Michigan's Call for Convention has Stirred up Fears of a Con-Con

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Long before the arguments against an Article V. Convention were emerging, I was calling for convention, as an important tool for turning around our republic, and setting it back on the path toward restoration.

Because of Michigan's recent call for convention, the folks that have been spreading hysterical fear about a "Con-Con" have come out in full force.  I want to set the record straight, and tell everyone that not only do you not have to fear, but that the convention opportunity is our best way to get this nation turned around, and do it before it is too late!

Below is yet another email exchange between I, and someone scared to death of convention:

CHOOSE FREEDOM – STOP THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION !

  

http://www.jbs.org/issues-pages/no-con-con                

Don't give our INTERNET TO THE MUSLIMS! END OF FREE SPEECH!

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with

a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. 

-- J. Edgar Hoover

SUPPOR CITIZENS AGAINST AGENDA 21

www.citizensagainstagenda21.com

www.infowars.com

SAVE YOUR PROPERTIES, YOUR FREEDOMS AND LIVES - STOP AGENDA 21 AND

COMMON CORE, THE INDOCTRINATION OF OUR YOUTH TO SOCIALISM.

DUMBOCRAT SICKO LIER

DEATH PANELS ARE NEEDED TO PAY FOR THE UNISURED !

THE IDENTIFY THEFT ACT! OBUMMERCARE IS

HIS TOOL TO DESTROY AMERICA! REFUSE IT!

----------------------------------------

My Response:

I respectfully disagree.

First of all, Michigan is not calling for a Con-Con, but an Article V. Convention, which is very different. Second, as Federalist 85 states in defense of this mechanism given to us by the Founding Fathers, the fail-safe against a "runaway convention" is the 3/4 ratification requirement. Finally, to be afraid to use a tool and do nothing at all is worse than trying to get this turned around, even if the tool may be frightening, and require us to keep an eye on the enemy more closely. If we are so afraid to use the tools the founders gave us through the Constitution that we don't use them, we are doomed to fall into the tyranny they warned us about.

Please read:

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-war-of-con-con.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2009/09/understanding-constitutional-convention.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/05/myth-5-con-con-article-v-convention.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/07/limbaughs-are-wrong-about.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/01/friends-of-article-v-convention-co.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/02/liberal-left-article-v-convention.html

Thank you (and please read each and every one, they each present important arguments, and explanations, to better educate you to make a reasonable decision.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA AM1050
Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com

Hard Starboard Radio: The Liberal Gulag

Brendan Eich would not recant, so he had to be punished; Eich and others who opposed sodomarriage, even years ago, are being punished as well; The Brendan Eich case brings out the nature of liberal fascism; The culture being built brick-by-brick right now by the Left is illiberal and totalitarian; And why, oh why, are U.S. military bases, of all places, "soft" targets?

The world turned upside-down at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Now who's gonna catch the bouquet?

The War of Con-Con

In response to an email critical of "convention," I prepared a response with some basic facts hopefully for understanding.

First, highlights of the email I received:

Doug,

What is your view on the list of opinions below ? Looks like Levin has some diagreements.

As one respondent kindly informed us yesterday, the genie is out of the bottle. Michigan became the state that enables the con-con. Here is what we need to look for:

Targeted amendment. It is said to be a balanced budget amendment. Look for any changes in this target. I do not expect any, but you never know.

Deadline for balancing the budget: Given the kind of Congress we have, you can look for a deadline far enough into the future that the economy can be further damaged beyond repair (although, honestly, we will not ever pay off our debt as it is and unpaid liabilities bring the total to at least 100 trillion. Nothing can save us from a future collapse unless the laws of mathematics change. I wouldn't put it past the government to try that!)

Exceptions: Look at the wording of the new amendment, assuming it is passed. Are there any clauses that enable the govenrment to get around this, such as national emergencies? There is ALWAYS a national emergency and that is how the government has always managed to convince the sheeple that more money must be spent or the unthinkable will happen. It is sleight of hand.

Further down the road, watch the government to see how it slyly avoids complying. Watch the Supreme Court to see how it reacts to the new amendment. It may require mitigating clauses and the public will again grab its ankles.

Again, consider the options in the likely event of a failure. Nullification is the best option. More States only have to grow a pair and just refuse to comply. It is their right, notably under the 10th Amendment. That is, unless this con-con decides to eliminate that amendment. Anything can happen now.

