Constitution Study Television: The American Founding Conspiracy Theory

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Yes, The Democrats Want to Take Your Guns

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

The best gun salesman in recent history was Barack Obama. Because there was a fear that he wanted to go after our guns, firearms sales skyrocketed. Those fears were appropriate, considering who was President of the United States. The thing is, when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms, Barack Obama was but a minor threat. Today's radicalized Democrats, unlike their more strategic predecessors, have no fear of telling you that they don't just want what they call "common sense" gun control, but that they don't want you to have guns at all. They barely stop short of using the word "confiscation".  They have always wanted confiscation, but it's always been a "think it, don't say it" thing because they know that gun control has always been a losing issue for them.

Nearly a couple years ago, California Democrat member of the House of Representatives Eric Swalwell began the liberal path to today's radicalism that basically screams they wish to confiscate firearms when in a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” he argued that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”

Swalwell proposed that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

Beto O'Rourke was the next one in recent memory to abandon the Democrat tendency to avoid calling for gun confiscation when last September, as a candidate for President of the United States, when asked about his stance on gun control, he replied, "Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15".

Now, Elizabeth Warren

and Michael Bloomberg have joined the new radical "we want to take your guns" crowd.
Warren asked by a voter if she would support a concealed carry law since “The only thing that saved the rest of the congregation” in the recent Texas Church Shooting “were the other two people there who shot and took out the shooter.”

Warren’s answer: “No”

Bloomberg has voiced even more radical stances on gun control, in his candidacy.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who has a mini-army of bodyguards around him whenever he moves, says guns aren’t for “average” people.

“You just do not want the average American carrying a gun in a crowded place,” the former New York mayor said in Alabama. The presidential candidate said that it’s the “job of law enforcement to have guns and decide when to shoot.”

Yeah, because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

His answer dripped of the usual "elite rulership" attitude of the Democrats, which always ends with the idea that you are too stupid to take care of yourself, make decisions for yourself, or defend yourself.

Of course, the Second Amendment's enumeration of our right to keep and bear arms is about more than protecting our lives or property against criminal elements, or hunting. It's about having an armed populace ready to alter or abolish the government should it become tyrannical.

Which got me thinking. If these lefties think that Trump is some kind of fascist, why would they continue to support gun control? Is it really their contention that, if the President is some kind of un-American, Russian spy and fascist, that the government be the only ones with guns?

-- Political Pistachio' Conservative News and Commentary

Coming Up This Thursday Night in Beaumont/Banning...

It's an Election Year, and the first meeting of the Banning/Beaumont/Cherry Valley Tea Party in 2020 provides for you a candidate for California State Senate.

Join us Thursday Night at the Big Red Barn off of Highland Springs in Banning.

5:00 pm, Thursday, January 9, 2020, Farmshouse Restaurant, Banning

Constitution Association: Nothing New Under The Sun

Constitution Radio: New Year, Election Year, 2020

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM

1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon

archived podcast at 

https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

• Happy New Year
• New Year, New Contract
• Constitution Study by Douglas V. Gibbs coming to television
• Impeachment 
• Political Circus by Pelosi
• For Trump, What's Next?
• Iran
• Death of  Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force
• Iran's War Posturing
• Trump: "America Was Built By God-Worshiping, Freedom-Loving Patriots..."
• New California Law: Massive Fines For Anyone Who Uses Too Much Water
• California A.B. 5: Dream-Killer Law Chokes State Economy
• After Church Shooting, Warren Proves She's No Friend Of Law-Abiding Gun Owners...
• Bloomberg: "We Can't Just Let Average" Americans Have Guns...

Trump Administration Kills Soleimani, Head of Iran's Elite Quds Force

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

What had the potential of becoming a Benghazi situation under Trump's watch, thanks to quick action, became nothing of the sort.  A protest at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, believed to be backed by Iran, began as a frightening reminder of the danger to Americans in the region.

As the violence in Baghdad escalated, Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamanei sent a tweet to President Trump saying there was nothing he could do to get back at Iran for leading the attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq.

Iran has already been under sanctions that has created unrest in Iran, so, from the Iranian leader's point of view, Trump retaliatory weapon's chamber was empty.  What was he going to do?  Send a failed rescue attempt to free hostages like Jimmy Carter did back in 1979?  Would he stand confused as he watched the death of Americans on satellite images like Obama and Hillary Clinton did during the Benghazi situation?

Trump believes in peace through strength, so he loaded the chamber, and hit back.

Two airstrikes later Khamanei was no longer so bold. Iranian Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' elite Quds Force, was one of the Iranian leaders killed in the attack at Baghdad International Airport.

The quick strike response to Iranian aggression at our embassy was a move unexpected by the Iranians, and while the plan is not to put American troops into another drawn out war in the Middle East, Trump's White House is on high alert should there be an Iranian response.

Soleimani has been labeled by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as being equally as dangerous as ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who killed himself in October during a U.S. raid on a compound in northwest Syria.

