Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While we slept, Political Pistachio topped over 3 million hits...
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, March 30, 2017
over 3 million hits at Political Pistachio
Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While we slept, Political Pistachio topped over 3 million hits...
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While we slept, Political Pistachio topped over 3 million hits...
Senate Hearing Regarding Russian Intelligence Activities Underway
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
I find it fascinating that after many decades of Republicans warning that the Soviet Union, and now Russia, is an enemy of the United States and are working to compromise our system of liberty and expand their reach on the world stage, and the Democrats saying that the GOP was overreacting, suddenly, when it serves their purposes, the Democrats view Moscow as a legitimate enemy to the United States.
McCarthy's efforts to continue the sweep of communists out of our country after the end of World War II was met with opposition by the Democrat Party and their allies. During the Vietnam War the minions of the Democrat Party sided with the communists, claiming that it was the Americans that were the problem, and then orchestrated a political loss for the United States regarding the war. Ronald Reagan standing firm against the Soviet Union was met with heavy Democrat Party criticism, and when the Berlin Wall fell, the Democrats refused to admit it was the result of Republican strategies.
Yet, now the Democrats are nodding their heads as Dr. Roy Godson, Professor of Government at Georgetown, recounts the history of Russian attempts to interfere with our country's political mechanisms, and how the effectiveness of Moscow's apparatus to influence our country has increased - despite the lack of any evidence showing without a shadow of a doubt that the Democrat Party's accusations are true.
Any conversations with Russian officials are now seen by the Democrats as treasonous (unless it was by a Democrat). The narrative was used throughout the election, accusing the Russians of influencing the election, and doing so because they desired Donald Trump to be President of the United States. The long list of Russian atrocities includes a majority of items listed that basically exposed the Democrats acting illegally, and that was enough to anger the Democrats bad enough that they decided they must investigate Russia's attempts to interfere. And as they do so, out of the side of their mouths they are shouting, "This will bring down the GOP."
As all of the hullabaloo claiming "The Russians Did It" is going on, the Democrats continue to deny they used surveillance against Donald Trump, or illegally wiretapped Trump Tower.
Three questions. First, if the Trump Tower was not wiretapped, how was General Flynn wiretapped at Trump Tower? Second, why would the Russians want Trump to be President when it is the Democrats who are weak on national security and it is during Democrat presidencies that Russia benefits most (i.e. South Ossetia, Crimea and Ukraine with no repercussions during Obama administration)? Third, if the Democrats were using illegal surveillance against the Trump campaign that could be viewed as being Watergate-esque, would not the accusations that Russia did it be cover fire enough to distract everyone from the truth?
In politics, especially when it comes to the leftist Democrats, nothing is ever what it seems. They lie, they cover-up, and they scheme.
The great deception has now expanded into a Senate Hearing that is simply designed to cover-up the criminal activities of the Democrat Party, while creating a projection that the GOP is actually the party of criminality. In other words, the Democrats are willing to lie any lie, and create any deception, to get back their power they lost in the 2016 election.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Erratic and Aggressive Driver near U.S. Capitol Apprehended
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The goofy leftist snowflakes, out of their mind Democrats, and the threat of Muslim terrorism is a reality during the era of the Trump Presidency. A number of people, since the inauguration of Donald J. Trump last January have been apprehended trying to enter White House grounds, or while performing other potentially hazardous activities in the vicinity of the White House, or Capitol Hill. In the most recent incident, a female driver attempted to hit several police officers near the U.S. Capitol before striking a vehicle. The U.S. Capitol Police have apprehended the "erratic and aggressive driver".
As the officers tried to stop the vehicle, the driver pulled a U-turn and fled the scene, apparently striking another vehicle and nearly hitting officers. A brief pursuit ensued until the female suspect was stopped near the U.S. Botanic Garden and the Rayburn House Office Building.
Capitol Police fired shots in an attempt to stop the driver. No one was hit, according to police.
Capitol Hill staffers were advised by the police by email of the situation, and were asked to stay clear of the area. Some of the House office buildings in the vicinity were temporarily placed on lockdown during the incident.
No individuals were injured during the arrest of the woman. Police have reported that while the incident appears to be criminal in nature, there is no nexus to terrorism.
The FBI are assisting Capitol Police at the scene. There is currently no clear indication of a motive, or whether this was an intentional act, according to the FBI.
The lockdown has been lifted, so the Capitol building is now open to the public, and all personnel involved with the apprehension of the woman have been cleared from the area.
The United States Capitol Police Criminal Investigations is handling the investigation.
Capitol Police fired shots in an attempt to stop the driver. No one was hit, according to police.
Capitol Hill staffers were advised by the police by email of the situation, and were asked to stay clear of the area. Some of the House office buildings in the vicinity were temporarily placed on lockdown during the incident.
No individuals were injured during the arrest of the woman. Police have reported that while the incident appears to be criminal in nature, there is no nexus to terrorism.
The FBI are assisting Capitol Police at the scene. There is currently no clear indication of a motive, or whether this was an intentional act, according to the FBI.
The lockdown has been lifted, so the Capitol building is now open to the public, and all personnel involved with the apprehension of the woman have been cleared from the area.
