but this time, with the deadly school shootings, the democrats thought they had it.
The American People realize that with gun control it is not about guns, it is about control.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Public Speaking: Douglas V. Gibbs, tonight, at Oath Keepers Meeting
The Oath Keepers meeting at 7:00 pm tonight at Faith Armory at 27498 Enterprise Circle West in Temecula, California will include your's truly as one of the speakers. I will be discussing our rights, and the infringement of those rights by our government.
Join us.
Join us.
Benghazi Emails Hacked
Hacker Begins Distributing Confidential Memos Sent To Hillary Clinton On Libya, Benghazi Attack
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Cyprus Takes Citizens Money, Obama Administration Calls It Necessary Steps
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Consider for a moment Pelosi's remark: "Tax cuts are spending. Tax expenditures, they are called. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. They are called tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks." --House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
They believe that all money belongs to the government.
Doesn't it sound like he is refusing to denounce such a tyrannical action by a government? In fact, he called it taking steps that are necessary.
The European Union and the banks decided on Saturday to confiscate between six and 10% of everybody's money in the Mediterranean nation of Cyprus. They need the money, so they just went into everybody's accounts, and pulled it out. A bank run began, so to stop it, they closed the banks.
And now they are considering doing it in Italy, as well.
Understand the significance of this. The government in Cyprus, and the banks, just confiscated people's private property. They took people's money. Of course, the leftists don't see it that way, because they think that money belongs to the government. It is finite, to them. They believe that wealth is not created. That is why they believe that when the rich get richer, the rich get poorer. They can't believe that everyone can improve, because they can't believe that the pie grows. It would fly in the face of their ideology.
Consider for a moment Pelosi's remark: "Tax cuts are spending. Tax expenditures, they are called. Subsidies for big oil, subsidies to send jobs overseas, breaks to send jobs overseas, breaks for corporate jets. They are called tax expenditures. Spending money on tax breaks." --House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).
They believe that all money belongs to the government.
Could the confiscation of monies happen here in such a draconian manner?
Jay Carney was asked about it, and he said, "I would refer you to the Treasury department. We're obviously monitoring the situation, uhh, right now. The... Our general proposition (sic) is that we, uhhh, you know, believe it's very important for, uhh, Europe to take steps necessary, as they have been, to both grow and deal with, uh, sovereignty debt issues."
Doesn't it sound like he is refusing to denounce such a tyrannical action by a government? In fact, he called it taking steps that are necessary.
Why can't the Obama administration oppose such an action?
They can't. They have to leave their options open. We stand against the seizure of private property, but like Karl Marx, the democrats don't.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
MARXIST/PRORESSIVES DICTATE REPUBLICAN ESTABLISHMENT AGENDA
By Don Jans
Karl Marx understood the effectiveness of class warfare, of pitting one group against another for political gain. Only when they create class warfare can they establish an oppressor and an oppressed and convince people they are victims and deserve special treatment because of some perceived wrong they have suffered. We now have African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Americans this and that. I thought we were Americans, but the Marxist/Progressives understand separate identities allow them to more easily create division. This is critical to them in their effort to bring about a fundamental transformation from a capitalistic society to a fair and just classless society as called for by Marx.
The Republican Establishment has bought into this trap. All we hear from the establishment is how do we cast a wider net or how do we cater to this division and how do we cater to that division. That is an unwinnable fight and can only continue the road to disaster. As importantly, it is a fight that goes against every principle on which this nation was built. It also is exactly the opposite of the essence of our constitution and says we are not a nation of law. It says that Holder was correct in dropping the charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation. It says Holder was correct in applying the law differently to a group of perceived victims. This means our debate is not what is the law, but how should a law be applied depending on the group to which the perpetrator belongs.
What was said at CPAC this last week-end was correct. The Conservative speakers emphasized equal opportunity for all Americans. We are not African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans or Americans this and that. We are Americans. We all have equal protection under the law. We all have equal opportunity. We heard many stories of sons and daughters able to climb up the economic and social ladder because of the hard work and sacrifice of their legally immigrated parents. These parents did not take pride in these achievements because of the land from which they immigrated, but their pride was based on the land to which they immigrated; The United States of America.
Please conservatives, we must continue to advocate for the principles of equal opportunity for all, self-reliance as opposed to government reliance, even handed due process of law and blindness to ethnicity. This is common sense. This is not only the best course for the United States but is the only winnable alternative to the Marxist/Progressive agenda. This conservative agenda is the same agenda Sam Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Nathan Hale and every other founding father had. This is the American Agenda.
Don Jans, Author and Speaker
www.mygrandchildrensamerica.com
Karl Marx understood the effectiveness of class warfare, of pitting one group against another for political gain. Only when they create class warfare can they establish an oppressor and an oppressed and convince people they are victims and deserve special treatment because of some perceived wrong they have suffered. We now have African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans and Americans this and that. I thought we were Americans, but the Marxist/Progressives understand separate identities allow them to more easily create division. This is critical to them in their effort to bring about a fundamental transformation from a capitalistic society to a fair and just classless society as called for by Marx.
The Republican Establishment has bought into this trap. All we hear from the establishment is how do we cast a wider net or how do we cater to this division and how do we cater to that division. That is an unwinnable fight and can only continue the road to disaster. As importantly, it is a fight that goes against every principle on which this nation was built. It also is exactly the opposite of the essence of our constitution and says we are not a nation of law. It says that Holder was correct in dropping the charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation. It says Holder was correct in applying the law differently to a group of perceived victims. This means our debate is not what is the law, but how should a law be applied depending on the group to which the perpetrator belongs.
What was said at CPAC this last week-end was correct. The Conservative speakers emphasized equal opportunity for all Americans. We are not African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans or Americans this and that. We are Americans. We all have equal protection under the law. We all have equal opportunity. We heard many stories of sons and daughters able to climb up the economic and social ladder because of the hard work and sacrifice of their legally immigrated parents. These parents did not take pride in these achievements because of the land from which they immigrated, but their pride was based on the land to which they immigrated; The United States of America.
Please conservatives, we must continue to advocate for the principles of equal opportunity for all, self-reliance as opposed to government reliance, even handed due process of law and blindness to ethnicity. This is common sense. This is not only the best course for the United States but is the only winnable alternative to the Marxist/Progressive agenda. This conservative agenda is the same agenda Sam Adams, John Adams, Thomas Paine, Nathan Hale and every other founding father had. This is the American Agenda.
Don Jans, Author and Speaker
www.mygrandchildrensamerica.com
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, March 18, 2013
Obama to Medvedev. . . Now I Can Be More Flexible
Did you wonder what Obama promised Russia's Medvedev last year?
U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed
MOSCOW — The United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)