The two-day siege did not end until the militiamen and their supporters withdrew from the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California A.B. 5: Dream-Killer Law Chokes State Economy

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

The once Golden State of California, because the politicians bow to the wishes of the labor unions, has decided to kill the dreams, aspirations, and opportunities of a large number of her citizens.  As of January 1, 2020, a new law (AB-5) goes into effect that limits independent contractors.  While there is a list of exemptions, to be considered independent from the law you must meet all of the provisions on the exemptions list, which is nearly a statistical impossibility for most contractors.  As a writer, with a few of the local outlets, if I am getting paid for my work, that means I can no longer write for local outlets once per week.  I am getting ready to begin hosting a small weekly television program on a local independent station.  That endeavor has now been threatened by the new law.  God knows what this does to my speaking engagements and constitution classes.  California's new law is basically telling me that I can't do what I do for a living anymore.  If I continue to try to feed myself with what I do, I will be a criminal in California.  If I stop doing what I do, I will eventually be homeless; unless, of course, I do the obvious ... and leave the State.  Most people in the lower end of the middle-class negatively influenced by this law can't afford to leave the State.  But, they also can't afford to stay in business because of the law.  Despite the claim of the Democrats that this law protects the middle-class, what it does is force many of the folks who are considered middle-class into poverty, and ultimately, into government dependence.

I am figuring that if I live outside the State, the law does not apply to me.  Therefore, once I depart, as a resident of another State, if I Skype into the television studio from the other State, if I Skype into the radio station I am on from another State, and if I write to the outlets and transmit my articles by email from another State, then I will be technically legal.  Of course, then they will probably try to find another way to tax me with their higher rate, or force me to quit doing business in their State.  Is that what they really wish for?  To eliminate anything I do in California?

Goodbye, California.  I am not looking back.

If the politicians are trying to make the State a better place to live, is their new law a wise thing to do?  With A.B.-5 they are literally making otherwise legal independent contractors criminals, and they are driving them to either homelessness, or out of the State of California?  Yet, they can't understand why California's economy sucks compared to the rest of the country (and they keep stupidly blaming Trump for their failings).

The Democrats who run California, like all Democrats, claim they are for the little guy, and that the big bad Republicans favor the rich powerful corporations.  They have convinced their entire constituency of this lie.  If that is the case, then why pass a law that kills the efforts of the little guy?  A.B.-5 literally, in the long run, does the opposite of what they claim.

There are two reasons behind this economy-choking law in California.  From the point of view of the legislators, it allegedly ensures everyone receives the benefits associated with being an employee while stopping the big corporations from cheating the system by disallowing their contractors from being employees.  From my point of view, the two reasons are because the labor unions are demanding it so as to generate more union members through the force of law (and the Democrats are bending to the labor unions' demands because a very large chunk of their political campaign monies come from the unions), and because as Marxists they hate the private free market and the kind of independence enjoyed by contractors from employment must be stamped out in whatever way they can.  The average person is not supposed to be an independent business-owner in the eyes of the Democrats.  We are all supposed to simply be mindless workers who, eventually, once they eliminate private ownership completely, are only supposed to serve the State.  By allowing people to be independent contractors, that encourages individualism and economic hope, and the Democrats just can't allow such a thing in a society where they are trying to create full equality where nobody should be allowed to have any hopes of doing better than anyone else.

The greatest impact of the new law will be on small companies who can't afford to hire their workers as employees, or are structured in such a way that it is economically better if their workers are independent contractors.  The majority of those contractors would prefer to remain a contractor, as well.  It creates more freedom to choose jobs outside one's main source of business, or serve multiple customers.  Some business models are naturally set up to use independent contractors, such as barber shops, trucking, the entertainment industry, translators, and ride-sharing companies like Uber or Lyft.

I had a Class A license for fifteen years, and the laws by the Democrats, even before this one, were killing my ability to make a living.  First, they passed a law disallowing "employees" to be paid by the load.  When the company was forced by law to change from paying us by the load to paying by the hour (I drove a sand and gravel truck at the time), my income dropped dramatically, as did the overall production of the drivers I worked with (therefore, reducing the quantity of the product being moved, thus reducing the supply, and for anyone who understands the basic economic principle of supply and demand, that means as the supply drops and the transportation costs increase, prices for the finished product will go up, directly impacting the consumers who purchase that product with higher prices).  While being paid by the load, the incentive of making more money if we could squeeze an extra load in by the end of the day encouraged drivers to work harder, faster, and more efficiently.  As a result, most of us were exceeding the number of loads we would likely deliver otherwise, and it reflected in our pay.  Once the new California law forced us into a "paid-by-the-hour" structure, we no longer pushed ourselves to get that extra load.  Being paid by the hour would result in the same pay for the day, whether we pushed ourselves, or not, so why work so hard if we didn't have to?  Besides, for the new pay we were getting, it wasn't worth working so hard.  I began making, once it was by the hour, the pay I would have been making before if I had been delivering two less loads.  And the company, who didn't mind if we went beyond eight hours back when they were paying us by the load, was now in a situation where they didn't wish to pay the additional dollars of overtime pay, so our days dropped to eight hours.  The law that claimed to be designed to protect the workers killed incentive, and reduced the overall production of the company's employees (thus, increasing the cost of doing business because to achieve the production they had before the law existed they would need more drivers ... smaller companies unable to afford the increase in employees lost the work), while also reducing how much money we had in our paychecks.  Some truckers, unable to survive on the lower pay, left the industry, or in many cases, left the State.