The United States Capitol Police Criminal Investigations is handling the investigation.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Brexit Goes Live!
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The Day of reckoning has arrived, and the sovereignty of Britain is upon them so that they may begin the process of pursuing that independence.
Article 50 trigger day key points
- PM's Article 50 notification letter is delivered to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels
- Theresa May tells MPs in the Commons: "This is an historic moment from which there can be no turning back."
- Sky Data poll finds half of Britons happy about EU divorce process starting
The U.K.'s Prime Minister, Theresa May, vowed to forge a 'bright future' for Britain as the historic E.U. divorce letter was finally delivered. With those words, however, she also delivered a stark warning to Brussels that punishing the U.K. on trade because Britain decided to seek her sovereignty would mean losing cooperation on security against terrorism by Britain on return. In short, May warned the European Union that giving Britain a bad deal would be a "costly mistake" for the mainland collective.
Mrs. May was greeted with cheers of approval as she arrived in the House of Commons chamber for her regular session as Prime Minister. Nonetheless, the Brexit vote had been a close one, and there are still those who believe the move to be a harsh mistake. Outside parliament protesters were still vainly demanding a rethink.
While speaking to the House of Commons Theresa May said to them that triggering Article 50 was a "great turning point" for the country. The day, and the delivery of the letter, marks Britain starting the bureaucratic process of going past the point of no return on Brexit.
May also stated that Brexit becoming official begins an opportunity to forge a country that "works for everyone, not the privileged few."
While some see the day as being another step along a journey that may become a collision course with the rest of Europe, a belief accentuated by the E.U. blocking the London Stock Exchange's £21billion blockbuster, the British Pound has soared in response to Brexit finally being triggered, sending it up into a position near the American dollar.
May added in her speech to the House of Commons, "At moments like this, a great turning point in our nation's story, the choices we make will define the character of our nation."
These choices are Britain's to choose, and now will no longer be mandated by a bunch of smug socialists in Brussels. The United Kingdom may now "look forward and believe in the enduring power of the British spirit."
"I choose to believe in Britain and that our best days are to come."
The historic six-page letter launching the break-up process was handed over eight months after the people delivered their verdict in the EU referendum by a majority vote.
While Britain is leaving the European Union, the British intend to remain a trading partner with the various countries of the union, calling for a broad free trade agreement, and urging an early deal to guarantee rights for E.U. nationals living in Britain and the number of Britons living on the continent.
The E.U.'s chief said he would stand up for the interests of the 27 remaining states.
He insisted the E.U. will act "constructively" but "as one" (sounds like the Borg collective, for some reason, to me), and was determined to "preserve our interests."
Outgoing French president Francois Hollande warned that the outcome would be "painful" for Britain. I have a feeling Britain's economic position will strengthen, and the socialists of Europe will stand confused as the United Kingdom becomes more prosperous as a direct result of breaking ties with the European collective.
While today is momentous regarding Brexit, the divorce is still only in its earliest stages. The timeline set out in the Lisbon Treaty reveals that the U.K. will officially leave the E.U. for good, with absolutely no turning back, and with the long divorce finally being over, when Big Ben, an iconic clock tower in London, strikes midnight at the end of the day on March 29, 2019 - two years in the future.
Meanwhile, as all of this is going on, Scotland, who largely was against Brexit, is strengthening their bid for leaving the United Kingdom and creating a sovereign Scotland, which would then apply to rejoin the European Union.
Scotland's Parliament voted 69 to 59 to approve plans to request a referendum on independence a few hours before May's team delivered the Brexit letter to the European Union.
Prime Minister Theresa May has already rejected Scotland's decision. She must, after all, agree to any legally binding referendum on Scotland’s future.
In the Brexit vote eight months earlier Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent against Brexit, showing the difference of opinion between Scottish and English politics when it comes to the decision to remain members of the mainland collective. Northern Ireland also, by a majority vote, disagreed with England and Wales, about whether or not to remain in the European Union, amid fears that a withdrawal could weaken the peace process there with the Republic of Ireland.
Scotland's Parliament voted 69 to 59 to approve plans to request a referendum on independence a few hours before May's team delivered the Brexit letter to the European Union.
Prime Minister Theresa May has already rejected Scotland's decision. She must, after all, agree to any legally binding referendum on Scotland’s future.
In the Brexit vote eight months earlier Scotland voted 62 percent to 38 percent against Brexit, showing the difference of opinion between Scottish and English politics when it comes to the decision to remain members of the mainland collective. Northern Ireland also, by a majority vote, disagreed with England and Wales, about whether or not to remain in the European Union, amid fears that a withdrawal could weaken the peace process there with the Republic of Ireland.
Mrs May told the House of Commons that Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast would be stronger after Brexit.
In a plea for unity, Mrs. May said the U.K. should be "no longer defined by the vote we cast, but by our determination to make a success of the result."
"We are one great union of people and nations with a proud history and a bright future," she added.
"This great national moment needs a great national effort," she said.
According to Prime Minister May, Britain will continue to be willing allies and close friends with Europe as long as the continental union doesn't try to punish Britain for Brexit.