Read Article 1.Section 8 [Excuse me, I wrote that, but I oppose it--Don]. A Balanced Amendment is no good if the politicians balance the budget and then spends like drunken politicians. The purpose of the Law is to set a standard, punish with consequences for not keeping the standard, and the restore to the standard of the law. Thus Protection and Order results. The problem is the the politicians believe they are exempt from the law. If you look up Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America that was given to Newt by the Heritage Foundation, you will see the first promise (LIE) was they would pass a law that they would live by the same laws the people live by. My question is, where in the Document did they figure they already are above the law ? The go thru the rest of the list in the 1994 CWA and you will realize how asleep the people are when Newt brags about the success of the CWA. He is an immoral man. This contract reflects his life and political career.

I've been afraid of the con-con coming to fruition for over 25 yrs.

If the Left wants it, that should tell us what we need to know, given
the havoc they would wreak if given the license.

But this crisis is *also* an educational opportunity, not to be
wasted. When on the verge of losing the USC, perhaps some can be
enlightened about it's value -- and how to restore it.

Do you read Levin? Here's my answer...First have him support us on "BHO's providing his valid, rightly-certified birth documentation as his unquestionable proof of natural born citizen, POTUS eligibility, even if first proving he is a citizen".

This wipes out any need for an "NBC" definition contest...and makes it on the same exact plain as any kid MUST do to play in our little leagues, Pop Warner football or virtually any organized sport.
Then, when it's resolved,. we'll consider it as he will have showed "good faith". And what levin should do is provide to every participant first HIS list of exactly what he wants to change and have everyone sign off on it...or not/

For our part though, on that score, our answer is ENFORCE the Constitution as it is first.

He goes out of his way to denounce the JBS, because they have been the leader on the anti-concon resistance. I found an article by [husband’s name] written in the 60s demanding the end of the Fed. It is scary to see how those of us who want to defend the constitution, but can be tricked by Levin types. I scanned the other emails you have posted. This govt that our Founders gave us is NOT easy for the average person to understand. I have to work at it and I've been living this for 50 years.

There was a big push for a con con in the late '80s. Dick Fatherley, Richard, was part of the push back to this movement. He made a speech exposing the dangers of a runaway convention. Google Dick Fatherley. He was a major radio announcer from the Kansas City area. Won awards and actually had some voice overs that played on Limbaugh's show. He became famous for denouncing the wheat give aways to the Soviets. He would open his show with the line, "Kansas City, bread basket of the Soviet Union." After that, no station would allow him behind a 'live' mike. So funny. He was one of the heroes. He gave his career to the freedom fight. He had an incredible voice and talent. You would laugh when he read the phone book.
Dick and others have really educated many people about the thing that Levin is pushing. That is what he is mad at. I don't know if his plan is that different from the convention that conservatives are alarmed over.
Dick, also, led the charge over Desmond Tutu or Mandela touring the U S. Dick was living in the Miami at the time and it was on the major cities tour. I think he changed Miami's mind about welcoming Tutu/Mandela. Dick had been a speaker for the JBS in the '80s exposing the media.

You might enjoy chasing down this part of the history of conservatives not wanting a con con.

My Response:

First of all, Levin did not call for a con-con.  He calls for an Article V. Convention, which is a totally different animal.  People use the term con-con for propaganda, to frighten us away from the tool available to us.

Second, a balanced budget amendment is not necessary and would muddy the waters.  If spending was cut back to only constitutional authorities, the budget would balance, and there would be a surplus.  Based on my calculations, a complete elimination of all unconstitutional spending would reduce our federal spending to about 5% of GDP, and we would have the entire debt paid off within my lifetime (I am 48).

Third, Levin is a lawyer.  He used to be against a convention, and his understanding of the originalist view of the Constitution is not always on track, because his view of it is obstructed by his legal training which promotes case law as being the "interpretation" of the Constitution, and disregards the originalist point of view.  In law school, the Constitution is not even opened.  The lessons about constitutional law are regarding the opinions of judges.  I have had two lawyers take my class, and proclaim that they learned more from me than they did from law school.  Until Levin let's go of the judicial influence in his opinions, we will have to continue to carefully scrutinize what he says or writes before we can endorse it.

The John Birch Society does a lot of good, but I disagree with them on their stance regarding convention.  Theirs is an anti-constitutional view.  Though I am not a big fan of Alexander Hamilton, he did understand the original intent, because he was there, and his Federalist 85 is a very good defense of convention, the fail safe being the requirement of 3/4 ratification.  Aside from that disagreement, I have a very good relationship with the JBS.  In fact, the local chapter has had me as a speaker a number of times, and we are working together on a number of projects locally, such as our fight against Agenda 21, and attending together as a one-two punch in meetings with local politicians.