Then, in 2011, California passed a new emissions standard for the trucking industry.  Smaller companies could not afford the twenty-five thousand dollars per truck upgrade, and they closed their doors.  The larger corporations gobbled up the new customers suddenly searching for a new trucking service, since theirs had gone out of business because of the new law.  Many "owner-operators," the independent contractors of the trucking industry, also went out of business, also because they could not afford the cost of the upgrade.  Some of them went to the larger corporations as driver-employees (a tough endeavor since suddenly the market was flooded with unemployed drivers seeking employment as a result of the law), while the rest of the negatively influenced drivers either retired, changed professions more often than not to something that made them less money, or took their small trucking business to another State.  Meanwhile, the larger corporations absorbed the new work available, and padded their pocketbooks with more money since there were now less smaller companies to compete with.  Meanwhile, for those of us who survived the onslaught of the Democrat emissions law-making madness, we came under strict scrutiny by the bureaucrats in Sacramento who know nothing about the industry.  At one time, because he kept setting off the emissions alarm on his truck (something that was added to big rigs as a result of the new law), a friend of mine was chastised by an "inspector" from Sacramento for driving uphill so much to make his deliveries, because uphill driving while fully loaded increases the truck's emission of pollutants, and that would not be tolerated.

If we can't drive uphill, how were we to make some of our deliveries?

Now, we have AB-5, the new gig-law, which is designed to "reduce worker misclassification — workers being wrongly classified as ‘independent contractors’ rather than employees, which erodes basic worker protections like the minimum wage, paid sick days and health insurance benefits."

Sounds good, until you realize the consequences force into play a situation that falls way short of what the legislators claim.

One of the dreams we have as Americans is to own our own businesses.  The new A.B.-5 Gig Law kills that for a number of "owner-operators" in the trucking industry, forcing them to either be employees for large corporations, or to go out of business.  As for the smaller companies who have a few employee drivers, now the workload they dished out to owner-operators will become unattended.  The smaller companies will then lose the revenue because they can't afford to hire the owner-operators, but their employees are unable to handle the workload.  So, the smaller companies are losing that revenue (which will, in most cases, drive them out of business), freeing that work up for the larger corporations to take (the same group the Democrats claim to be against).  Meanwhile, owner-operators, if hired as employees, lose work because they can no longer offer their services to the highest bidder, and even work simultaineously for a number of companies who are typically competitors (not because of the language of the law, per se, but because once you are an employee the option to work for the competition at the same time is naturally eliminated).  Now that all of the work is only coming from one source (the "employer"), the amount of work available will be more limited in the long run.  In short, their work will now be limited to that of which the employer will be willing, or able, to give them.  The two types of trucking companies most heavily affected will be sand and gravel, and port trucking, but really any trucking service that moves products will be affected.  This not only hurts the industry, but it also reduces the movement of product, while increasing the cost of transporting those products, which in the long run influences the average citizen who is stuck with the resulting increase of prices.

As today's effective date approached, despite a judge ruling a temporary halt to the law's provisions against truckers, the exodus of truckers from the State has been in full swing.

While the Democrats claim they are "protecting" workers, in the long run they are killing the liberty associated with being a "contractor," and they are putting a large portion of workers out of business and into a position where they have no choice but to either become homeless, or leave the State.

When it comes to the entertainment industry, a part of working your way into the industry involves independent work with smaller producers or channels.  In my case, I wouldn't mind eventually getting to the point of having a show on Fox News or One America News.  But, I must prove myself by cutting my teeth in journalism, and/or smaller televisions channels who are too small to be able to afford hiring me as an employee.  So, as agreed with my upcoming television program, I am an independent contractor receiving a $100 per episode stipend.  The show will be weekly, with the hopes of increasing it to a daily show.  However, the new law now makes my endeavor illegal.  I am limited and/or eliminated if the station can't afford to pick me up as an employee.  As a result, the audience loses an entertainment option, the station loses programming, and I lose income and the much needed opportunity to move up into a larger outlet.  In short, the new law kills a much needed opportunity I need in my journey to seek a better life for myself.

AB-5 ought to be renamed.  It ought to be called the "dream-killer law."

After all of the dust clears the real loser will be the State of California.  As a result of A.B.-5, California will lose product movement, product supply, and a large segment of the tax-paying population who will be forced into poverty, or into abandoning the State they otherwise loved.  And, many of those people are married, so their spouses who may hold jobs in California will also leave, as well, doubling the damage to workforce numbers.  Without enough workers, and with the increase in the cost of doing business, along with those departing independent contractors a number of companies will move out of California, too.  Why would they remain in a State set on eliminating their preferred method of doing business with independent contractors, or shooing away the population of employees?

The Golden State's population growth rate is already at an alarming rate of .35 percent, the lowest since 1900.  As California's Democrat super-majority continues to kill the dreams of its citizens, members of the middle class will continue to run from the State, causing an increase in the gap they call "income inequality".  With the middle class gone, eventually California be left with the super-wealthy, and those who live in poverty, and there will be nobody remaining in the middle.  