In the divorce letter it states, "We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too. It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats."
The House of Commons was packed for the Prime Minister's message to announce the triggering of Article 50.
She said, "The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible."
The letter also took into consideration the fact that Ireland remains a European Union member. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom, and according to the letter it is a goal to "avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the U.K.’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardize the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement."
May's letter urges the E.U. to avoid putting Britain in a situation where the fluid border between Northern Ireland and the Republic was at risk - pointing out that could imperil the peace process.
Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage celebrated the formal notification that the United Kingdom is leaving the E.U. with a pint at a pub in Westminster.
Jubilant Ukip representatives also staged a party in Brussels to mark the beginning of the end for Britain's E.U. membership.
Rocker Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who, is elated about Brexit. “We are getting out, and when the dust settles I think that it’ll be seen that it’s the right thing for this country to have done, that’s for sure.”
He added, “I am not anti-European, but I an anti the present way we are being governed in Europe. It’s got nothing to do with any of the immigration issues or any of that for me. It was to do with much more. The majority of this country felt that their voices weren’t being heard. It would have been nice to do a deal with Europe but they didn’t want to do a deal, and they sent Cameron back with a bag.”
Daltrey went on, “I’m sad we voted how we voted, but I think we have to go with it now. This country will always be alright, I don’t worry about it. You know it’s going to be bumpy on the way—we expected that; the ones that voted to get out. But Iceland had it a bit bumpy when they went bankrupt, but oh not now.”
When asked about American politics, while he did not necessarily declare himself to be a Trump supporter, Daltrey said of Hillary Clinton, the "Democrats threw it away by putting [Hilary Clinton] up. A dead dog would have won it against [her], look at that."
Rocker Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who, is elated about Brexit. “We are getting out, and when the dust settles I think that it’ll be seen that it’s the right thing for this country to have done, that’s for sure.”
He added, “I am not anti-European, but I an anti the present way we are being governed in Europe. It’s got nothing to do with any of the immigration issues or any of that for me. It was to do with much more. The majority of this country felt that their voices weren’t being heard. It would have been nice to do a deal with Europe but they didn’t want to do a deal, and they sent Cameron back with a bag.”
Daltrey went on, “I’m sad we voted how we voted, but I think we have to go with it now. This country will always be alright, I don’t worry about it. You know it’s going to be bumpy on the way—we expected that; the ones that voted to get out. But Iceland had it a bit bumpy when they went bankrupt, but oh not now.”
When asked about American politics, while he did not necessarily declare himself to be a Trump supporter, Daltrey said of Hillary Clinton, the "Democrats threw it away by putting [Hilary Clinton] up. A dead dog would have won it against [her], look at that."
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Planned Parenthood Body Parts Filmmakers Found Guilty of Felony Charges
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The crimes of Planned Parenthood, which includes selling body parts of slaughtered babies, was exposed by two individuals who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood personnel. The complicit media and leftist judicial accomplices recognize truth as being a threat to their horrifying agenda, and so the pro-life activists who did the filming have been charged with 15 felonies. The reasoning? "They invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent."
The message by the liberal left Democrats and their cronies seems to be that if you can't stop those who dare to stand against the liberal left narrative, try, try again. This time, in California, the liberal left got its wish, and Daleiden and Merritt, for exposing how Planned Parenthood is even more heinous that we suspected, have been charged with 15 felonies, and will probably get the maximum sentence, and perhaps something worse (just ask Dinesh D'Souza how "fair" the judges are with conservatives) for daring to film while not a liberal leftist.
The crimes of Planned Parenthood, which includes selling body parts of slaughtered babies, was exposed by two individuals who secretly filmed Planned Parenthood personnel. The complicit media and leftist judicial accomplices recognize truth as being a threat to their horrifying agenda, and so the pro-life activists who did the filming have been charged with 15 felonies. The reasoning? "They invaded the privacy of medical providers by filming without consent."
If the tables were turned, and the secret undercover filming had supported a liberal left narrative, they would not be guilty of felonies, but be showered with praise for their courageousness.
As we saw with the judicial attacks against Trump's perfectly constitutional executive orders designed to enforce existing immigration law, the liberal left judges in this country could care less about the law, and rule based on their political bias. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution would be ashamed by these judicial oligarchs.
The filmmakers are David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress. The felony charges have been applied eight months after similar charges were dropped in Texas.
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a liberal left Democrat and former congress-critter who is also determined to protect the leftist agenda, even if it means ignoring the law and making politically biased decisions to force any dissent into silence, said in a statement that the State of California "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations."
Once again, I am willing to bet money that if the filmmakers had privately recorded persons in order to promote a leftist narrative, there would be no charges against them.
The filmmakers are David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt of the Center for Medical Progress. The felony charges have been applied eight months after similar charges were dropped in Texas.
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, a liberal left Democrat and former congress-critter who is also determined to protect the leftist agenda, even if it means ignoring the law and making politically biased decisions to force any dissent into silence, said in a statement that the State of California "will not tolerate the criminal recording of conversations."
Once again, I am willing to bet money that if the filmmakers had privately recorded persons in order to promote a leftist narrative, there would be no charges against them.