Finally, as tools available to patriots, there are three kinds of conventions.  There has been only one Constitutional Convention (Con-con), and there should only be one.  An Article V. Convention is a valuable tool as long as We the People ensure that the delegates are trusted members of our communities, who understand the originalist intent of the Constitution, and as long as the fail-safe 3/4 ratification remains in place.  The third is a concept not discussed much, and one that my organization, The Constitution Association, is working to put into place.  It is closer along the lines of what was intended in regards to State Sovereignty, and the States being the final arbiters of the Constitution.  A "Republic Review" (term coined by G.R. Mobley) is a convention of the States to review federal law and actions to determine by ratification standards if those actions are constitutional or not, and if not, for those States to then unify in nullification.  An Article V. Convention would probably follow up the Republic Review in order to institute amendments necessary.

Blessings,

 

Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitution Radio, KCAA AM1050
Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com

Jeb Bush: Illegal Immigration "An Act Of Love"

by JASmius

I don't think Jeb is seriously interested in a presidential run if he's tossing out verbal chum like this into the political waters.  He couldn't infuriate the GOP grassroots more flagrantly if he publicly embraced ObamaCare:

Jeb Bush, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, said on Sunday that illegal immigrants who come to the United States to provide for their families are not committing a felony but an "act of love." 

In comments at odds with the views of many in his party, Bush, the son of the 41st president and brother of the 43rd, said of the divisive immigration issue: "I think we need to kind of get beyond the harsh political rhetoric to a better place. 

"I'm going to say this and it will be on tape and so be it," Bush said in an interview with Fox News host Shannon Bream in an event at the Texas presidential library of his father, George H.W. Bush. 

"The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn't come legally ... and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work, to be able to provide for their family, yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony. 

"It's an act of love, it's an act of commitment to your family. 

Bush, 61, added: "I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime. There should be a price paid, but it shouldn't rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families."

"Act of love"?  Perhaps for some illegals it is, though sure as hell not for all of them.  But that doesn't matter; what matters is they're breaking the law, and that law must be enforced, including deportation, just like every other country on the planet does it.  The defense of border control and national sovereignty isn't "harsh rhetoric," it's about national self-preservation.  A country that refuses to control its borders and preserve the meaning of citizenship within them is not a country at all.  Historically nations that allowed themselves to be passively overrun by foreign peoples soon ceased being nations.

Somebody needs to ask 'Pubbies like Jeb Bush just exactly what they think it means to be an American, what they think it should mean, and where this amnesty-propelled stampede of Hispanics into the GOP column has been hiding for all these years.  Because its absence is most conspicuous, indeed.

Democrats Joining Republicans In Protest Over Medicare Advantage Cuts

by JASmius

Evidently there are some Democrats who still are under the anachronistic impression that this country is still a constitutional federal republic subject to the popular sovereignty of the American people:

Several Democrats — including some lawmakers whose re-election bids are seen as vulnerable in this year's midterm races — are joining Republicans in calling for the Obama administration to stop proposed cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.

Administration officials plan to announce the 2015 rates for the program on Monday, reports the Hill, and could prove a sensitive issue as both parties are courting the senior citizens who tend to turn out in high numbers to vote in midterms.

Republicans say the program is a valid private alternative to Medicare, as it allows seniors to enroll in plans offered by private insurers, who are then directly paid by the federal government.

Until now, Democrats have complained that the plan receives a disportionate amount of money compared to the Medicare program, and ObamaCare was partially funded through $200 billion in cuts over ten years.

"Until now," eh?  Gee, what has taken place in recent times to change Democrats' previous complaint, and what is on the near temporal horizon that could reinforce that change of heart?

Ah, yes:

Opponents include Senators. Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, considered two of the Democratic Party's most vulnerable senators seeking re-election. But some powerful Democrats are also speaking out, including Senators Charles Schumer and Michael Bennett.

Opponents staged a protest on the House floor Thursday to ramp up the pressure on Obama.

"I oppose these cuts, and I have called upon the president to reverse course and protect this critical program," said Democratic Representative Ron Barber of Arizona.

Schumer and Bennett are next up for re-election in 2016, so their day of reckoning is starting to come over the horizon as well.