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Message to my Peeps: 2020 is upon us ... LET'S ROLL

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Open War on the Rule of Law

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM

1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon

archived podcast at 

https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

• Russel Brand's Constitutionalism
• Colleges go China Communism on its students
• Buttigieg: Reinstate Obamacare Individual Mandate
• Judge Halts North Carolina Voter ID Law
• California's Economic Death During Countrywide Prosperity
• Pelosi uses Constitution to defend her impeachment actions
• Mitch McConnell accused of favoring loyalty to Trump over U.S. Constitution
• Trump's Impeachment Letter
• Constitution protected against foreign influence

Los Angeles, Dems, Rats, and Homeless Destroy California Dream

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




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Interfering with local elections.

Opinion by Allan McNew

Whenever a city goes from at large to district elections, my first thought that is that an activist organization agitated for the change in order to set up "ringers," who have move into town and establish residency for the specific reason to run for elected office in less affluent neighborhoods which rarely vote in order to take over a city government and promote and agitate for their outside agenda. Sometimes it's the case, others not.

A recent development is for big money to come in for the election of District Attornies around the country to further an agenda that somehow benefits by not prosecuting criminals.

I have mixed feelings concerning the office of District Attorney. On one hand we need enforcement and and the type of justice that is something more than a prostituted buzzword. On the other I have had dealings with the office of a former District Attorney who's motto was "anyone can convict the guilty, but it takes a great prosecutor to convict the innocent." The man wouldn't let anything unwinnable go until he either forced a plea bargain or forced the defense to prepare for trial then withdraw the case on the first day of trial. He managed to subornidate civil cases and other legal proceedings to his agenda of wielding the prosecutorial hammer without reasonable regard. He clogged up the court system with his Les Miserables approach to prosecution.

"Tough on crime" rhetoric politically sells. The District Attorney's office is an elected office and an incumbent is unfortunately is in part re-elected by an inflated conviction count dangled in front of the voters rather than what a "reasonable" yard stick of "justice" may be. This can turn prosecution and conviction from a dispensation of justice to an institutional form of human trafficking.

When the sheriff's department does a sweep which nets several dozen individuals and the crime rate is zero until they bail out or are otherwise released we should have a pretty good idea where the majority of our criminal problems lie. But when equal allegations should provide for equal scrutiny and equal treatment, it sometime seems that those who have a job and a mortgage are reserved for prosecution or other legal process while bottom rung dirtbags are turned loose. This suggests two things: there is either money to be milked out of those who have it while it costs money to deal with those who don't work or there is some sort of "social justice" agenda at work here. Maybe both.

The first assumption goes hand in hand with the sure fact that if everyone fought their traffic tickets the court system would collapse, the latter is the case for outside funds to elect District Attorneys who won't apply the law - that everyone in the lower class or (name your choice of identity politics) is an oppressed victim to middle and upper class privilige (or insert any identity politics boogy man).

 When anyone running for political office of any sort accepts outside campaign donations it should be publicly and frequently disclosed and readily visible in the large print of the candidate's campaign literature, advertisements and campaign rallies as to where it came from and how much they collected.

No more pimping out justice to agendas, personal or otherwise.

Constitution Radio: Killing Liberty and the Rule of Law

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM

1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon

archived podcast at 

https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

• Merry Christmas
• New Year, New Contract
• Constitution Study by Douglas V. Gibbs coming to television
• Impeachment 
• Constitution Does not give Pelosi authority to change impeachment rules
• Founding Principles: The Importance of Due Process
• Congresswoman Val Demings: Trump should be impeached regardless of Quid Pro Quo
• Pelosi: Impeachment necessary to stop voters from "dangerous" action of reelecting Trump
• Martin v. City of Boise: Illegal to criminalize homeless behaviors
• Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 8th Amendment
• U.S. Supreme Court rejects the case
• Iowa man sentenced to 15 years in prison for burning LGBTQ flag
• Is Justice truly blind?
• In drive for equality, why are differing political views being criminalized?
• What would have been the penalty for burning an American Flag?  How about burning a Confederate Flag?
• Louisiana Purchase Anniversary
• How California aided in Virginia's flip to blue
• Virginia another example of the dangers of democracy, and the reality that we are losing the republic
• Virginia willing to use National Guard to enforce new gun laws
• Why are gun laws not being challenged on the basis of constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws?

Constitution Television Program Negotiated

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

For those of you who follow my journey as a constitutionalist, I have been a force for Constitution Education on the West Coast for many years.  This blog launched in 2006.  Political Pistachio Radio on BlogTalkRadio began in 2007.  The Constitution Classes emerged in Temecula in 2008, and in Corona in 2014.  The radio program moved to AM Radio in 2011, and it has been over the last few years that I began making constitution-centric videos on YouTube.

Teaching the U.S. Constitution has long been a ministry to me.  Even as a child, I was interested in history, and the founding of this country.  In 2007, however, it was my mentor, Tim "Loki" Kerlin, who really brought me out of my shell and into the community of constitutionalists full throttle.  As a result I have the endeavors listed above, plus I have written seven books (working on the eighth right now), and I have become a popular force on the public speaking front.  The ultimate, however, along this journey would be television.