The allegations are that the filmmakers video recorded 14 people without their permission between October 2013 and July 2015 in Los Angeles, San Francisco and El Dorado counties. One felony count was filed for each person filmed when it came to the first 14 charges. The 15th felony charge was for criminal conspiracy to invade privacy.
"The public knows the real criminals are Planned Parenthood and their business partners," Daleiden said of the charges.
The filmed conversations in question show officials from Planned Parenthood and StemExpress, a California company that provides blood, tissue and other biological material for medical research and had received fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, discussing how they illegally harvest and sell the organs, and other baby body parts.
"The public knows the real criminals are Planned Parenthood and their business partners," Daleiden said of the charges.
The filmed conversations in question show officials from Planned Parenthood and StemExpress, a California company that provides blood, tissue and other biological material for medical research and had received fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, discussing how they illegally harvest and sell the organs, and other baby body parts.
Leftists and Planned Parenthood officials claim the videos were edited to support extremists' false claims. Of course they claim that. The truth doesn't matter, and they will lie as much as possible to cover-up their crimes. . . and the complicit judges have helped with the disgusting cover-up.
As for their accusation that the films were creatively edited, it's funny how they had no problem with Katie Couric's edit of 2nd Amendment interview videos. That was okay, in their minds, because it supported a leftist cause. Leftism can lie, cheat and deceive, but the moment a right-of-center individual exposes their crimes, the full legal gauntlet is launched against them, just like we've seen with Daleiden and Merritt.
"Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong, and the only people who broke the law are those behind the fraudulent tapes," said Mary Alice Carter, interim vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood, in a statement. Slaughtering babies before they can take their first breath, to these people, is also doing "nothing wrong." Murder, and body parts sells, but the filmmakers are the guilty parties for daring to try and expose the criminal enterprise that is Planned Parenthood.
"Planned Parenthood has done nothing wrong, and the only people who broke the law are those behind the fraudulent tapes," said Mary Alice Carter, interim vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood, in a statement. Slaughtering babies before they can take their first breath, to these people, is also doing "nothing wrong." Murder, and body parts sells, but the filmmakers are the guilty parties for daring to try and expose the criminal enterprise that is Planned Parenthood.
In Texas, eight months ago, the grand jury had originally been convened to investigate Planned Parenthood based on the evidence provided by Daleiden and Merritt. However, the biased grand jury found conveniently found no wrongdoing, and then turned on Daleiden and Merritt like a pitbull with an attitude.
The Texas charges were eventually dropped because it was determined the grand jury had overstepped its authority.
The message by the liberal left Democrats and their cronies seems to be that if you can't stop those who dare to stand against the liberal left narrative, try, try again. This time, in California, the liberal left got its wish, and Daleiden and Merritt, for exposing how Planned Parenthood is even more heinous that we suspected, have been charged with 15 felonies, and will probably get the maximum sentence, and perhaps something worse (just ask Dinesh D'Souza how "fair" the judges are with conservatives) for daring to film while not a liberal leftist.
Simply put, the liberal courts are not abiding by the rule of law. They are ruling based on their political ideological bias. The leftist judges in this country are a danger to the American System, and treasonous in their support of a leftist ideology designed to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with a socialist system never intended by the Founding Fathers.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
The Educated Enjoy Freedom
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Why do I teach the U.S. Constitution?
At the center of the human condition is the reality that we are all in this thing called life together. In an orderly society we have choices. In a tyrannical society our choices do not belong to us, but to a ruling class that mandates our lives for us through governmental decree. If we are not educated, and we do not participate in civics, we shall be ruled over. Or, we can prosper through our hard work in a system of liberty. Without education, liberty cannot be maintained. We must be dedicated to recognize that individual liberty and commitment to community are both necessary forces in the shaping of our free American society; and to understand that equality is not about where we are at the finish line of life, but about the opportunities and freedoms we have available to us at the starting line, and during our journey, and how we use those opportunities through our own personal decisions. – Douglas V. Gibbs
Booker T. Washington – “I shall not allow man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.”
Frederick Douglass – “Without education he lives within the narrow, dark and grimy walls of ignorance. Education, on the other hand, means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free. To deny education to any people is one of the greatest crimes against human nature. It is easy to deny them the means of freedom and the rightful pursuit of happiness and to defeat the very end of their being.”
James Madison – “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”
George Washington – “A primary object…should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing…than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”
Why do I teach the U.S. Constitution?
At the center of the human condition is the reality that we are all in this thing called life together. In an orderly society we have choices. In a tyrannical society our choices do not belong to us, but to a ruling class that mandates our lives for us through governmental decree. If we are not educated, and we do not participate in civics, we shall be ruled over. Or, we can prosper through our hard work in a system of liberty. Without education, liberty cannot be maintained. We must be dedicated to recognize that individual liberty and commitment to community are both necessary forces in the shaping of our free American society; and to understand that equality is not about where we are at the finish line of life, but about the opportunities and freedoms we have available to us at the starting line, and during our journey, and how we use those opportunities through our own personal decisions. – Douglas V. Gibbs
Booker T. Washington – “I shall not allow man to belittle my soul by making me hate him.”