Still, I have to admit I'm a tad puzzled by Donk alarm.  Weren't they paying attention last Tuesday?  ObamaCare met its "enrollment" goal!  That means ObamaCare is wildly popular and Democrats can run on it instead of away from it, just like Nancy Pelosi keeps saying!  Did Pryor and Landrieu and Schumer and Bennett and Barber and the rest not get the memo?  So who cares about Medicare Advantage?

And then there's the allegedly toxic Paul Ryan budget, with its own "massive" Medicare and Medicaid "cuts" that will be the Dems' "salvation" if House Republicans muster the "foolish" gumption to pass it anyway.  Why aren't Pryor and Landrieu and Schumer and Bennett and Barber and the rest demagogueing that instead of cravenly succumbing to the Medicare Advantage manipulations of the "Republican Attack Machine"?  It's almost as if they still think that having cast the deciding vote for ObamaCare is still a liability or something:

The issue is already coming up in early primaries, with Republicans who vowed to make ObamaCare the key issue this election cycle tying Democrats to the proposed Medicare Advantage cuts.

And even though Landrieu opposes the cuts, Representative Bill Cassidy, R-LA6, has attacked her over them, saying that her vote helped get ObamaCare approved and bring about the cuts that she now opposes.

And suddenly, the logic, such as it is, presents itself: imperiled Donks are better off defending Medicare Advantage - which is, in essence, to oppose spending cuts - then they are defending ObamaCare itself.  Senator Landrieu would be better off defending the release of nude pictures of herself on the Internet than she would talking about ObamaCare in any way, shape, or form, even a complete about-face to advocacy of repeal.

Still doesn't explain why Donks aren't trying to change the subject to the Ryan budget, though.  Or the nude Internet pics of Mark Pryor.  That'd probably restore his popularity.  Worked for Turgid Tony Weiner, didn't it?

Representative McCaul: "They Defend Us Overseas, Yet They're Defenseless At Bases"

by JASmius

It is a curious juxtaposition, isn't it?:

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul believes the ban on carrying weapons on military bases should be lifted to help prevent further attacks like last week's at Fort Hood, Texas, but retired Admiral Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, does not agree.

Let's put their base arguments side by side and see which one makes more sense.  Also, bear in mind that while Admiral Mullen was appointed JCS chairman by President Bush, he was retained in that capacity by Red Barry, indicating ideological "flexibility," and a compatibility with the Dark Side.

First, Chairman McCaul:

During appearances on "Fox News Sunday" and CBS' "Face the Nation," McCaul, R-TX10, that last week's shootings, in which Specialist Ivan Lopez opened fire and killed four people, including himself, call for a "reanalysis of protection policies."

"I think we need to talk to the commanders whether it would make sense for some of our senior leadership officers opportunity to carry weapons for protection," he said on "Face the Nation."

"Ideally what you want to have are more military police officers but in the current budget climate it's not as realistic. So a force multiplier of officers and enlisted men we can trust, the senior leadership to have them carry. Because, it only takes a few minutes to ruin and kill a large number of soldiers. Anytime we see soldier on soldier it's one of the most tragic things we can see. And if we had senior leadership armed maybe they could have stopped it before it got worse."

Seems logical and reasonable.  It's both common sense and established fact that "active shooters" gravitate to "soft" targets, and nothing is "softer" than a "gun-free zone".  The reason is elementarily simple: Since nobody in a "gun-free zone" is armed, an active shooter knows nobody will shoot back at him.  Whereas in a "concealed & carrying zone," some or all of the people there may be equipped and trained to defend themselves, making the prospects a lot dicier for the Ivan Lopez's of the world.

This, of course, used to be the case until twenty years ago, when Bill Clinton, in one of his first actions as Commander-in-Chief, ordered that all military bases be - drumroll, please - "gun-free zones".  The wonder is that there haven't been more shooting sprees like the ones at Fort Hood, Naval Station Norfolk, the Washington Naval Yard, and elsewhere.  But the trend is definitely rising.

And now, Admiral Mullen:

But military officials, including Mullen, disagree with McCaul's opinion, pointed out Virginia Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, who said he would support lifting the ban if military officials agreed.

“If the military reassess and says that’s the right strategy, then I’m going to support it,” he said. “For those of us in Congress [to] say, here’s what they should do, I worry whether it would be political rather than about safety and security."

Mullen, appearing on "Meet the Press" said that allowing soldiers to carry weapon on base will not solve the increase in attacks.