I have appeared on television a number of times.  I have graced the airwaves on Fox News five times, One America News twice, and various other networks and local channels a number of times during intense news cycles in which I found myself in the middle of as an activist.  But, those were all simply instances where Doug was protesting in the right place at the right time.

A few years ago a friend of mine toyed with the idea of purchasing a local television station, and using me as one of the centerpieces of the new channel.  But, he never pulled the trigger, and to this point, the station remains available to any buyer willing to take a chance.

During these last few years I have also expanded my network of people I know.  I do a lot of shaking hands, and handing out business cards, and one of those people I've gotten to know is Dr. Chanh Huu "Tony" Nguyen.  He's a hero of the "Government of Free Vietnam" Vietnamese people who fought against the communists in both Vietnam and Cambodia.  He has been captured by the enemy, and escaped.  

In California, Tony has become an important part of the Vietnamese community, and he has built an interesting media empire that includes a non-profit organization, television, and other Vietnamese media and community outlets.

The television show I will be hosting on VietNews will launch some time in January.  We are in the preliminary planning stages, and have come to an agreement that it will be a one hour program, once per week.  I will receive a stipend for my efforts.  Sponsorships are available if you would like to be involved.  Contact me at constitutionspeaker at yahoo dot com if you are interested.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

When Drugs Ruled the World

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

In American History, allegations of the CIA using drug trafficking to help fund some of its operations have emerged often.  One wonders if the Democrats moved the War on Terror from Iraq to Afghanistan to protect their own opium trade.  Donald Trump's border wall would do more than help with curbing the flow of illegal aliens.  It will also reduce the flow of drugs across the border.  One wonders if that could be one of the reasons the Democrats are so against it.

But, what about looking at this thing about drugs on the other hand.  Could drug warfare be something that is being committed against the United States by a foreign power?

The latest drug epidemic in America is the opioid epidemic.  The production and trafficking of fentanyl has been at the forefront of this problem, killing more than 32,000 Americans in 2018, alone.

An interesting note is that China is the largest source of illicit fentanyl in the United States according to a November 2018 report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. The source also notes that since its 2017 report, they have found no “substantive curtailment” of fentanyl flows from China to the United States.

While the U.S. Government has recognized the problem, and has put into place an increase in its crackdown on fentanyl, the reality is that the problem remains and is increasing.  Since the primary source is China, one wonders if the flood of fentanyl into the United States may also accompany a political aim built on a Chinese strategy to undermine and sicken the U.S. population?

For China, it serves as a money-maker, a way to launder money, a way to have something on anybody who helps them (blackmail?), and of course a way to corrupt and even sicken the American public.  It's the perfect chemical warfare.

It also allows the Chinese to influence political operations, encouraging the U.S. Government to pour federal money on the problem while creating an issue that places the political parties at odds with each other.

That all said, China denies that most of the illicit fentanyl entering the United States originates in China.

While fentanyl is nothing new, the recent surge in usage and overdose deaths is.  According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) the number of deaths have increased by the thousands.  Many of the recent cases are linked to “illegally made fentanyl,” the CDC has said.  One thing is for sure, its potency is amazingly high.  Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and 100 times more potent than morphine.

The Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention legislation was signed in 2018 by President Trump, and it is designed to curb the flow of opioids sent through the mail while increasing coordination between the USPS and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

CBP Enforcement Statistics reveal that fiscal year seizures of illicit fentanyl spiked from about one kilogram (2.2 pounds) in 2013 to nearly 1,000 kilograms (2,200 pounds) in 2018. The number of law enforcement fentanyl seizures in the United States also vaulted from about 1,000 in 2013 to more than 59,000 in 2017.

In August, the Mexican navy found 52,000 pounds of fentanyl powder in a container from a Danish ship that was coming from Shanghai.

“There is clear evidence that fentanyl or fentanyl precursors, chemicals used to make fentanyl, is coming from China,” Dr. Andrew Kolodny, co-director of Opioid Policy Research at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management, told The Epoch Times.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

What the Deconstructionists Miss

Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
History has become what the hard left deconstructionists wish you to believe it is/was.  Post-modernism aims at destroying what is (by telling you that it depends on what the definition of is is) so that the leftist establishment may inject its own culture and society.  The goals are hardly unknown, and have been around for all of history.

As we approach Christmas, the story of Scrooge comes to mind.  Charles Dickens' tale of a horrible man who works his employees to the bones of their fingers, and of a man who rejects charity, hope, or the joy of giving associated with Christmas, is a timeless classic.  Ultimately, its about a man who learns how to "share the wealth", or as today's progressive would put it, "pay his fair share."

While I am not at all opposed to persons being charitable, and in fact conservatives are the most charitable persons on the planet, the goodness of such a thing has been poisoned and misrepresented by those who seek government intrusion into our lives with various programs of entitlement and beyond (and then somehow compares such government interference into our lives with charity).  Everything, in their vision of bigger government, becomes a Marxist utopia where we all just share and share alike, nobody becomes better off than anyone else, and if you are rich you are expected to give and give and give until your wealth has dwindled away.  I guess it's a part of their "peace, love, dope" agenda.

Would it be reasonable to argue against Scrooge's transformation into a giving person who simply wishes to "share the wealth"?