Frederick Douglass – “Without education he lives within the narrow, dark and grimy walls of ignorance. Education, on the other hand, means emancipation. It means light and liberty. It means the uplifting of the soul of man into the glorious light of truth, the light by which men can only be made free. To deny education to any people is one of the greatest crimes against human nature. It is easy to deny them the means of freedom and the rightful pursuit of happiness and to defeat the very end of their being.”
James Madison – “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”
George Washington – “A primary object…should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing…than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”
To be uneducated is to remain in slavery...
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Gorsuch: "Apply and Enforce"
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The reality of a Trump presidency largely rides on the fact that voters trusted Donald Trump's potential choice regarding a replacement for Antonin Scalia's vacant seat on the U.S. Supreme Court bench than they did regarding Hillary Clinton's. The balance of the court slightly leans rightward, depending upon the moods of Justice Kennedy. A Clinton nominee would have tilted the court leftward for likely at least a generation, if not longer, and enough voters recognized that fact, and feared that possibility. Therefore, they came out in numbers strong enough to put Donald J. Trump in the White House.
While not the perfect choice, 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch turned out to be Trump's nominee. For the most part, Gorsuch considers himself to be an originalist. The Constitution, according to Gorsuch, is not a living and breathing document as much as it is a social contract with specific language. It is the "Law of the Land", he has proclaimed, and as a member of the Supreme Court he promises "to apply and enforce the law."
If this article had the conveniences of my radio program, and I could use sound effects, at this point I would insert the sound of a phonograph needle ripping across a spinning record.
The comment by Gorsuch was uttered in response to Democrats inquiring him regarding the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling which has been used as a precedent decision reaffirming the 2nd Amendment's concept that gun ownership is an "individual right." From a constitutional point of view, Washington D.C. is a federal district, so it was constitutionally proper for the Supreme Court to hear the case, and despite the fact that it was a 5-4 decision, the nine judges in black robes came to the constitutionally proper conclusion.
The questioning Democrat who was trying to corner Gorsuch was California's longtime Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In response to her questions, Gorsuch promised to uphold the law as it is written.
“Both Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens wrote excellent opinions in that case,” Gorsuch said. “I’m not here, though, to grade my bosses’ work. That would be kind of impertinent of me, I suspect. And certainly, I’m sure, they would think so.”
Then he said something that got me nervous, as a Constitutionalist: “Whatever is in Heller is the law,” Gorsuch later added. “It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, senator. Respectfully, it’s a matter of it being the law. And my job is to apply and enforce the law.”
Screeching needle flying across a spinning record!
The Heller decision is not "the law." The law of the land is the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" (Article VI.). Judicial rulings are not "the law." It is not the job of the judicial branch to make law, modify law, nor repeal/strike-down law. Those are legislative functions, and Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly explains that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Pursuant of the concept of a "Separation of Powers," neither the executive branch, nor the judicial branch, have legislative powers.
So, Heller is not the law, and to touch upon Gorsuch's final three words in his statement provided above, it is not his job as a judge to enforce the law. Executing the law is the job of the executive branch.
John Marshall wrote accurately in his opinion of Marbury v. Madison that the court could not enforce Marbury's win which indicated he was due his commission. Then, there's the famous Andrew Jackson quote in reference to Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), in which Jackson reportedly responded: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
The courts do not have the authority of "enforcement." Again, there's that pesky little thing called "Separation of Powers" established in the first sentence of each of the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, which confines the powers of each branch to the branch in which those authorities are granted, and to no other part of government.
Feinstein then continued to press Gorsuch on the 2nd Amendment, asking him if he agreed that the language of the amendment is ambiguous and if that ambiguity “should be decided by courts or by legislatures.”
First, let me explain that the language of the 2nd Amendment is not ambiguous. The right to keep and bear arms is a "natural right" given to us by our Creator. "A well-regulated militia" is a militia of citizen soldiers that has been "put in good order." (See "regulated" in Webster's Dictionary of that period). As we remember in our American History classes, the militias during the Revolutionary War were not in good order. They were untrained, had muskets of various sizes, and often were not fully uniformed (needing socks, or other garments).
The next part of the 2nd Amendment, "...being necessary to the security of a free State", refers to the State's right to protect itself from tyranny, be the source of that tyranny foreign, or domestic. In other words, a the language refers to a State's right to protect itself from invasion by foreign forces, or the federal government, should that central government become tyrannical.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" refers to the fact that gun ownership and possession is a God-given natural right. Keep is defined by the 1828 Webster's Dictionary as being "To hold; to retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with." Bear, according to the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, means "to carry" and "to bear arms in a coat", which is a direct reference to the right to carry a concealed firearm. "...shall not be infringed" means that the infringement of that right cannot be committed by government in any way, shape, or form. In other words, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal. (Note: The Bill of Rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government. As per Federalist 45 by James Madison, laws regarding rights could be created by the States. However, because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, despite some authority regarding gun laws, even the States are not supposed to pass laws "infringing" completely upon our natural right to keep and bear arms. Some may argue that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the States. The debate regarding that concept is ongoing.
Gorsuch also said Roe v. Wade is a “precedent of the United States Supreme Court”, but declined to elaborate on whether he would uphold the decision.
Gorsuch's language regarding various cases reveals that he has some consideration for using case law as a basis for constitutional interpretation. From an originalist's point of view, the courts are only there to apply the law, not interpret it. Interpretation opens up the opportunity for allowing the courts to modify or strike down the law based on their political whims - a power never authorized by the Constitution, and never intended to be given to the courts by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. As the authors of the Constitution, the final arbiters of the text within the document are the States, and We the People.
In conclusion, while Gorsuch is heads and tails above any justice that may have been nominated by a President Hillary Clinton, he's not the perfect constitutional originalist that he claims to be. We must be aware of his decisions and opinions, and hold him accountable for limiting himself within constitutional bounds.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
UN Ambassador Nikki Haley's Statement At The UN And A major Change That Must Take Place
By Capt Joseph R. John, March 28, 2017: Op Ed # 342
If you click on the below listed link, you will be able to view President Donald J. Trump’s UN Ambassador, Niki Haley make a short statement at the UN. Israel recently entered into a defensive alliance with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Oman, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.
The defensive alliance was prompted by the Obama administrations very dangerous Nuclear Weapons Agreement with Iran, which is allowing Iran to develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that will be able to strike the US, with a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration allowed them to develop.
After 8 years, the United States has a frank & responsible UN Ambassador who will ensure that Israel is treated in the same manner as every other member nation!
The US Congress should terminate all funding for the UN Middle East and African “Muslin Only” Refugee & Resettlement Program, controlled by representatives from 43 majority Muslim member nations and members of the Muslim Brotherhood in leadership positions in the UN. The UN Refugee & Resettlement Program has been discriminating against 300,000 Middle East Syrian and Assyrian Christian Refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency for the last 8 years. That UN Program, funded by the Obama administration, has been involved in an ongoing violation of the US Constitutions’ “Freedom of Religion” and US Federal Laws.
For the last 8 years, hundreds of thousands of Middle East Christians have been murdered by ISIS, Al Q’ieda, and the Muslim Brotherhood genocide. They have been crucified, burned alive, beheaded, drowned in cages, shot in the back of the head, throw to their deaths from the roofs of tall buildings, buried alive, their children have been cut in half, their female children &women of all ages have been raped, and they have been sold into slavery.
Yet the Muslim UN Administrators of UN Refugee Relief & Resettlement Program refused to allow any of the 300,000 Middle East Christians refugees being housed by the Greek Catholic Relief Agency from entering the US thru the UN’s corrupt program, which has been funded for 8 years, to the tune of billions of US taxpayer dollars, by the Obama administration.
At the same time, Obama accepted over 900,000 Middle East Muslim Refugees thru the corrupt UN Refugee Relief & Resettlement Program. Then they were resettled in 187 cities across the nation, while refusing to allow the FBI to interview them, to determine if they have terrorist ties, while at the same time, preventing local, county, state, and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies from knowing where those un-vetted Muslim refugees were resettled.
Despite a petitions by 56 US Congressmen from both sides of the aisle, who pleaded with the Obama administration to provide Syrian and Assyrian Christians suffering genocide, with self-defensive small arms weapons, so they could protect their families from the on-going genocide, Obama refused to authorize the delivery of small arms weapons for self-defense.
The net result of the corrupt UN Refugee & Relief Resettlement Program is that there have been 82 terrorist incidents and attacks on Americans in the US over the last 8 years, killing hundreds of Americans citizens, listed in the attachment. Those attacks, for the last 8 years, were covered up by the left of center liberal media establishment, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood who were in senior appointive positions in The White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, and in DHS. That corrupt UN Refugee Resettlement Program, which violated the US Constitution and US Federal Laws, must be defunded by Congress.
Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John. All Rights Reserved. The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author. It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.
Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108
Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
-Isaiah 6:8
Corona Constitution Class: Concerning the States - Article IV.
Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision
522 Railroad St.
Corona, CA 92882
|
 |
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
Lesson 09
Concerning the States
Full Faith and Credit
Article IV, Section 1 begins with The Full Faith and Credit Clause. The clause reads, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
In simple, modern day language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered in one State are acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.
The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting the union of the sovereign States as well. To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse. Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the states remained unified.
Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as simple as a marriage would not be recognized outside the State where the proceeding took place. If the married couple moved to another state, it would be necessary to marry all over again, otherwise they would still be considered unmarried. However, thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted married couple recognizes the marriage contract agreed upon in the State of origin.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against abusive litigation. If someone in one State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment in favor of the defendant, the person who filed the suit cannot file the same suit in another State against the same person. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered to be the final judgment. Likewise, someone who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.
As a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once. As they move to new States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new location. State privileges like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because when people move to different States, they can renew their driving licenses in the new State without having to go through drivers' education a second time, as long as the standards for licensure are similar between the two States.