Sometimes the thing that we see on the surface is not the problem.  Sometimes the intentions are not the sin.  But, sometimes the well hidden and deep down motives of communalism make it nearly impossible to recognize what is truly meant to be simply an act of charity, and what is intended to be a factor in the leftward nudge of America toward socialism.

Moving America towards a false-utopia based on equity is not enough, however.  As Cloward and Piven explained, to replace a successful system that the people may not be eager to part with, it may be necessary to overload it, and destroy it, so that a new system can be produced in its place.  A part of that destruction requires that the population loses faith in the native culture.  It is expected that the people must desire revolution of the sort that not only dismantles the current societal structure, but does so in such a way that no remnants of it remains.  Any memory of the dying system, after all, may entice the foolish populace to yearn for it again, and that just can't be allowed.

To deconstruct a system it must be taught to the people that the system is flawed, and must be detested; that everything wrong in the world is due to what America has been, and if we eliminate what America is, in the future these horrible things will not happen again.  And, once all that America was is detested, and ultimately forgotten, the people will not only fail to yearn for it, they will be happy to dismantle every part of the system, themselves.  They will see their hate for it as being a good thing, and their religiosity of hating the old system can then become so intense that they will honestly believe that anyone defending the old system hates them right back, and in the new society of "peace, love, dope", such hatred for the new progressive America on the horizon cannot be tolerated.

We have been taught that the Mexican-American War was a war of expansionism, rather than a war of liberation from the blood-thirsty dictator, Santa Anna.  Therefore, we are told, white people hate Mexicans, and we stole the American Southwest by swindling them out of their land.  Never mind that at that time there were only three Mexican settlements north of today's border between Mexico and the United States; Santa Fe, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

We have been convinced, also, that since slavery was a part of the American landscape at one point, all white people are racist, and yearn for a return to the days of slavery.  When Republican candidates emerge on the scene, and they are too conservative for the taste of the Progressive Democrats, statements along the line of "they want to put blacks back into shackles" are made.  Recently, for example, Democrat U.S. House of Representatives member Al Green said the impeachment of Donald Trump is needed “to deal with slavery.”

The implication is that anything that calls for America first, or champions any of the country's founding principles or values, is racist and that the very foundation of this country was for the purpose of slavery, and perpetuating slavery as brutally as possible.  Of course all of this is silliness, but a large number of people believe it.

The Marxist cultural revolution has been effective and thorough.

And from their point of view, the fundamental transformation of America into something the Framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended is almost complete.

The infiltration has permeated nearly every avenue of American life.  Education, media, entertainment, and even the churches.  We are bombarded with the Marxist agenda so much that sometimes we don't even realize it.  Some of it has become accepted truths, and we simply obey without questioning why.  We believe in the power of the courts.  We have been convinced it is rude to talk about religion and politics.  Our pastors have adopted the strategy of avoiding politics, claiming that it interferes with their ability to evangelize.  We have become sedated, rocked by the rigors of daily life, too busy to care about our liberty, or the laws of nature and of Nature's God.  Medicated by their drugs, informed by their minions, and wooed by their pleasures, we have become less American because they have convinced us to be.

The thing is, they miss a huge piece of the puzzle, and don't even realize it. 

America's history is much like the Old Testament of the Bible, and much like the journeys that each of us take through our lifetimes.  Character is not established when we exit the womb.  Mistakes are made, and that is how anyone learns.  Triumphs are reached, and that also is how we learn.  We obey what's right, and sometimes we don't, and through it all our character is shaped, molded, and led to the place it will someday rest upon.

The growth curve is best when the opportunity to grow through good and bad choices is best left to take its own course.  In the end, we learn, we take lessons from our walk in our own shoes, and in the case of America, our greatness is largely because of our liberty, and the fact that America took the paths it took.  We triumphed, and sometimes we were a country that walked down not-so-good paths.  We grew, we learned, and as a result, America became the greatest country in the world ... partly because of our history, and largely because of our system of liberty.

The problem is not just that the deconstructionists wish to erase our history, our culture, and our American identity, but that they are working to erase our liberty.  And once liberty is gone, growth ceases, greatness vanishes, and incentive dies.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Fighting Communism

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

KMET 1490-AM

1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon

archived podcast at 

https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

• Impeachment Circus
• High Crimes and Misdemeanors
• Bill O'Reilly: Soros Group Behind FBI Collusion Against Trump...
• When Tyler was threatened by impeachment
• Britain Rejects Commie Labour Party
• Liberal Cities Failing
• China agrees to new trade deal, Wall Street responds with upward climb
• Virginia may use National Guard to enforce new gun laws