Privileges and Immunities
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the people of each state all the same privileges and immunities uniformly in each state. In other words, if a Texan moved to California, the Texan must be treated by California in no different manner than the State treats Californians. A State could not pass a law keeping Texans out of their state, but letting others in. This violates the Constitution. A State cannot play favoritism in such a manner for any reason. All persons must be treated uniformly in the eyes of the law. This is the clause the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause sought to broaden, in order to ensure that the former slaves would also be afforded the same protection, privileges, and immunities.
Extradition
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 provides that "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."
Fugitives that flee a State from justice to another State will be extradited on the demand of executive authority (governor) of the State from which the person fled from. The Constitution, in this clause, demands the extradition of fugitives who have committed "treason, felony or other crime," which means that it includes all acts prohibited by the laws of a State, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
Since the word "shall" is used regarding the extradition order by the governor of the State, that means the extradition order will not be questioned. That also means the accused cannot defend himself against the charges in the extraditing State. The fugitive may only defend himself against the charges in the State receiving him.
The courts have determined that the accused may prevent extradition by offering clear evidence that he was not in the State he allegedly fled from at the time of the crime in the case, Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran (1903).
Fugitive Slaves
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 is obsolete because of the abolition of slavery, as per the 13th Amendment. During the era the Constitution was written, slavery remained in place, and slaves were seen as property by the States in which slavery was legal. The Constitution, as a compromise to assure that southern States ratified the document, included Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, as a compromise, which demanded that escaped slaves be returned to their owners in the south, even if that slave was in a northern State.
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 supported this clause of the Constitution, hoping to ensure under penalty of law that the slaves were in fact returned should they turn up in the north. Northern States were refusing to return escaped slaves, and the federal government refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and the Constitution, creating, in the minds of the Southern States, a constitutional crisis.
Nullification is often blamed for its part in the onset of the American Civil War. Those that argue that nullification was a part of bringing about the War Between the States will argue that the Southern States were guilty of nullifying perfectly reasonable federal laws. In reality, the Southern States did not nullify any federal law. It was the northern States that actively nullified federal law. They nullified The Fugitive Slave Act by ignoring the legislation, and refusing to abide by it. However, since The Fugitive Slave Act was constitutional, the nullification of the law by the northern States was unlawful, and unconstitutional. Threatened by the fact that the northern States were ignoring constitutional law, the federal government was refusing to enforce the law, and anti-slave candidate Abraham Lincoln had won the presidential election without even being on the ballot in the South, eleven southern States withdrew from the union in 1860.
New States
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 gives Congress the authority to admit new States. If a new State is formed within the borders of an existing State, from a portion of an existing State, or by combining two States, then the State legislatures of all States affected must also get involved. This provision came into play is when West Virginia was formed from part of Virginia during the Civil War. The Virginia State legislature had to approve the formation of the new State of West Virginia before the new State could claim it was a separate sovereign State.
In California, there has been a number of recommendations for breaking up the large State, from a 2014 suggestion of forming six States from the former Golden State, to thirteen counties that threatened to secede in 2010 as suggested by a local politician. If any of these plans for new States out of the existing State of California had an opportunity to follow through with their threat, the approval process would still need to go through the existing California State Legislature. The loss of taxation, and representation in Congress, would probably convince the legislature to deny losing any portion of their State to the formation of a new State.
Territories and Federal Property
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 gives the Federal Government "power over the territory and property of the United States." Territories like Puerto Rico fall under this clause, treating the territories not as individual sovereign states, but as territories under the control of the U.S. Government. Territories still enjoy a certain amount of autonomy, but ultimately, their governance falls under the authorities granted to Congress. Washington DC also falls under this clause, which means that Congress has authority over the functions of the city. In reality, Washington DC was supposed to only be the seat of government, and was not supposed to contain any residencies. Many of the framers envisioned Washington DC as being a thriving commercial center.
Border Security and Insurrection
Article IV, Section 4 reads, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government," meaning that each State may have its own constitution, as well as a representative government based on the rule of law.
The second part of Article IV, Section 4 provides that the United States "shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."
The Federal Government, according to the final clause of Article IV, must protect each State from invasion, which, in line with the Necessary and Proper clause of Article I, Section 8, is a firm directive to the federal government to keep the national borders secure so as to protect the States from foreign invasion. If executive agencies fail to take the actions necessary to secure the border in order to protect the States from invasion, the militia can be called into service by either the Congress, or the governor of the State being invaded, in order to repel the invasion.
The Federal Government, in this clause, is also tasked with quelling domestic violence. This part of the clause refers to insurrection, and it is likely the writing of this clause was directly influenced by the occurrence of Shays' Rebellion in 1786.
Terms:
Extradite: The surrender of a person charged with a crime by one state or country to another state or country.
Full Faith and Credit: In the context of the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, the phrase is defined as requiring all States in the U.S. to recognize and give effect to the legislation, public records, and judicial decisions of other States in the United States. Full Faith and Credit also means: An unconditional commitment to pay interest and principal in debt, usually issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or another government entity.
Nullification: State power to ignore unconstitutional federal law.