Corona Constitution Class: Judicial Branch

Last Class of the Year!!!!!  See you tonight. Corona Constitution Class Tuesdays, 6:00 pm CARSTAR/ALLSTAR Collision 522 Railroad Street Corona, CA Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com     Lesson 08   Judicial Branch   Establish Justice   The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government for the United States of America. Article III establishes the federal court system. Article I, Section 8 gives the Congress the power to "constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Given the power to establish these courts, Congress also has the authority to do away with any of these inferior courts. This power of Congress is repeated in Article III, Section 1 during the first sentence.   When reading Article III, one must keep in mind the fact that the article was specifically written to affect the federal court system, not the state courts. The authorities contained within this article, and the restrictions thereof, are to be applied to the federal courts, not the state courts. One must also bear in mind, as one reads this article, the additional limits placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a state by citizens of another state, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.   In other words if citizens of a State sues a State, or foreign government sues a State, the case can't go to the federal courts. The highest that case can go is the State Supreme Court. These limitations placed upon the court system by the 11th Amendment were proposed by the people (House of Representatives) and the States (Senate), and finally ratified by the States, in order to better control a federal court system that was attempting to compromise State Sovereignty. Judges, the lesson of the 11th Amendment shows us, are not the wielders of the rule of law. They are not the powerful men of honor when it comes to the law. The guardians of the rule of law are the people, and the States. The courts had proven that they can become an enemy of the law, proclaiming that their rulings are the rule of law, but as the 11th Amendment reminds us, the judges are merely men, and their system is the rule of man attempting to manipulate the law through their rulings. For their bad behavior, the people and the States judged them, and further limited them with a new constitutional amendment.     Good Behavior   The conventional understanding of the terms of federal judges is that they receive lifetime appointments because no time restriction is placed upon them in the Constitution. The only limitation on term placed upon the judges can be found in Article III, Section 1 where the Constitution states that judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, "shall hold their offices during good behavior." Conventional wisdom dictates that bad behavior is defined as unlawful activities.   The definition of bad behavior is not limited to only illegal activities. Judges take an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution, which is the Law of the Land. Bad behavior, then, from the point of view of the Founding Fathers, may also include unconstitutional actions, or failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.   Impeachment by Congress may be used if a judge acts in bad behavior. If a judge refuses to attend the hearing at the behest of the United States Senate, the federal marshall may be used to retrieve the judge, and compel them to stand before Congress to answer for their bad behavior. Congress is the check and balance against the courts, not the other way around.           Limits   The powers of the federal courts "shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."   The federal courts, in other words, may hear all cases that fall within their authority. These cases are regarding those in which the federal government has authority, be it by laws passed within the authorities granted to the federal government by the Constitution, or regarding issues related to treaties made that have been signed by the President and ratified by the U.S. Senate. The courts may not hear cases that are regarding issues not within the authorities of the federal government.   A recent example would be the flurry of federal court rulings against State laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California, the State's attempt to protect the government definition of marriage was with Proposition 8. The proposition changed the State Constitution to read that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is not an issue that falls under the authorities of the federal government as expressly granted by the Constitution, nor is the issue of marriage prohibited to the States. Therefore, as per the authorities granted, and not granted, in line with the 10th Amendment, the government authority over marriage is reserved to the States. Since the issue of marriage is a State issue, the case should not have gone beyond the State Supreme Court. The federal courts hearing the case regarding Proposition 8, or any of the State laws regarding marriage, are acting unconstitutionally. The governors of these States, whose marriage laws were overturned by an activist federal court system, have the right to disregard all rulings by the federal courts on this issue. The action of ignoring the rulings is a type of nullification, and States have the right to nullify unconstitutional laws or actions by the federal government..   Other limitations have been placed upon the federal courts as well. The 11th Amendment changed the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795. The 11th Amendment was encouraged by a federal case called Chisolm v. Georgia (1793).     Chisolm v. Georgia (1793)   An increasing problem with federal intrusion on the States via the federal court system culminated in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued the State of Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The judges in the court system tended to embrace a nationalist view of the federal government, and their nationalist point of view encouraged the judges to deem that in the Chisolm v. Georgia case, Georgia was not a sovereign state, therefore the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the states, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.   Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over state sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the founders saw the legislative branch, and the States, as being a more powerful part of government over the federal judiciary.   Authorities   The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The federal courts are included in that, as being a part of the United States federal government. As a result of the nature of how federal authorities are granted, the federal court system can only hear cases that fall within the constitutional authorities for the federal government.   When one understands the importance of protecting state sovereignty, and that the courts are supposed to be very limited in their scope and power, Article III becomes much simpler to understand.   As stated earlier in this section, the first sentence of Article III, Section 2, reads: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States (which are only supposed to be passed if they are within the authorities granted by the Constitution), and Treaties made . . .   Notice the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." If the case is not involving the federal government as one of the parties, or is not regarding an issue that falls under the authorities of the U.S. Constitution, the federal courts can simply not take the case. The State Supreme Court, in those cases, is the highest court the case can go to.     Judicial Review   Federal judges maintain that the federal courts have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important concept of the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not the courts, argued the Founding Fathers who supported the foundation of limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.   In today's society it is commonly accepted that one of the roles of the federal court system is to interpret the Constitution, and issue rulings determining the constitutionality of laws. The Constitution does not grant this authority. The power of Judicial Review was given to the courts by themselves.   The first attempt to establish "Judicial Review" as an authority to the federal court system was through the Judiciary act of 1789, but the authority allowing the United States federal courts to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the United States Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party, was limited to only the United States Supreme Court. The lower federal courts, at this point, were not allowed hear cases questioning the federal government's "federal question jurisdiction." Anti-federalists, and Jefferson Republicans immediately railed against the legislation, arguing that legislation cannot determine authorities granted.   The Federalists, in an attempt to allow the lower courts to wield the power of judicial review, briefly created such jurisdiction in the Judiciary Act of 1801, but it was repealed the following year. Unable to establish the federal court system as the final arbiters of the United States Constitution through legislative means, the Federalists turned to the courts themselves to drive into place the controversial authority.   During John Adams' final moments in the presidency, he appointed a whole host of "midnight judges" (appointing 16 Federalist circuit judges and 42 Federalist justices of the peace to offices created by the Judiciary Act of 1801) in the hopes of retaining federalist control of the courts as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans gained control of the Congress, and Jefferson himself accepted the presidency.   Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were appalled by the appointment of the Midnight Judges, recognizing the stacking of the courts as a desperate attempt by the Federalists to try and continue Federalist influence despite their election loss. In Jefferson's view, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold . . . and from that battery all the works of Republicanism are to be beaten down and destroyed."   While Adams was still in office, most of the commissions for these newly appointed judges were delivered. However, unable to deliver all of them before Adams' term expired, some of them were left to be delivered by the incoming Secretary of State, James Madison. Jefferson ordered them not to be delivered, and without the commissions delivered, the remaining new appointees were unable to assume the offices and duties to which they had been appointed to by Adams. In Jefferson's opinion, the undelivered commissions were void.   One of those appointed judges was a man named William Marbury. He sued, and the case worked its way up to the Supreme Court. After all of the dust settled, on February 24, 1803, the Court rendered a unanimous (4-0) decision that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the power to force Madison to deliver the commission. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court, and in that opinion he wrote that the federal court system has the power of judicial review. Rather than simply applying the law to the cases, Marshall decided, based on case law and precedent, that the courts have the authority to determine the validity of the law as well. This opinion, however, went against all of the limitations placed on the courts by the Constitution.   One of the most obvious fundamental principles of the Constitution is the limitations it places on the federal government. The Constitution is designed not to tell the federal government what it can't do, but to offer enumerated powers to which the authorities of the federal government are limited to. The powers are granted by the States, and any additional authorities must also be approved by the States through the ratification of any proposed amendments. It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. The congressional proposal of an amendment, with the ratification of that amendment, in the simplest terms, is the federal government asking the States for permission to a particular authority.   The power of Judicial Review, or the authority to determine if laws are constitutional, was not granted to the courts by the States in the Constitution. The courts took that power upon themselves through Justice Marshall's opinion of Marbury v. Madison.   The federal courts are a part of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit the authorities of the federal government by granting only a limited number of powers. Judicial Review enables the federal government, through the courts, to determine if the laws that the federal government made are constitutional. In other words, the federal government, through Judicial Review, can determine for itself what its own authorities are.   The idea that the federal court system has the authority to interpret the Constitution, and can decide if a law is constitutional or not, is unconstitutional, and is simply an attempt by those that believe in big government to gain power, and work towards a more centralized big federal governmental system.     Original Jurisdiction   In Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 the Constitution reads: "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."   What this means is that in all of those above listed cases, the federal appellate courts cannot take the case. Such cases must bypass the federal appellate system, and go straight to the Supreme Court. Since one of those stipulations is in regards to cases "in which a State shall be a Party," that means that the case "U.S. v. Arizona" where the federal government sued Arizona to block the State's immigration law, was unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional for the inferior federal courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court had original jurisdiction. Therefore, when the district court ruled in July of 2010 on the case, and struck down parts of the Arizona immigration law, not only did that court not have jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, but the very act of striking down portions of the law was unconstitutional. After all, Article I, Section 1 grants the legislative branch all legislative powers, and those powers would include the ability to strike down law. The courts were not vested with any legislative powers, and therefore cannot strike down laws, or portions of laws.     Trial by Jury   Article III, Section II, Clause 3 sets up the right to a trial by jury, except in the cases of impeachment.   This clause also requires that a trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.       Treason   Article III, Section 3 defines treason, as well as the granting of the power by the Congress to declare the punishment. When the Constitution says that "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained," it means that the punishment cannot be inherited or passed down (corruption of blood), nor shall the person be denied due process (attainder).   Corruption of blood also means that all inheritable qualities are destroyed, and the Founding Fathers did not believe this English practice should be an American one.   No forfeiture meant that despite treason, the properties of the person could not be forfeited to the government. The property would remain as property of the individual, or remain with family. Even when it came to the despicable act of treason, the founders believed that the individual should be able to retain certain rights.     Terms:   Corruption of Blood: Punishment inherited or passed down, all inheritable qualities are destroyed.   Judicial Review: The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.   Original Jurisdiction: In the Constitution the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on some cases, which means the case must proceed directly to the Supreme Court, and the high court must make a determination on whether or not to accept the case.   Treason:Levying war against the States, or adhering to the enemies of the States, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.   Questions for Discussion:   1. How would life in the United States be different if there was no federal court system?   2. Why did the Founding Fathers limit the authorities of the federal courts?   3. How has Judicial Review changed our system of government?   4. Why do you think the Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction over some cases?   5. In what ways is the presence of a Judicial Branch important?   Resources:   Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions (Jefferson's Draft), Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jeffken.asp   Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp   Virginia Resolution - Alien and Sedition Acts, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virres.asp Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2015