Questions for Discussion:
1. What kind of issues does the Full Faith and Credit Clause affect in today's American society?
2. How does the Full Faith and Credit Clause protect the autonomy of the State, while protecting their unity?
3. For what kind of crimes may a person be extradited for?
4. The northern States believed the Fugitive Slave Act to be a bad law, even though it was Constitutional, and believed that they had a right to nullify it because they perceived it to be immoral. The Federal Government failed to enforce it, possibly for the same reasons. How did this make the Southern States feel, and how did this action contribute to the secession of the Southern States?
5. The federal government is tasked with the duty of protecting the States against invasion. How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration?
Resources:
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Hyatt v. People ex rel. Corkran, 188 U.S. 691 (1903) ("We are of opinion
that, as the relator showed...he was not within the state of Tennessee at the times stated in the indictments found in the Tennessee court, nor at any time when the acts were, if ever, committed, he was not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Federal statute upon that subject...")
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Four - Article I I, Section 8, Clause 5 to Article VII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)
Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015
|
California Reduces Funding for Los Angeles School with "too many whites"
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
In California not only do the left coast political leaders believe that white privilege exists, but also being "too white" must be punished. Proof? At a middle school in the Los Angeles Unified School District the school is under the threat of losing funding because the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood has a local white student population that exceeds 30 percent of the total.
The funding lost would have enabled the school to continue to hire more teachers and have smaller classes, but to qualify, the student body must be 70 percent or higher of Hispanics, blacks, Asians and other "non-Anglos". White families have been moving in, so, over the last two years that percentage has fallen beneath the 70 percent level, meaning Walter Reed no longer qualifies for those extra funds.
Now, because of the news, parents fear that class sizes will increase as the number of teachers and other school personnel likely decreases.
The funding rule falls under a court-ordered integration program that has been in place since 1978. It's an affirmative-action-style rule that essentially is an insult to non-white populations, with a message that says non-whites need extra help because they are not capable of keeping up on their own.
The reality is that the loss of funding will force the school district to pursue various cuts, though those spending cuts have not yet been announced.
Critics argue that the rule is racist and does more harm than good. I see it also as a constitutional issue. Doesn't Article IV. and the 14th Amendment, of the Constitution call for equality under the law? Why is it that in the mind of the Democrats it's okay to have a rule that says too many whites creates unequal treatment under the law?
Are those non-white populations speaking in concert with the Marxist pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm, proclaiming that some people are more equal than others?
Are those non-white populations speaking in concert with the Marxist pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm, proclaiming that some people are more equal than others?
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
On the Edge of 3 Million Hits
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The number of hits per day is accelerating. . . and we are on the edge of hitting 3 million
Almost there.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The number of hits per day is accelerating. . . and we are on the edge of hitting 3 million
Almost there.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, March 27, 2017
March Madness: Kentucky Snowflakes Riot After Loss
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The younger generation can't handle losing. Loss causes them to throw temper tantrums.
Successful people will tell you that they learned how to become successful by learning how to fail. Failure is a part of our growth process as humans. Failure is a reality we must learn to accept, and learn from, so that we can move beyond it.
The generation of participation trophies, however, doesn't understand that. . . and as a result, they are not prepared for it.
Sunday Night, in the NCAA Tournament, with less than a second left on the clock, a North Carolina player (Luke Maye, who got a standing ovation during his Monday classes) sank a jumper to give North Carolina a 75-73 win over the University of Kentucky - sending North Carolina to the Final Four.
While I will not say that all Kentucky students are snowflakes, a large number of Kentucky University snowflakes rioted following the loss. They lit things on fire, and they stomped their feet like children while chanting “f--k UNC”.
Police had to show up in riot gear to contain the situation, put out the fires, and send the students home.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Quotes that Caught My Attention at the CRA Convention in Fresno, CA
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
I spent Friday, Saturday and much of Sunday in Fresno at my first California Republican Assembly convention, and I wrote down a few quotes by speakers that caught my attention...
Jim Patterson, California State Assemblyman, "We can save California...we've been through this before...it will take tough decisions...history comes to people who are prepared and ready...stay the course, keep the faith, keep working, elections matter, ideas have consequences...Margaret Thatcher said, 'First you win the argument, then you win elections'...we are on the side of the argument that wins...we can do it again...what America has done in life, historically, time after time, has echoed in eternity. And we have an obligation to be the salt and light that changes hearts and minds and wins the argument and wins the election, and changes history for the better...Winston Churchill: Never, never, never, never, ever give up."
Shannon Grove, a three-term assemblywoman who is now seeking a State Senate seat, said, "The body of Christ needs to engage in the civic arena."
Tim Donnelly, California State Assemblyman and former candidate for Governor of California, "My journey has been to give God the Glory."
Jim Shoemaker, CRA Vice President, San Joaquin County Republican Candidate for various local offices, "Remember, we wear the armor of God."
Supervisor/Vice Chair of the California Republican Party, Kristin Olsen, "...to get much more assertive, and much more aggressive, in exposing the failures of the Democrat Party in our State of California; and the childish tirades that Senator Gaines has been talking about, that has been happening literally since the day after the election."
Spencer Sims of the South Los Angeles Inglewood Republican Assembly, after riding his bicycle from South Los Angeles to Fresno, "That was a long ride. I might not ride back." He rode the train back.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)