"I’m not one — as someone who has been on many, many bases and posts — that would argue for arming anybody who is on base," said Mullen. "I think that actually invites much more difficult challenges."

He said that he is sure the Fort Hood incident will cause Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to review procedures needed to protect people on bases, but "I'd be much more in the camp of fixing it that way and focusing on the individuals rather than routinely allowing arms on any military base in the country."

But Mullen does not think incidents such as the Fort Hood shootings are just a military problem, but also are a threat on the national level

"Now that more people are coming home, I think we’re going to see an increased number of challenges associated with that, and we all need to wrap our arms around the force to help them deal with that," Mullen said. “[But] I don’t think this is just a military problem, it’s a national problem. We’re short mental health professionals in the military, just as we are across the country."

You can see why Admiral Mullen was a "good fit" in the Obama Regime, cantcha?

Here his error is in addressing the lifting of the on-base gun ban and the shortage of mental health professionals in the military as an either/or proposition.  Yes, the "more people coming home" adjustment issues, PTSD, etc. are matters that need to be dealt with, and that's fine.  But in the mean time there are armed nutcases, both uniformed and civilian, that keep finding their way onto military bases and turning them into combat areas.  Sure, let's "wrap our arms around the force," but let's also make sure "we're" armed just in case someone or ones in the force are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, or are, as in the case of "Major" Hasan, not really "part of the force".

Advantage: Chairman McCaul.

I think this graphic sums it up.

When America Steps Back. . .

By Douglas V. Gibbs

President Obama has pulled America's missile defense system out of Europe and Russia has annexed Crimea and is threatening Ukraine, withdrew from Syria and allowed Russia to influence the bloodbath that is going on, pulled all American support out of Iraq and al-Qaeda has taken back that country, portrayed weakness and orchestrated full withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban is back in control, and has ensured secular Muslim leaders such as those in Libya and Egypt has been removed from their position of power so as to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to takeover.

Condoleeza Rice, former Secretary of State under George W. Bush, said it best, when alleging that America's "weariness" over foreign entanglements (encouraged by a liberal left that spent more time pointing fingers than supporting our efforts overseas strictly for political reasons), and Barack Obama's weak handling of foreign policy, enabled Vladimir Putin's land grab in Crimea, among other diplomatic crises. . .

"When America steps back. . . trouble will fill that vacuum."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Time Magazine, April 14, 2014; p 9

Constitution Study Radio: Lesson 08, Legislative Branch

UPCOMING BROADCASTS

00:30 minutes

Postponed to 10: 00 AM live, or listen anytime once the show is archived:

Constitution Study Radio: Lesson 08 - Legislative Branch

Lesson 08: Legislative Branch 

- Legislative Powers 

- House of Representatives 

- U.S. Senate 

- Elections 

- Procedure 

- Compensation, Privileges, Restrictions

Join Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio, Constitution Radio on KCAA 1050AM, and the Constitution Association, as he journeys through the United States Constitution. We will study the concepts, principles, and direct text of the U.S. Constitution from the original point of view of the Founding Fathers.

New episodes each Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time. The link above is also good for listening to the podcasts of past episodes.

Also, remember, Doug's new book, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution is available on Amazon, and CreateSpace

Heated Testimony Over Obama's Benghazi B.S.

by JASmius

That's another thing I love about Trey Gowdy.  Not only does he take no prisoners, but he's so good he saves me keystrokes.  Pity Benghazigate is such a manifestly lost cause, or TG's media appearances might just be better than sex.

Constitution Radio and Republic Review. . . to save a nation

CONSTITUTION RADIO WITH DOUGLAS V. GIBBS

Listen live at 2:00 PM on 1050 AM in Southern California on KCAA, or you can listen at KCAAradio.com. Dial in to join the conversation: 888-909-1050. Podcasts of all shows are available at KCAA.

Today's Guest G.R. Mobley will takes us down the road to convention, in light of the latest news about Michigan calling for an Article V. Convention - But Mobley's recommendation is a Republic Review!

After the Book of the Week, and the Constitution Quest Question of the Week, we will discuss the. . .

EEEEEK!!!!

5, Uh, I mean “12” Big Stories of the Week, April 5, 2014

Hon. Mention/12.  Prayer

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/maryland-county-commissioner-willing-to.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/public-school-to-5-year-old-its-not.html

Hon. Mention/11.  8.0 Earthquake Strikes Off Coast of Chile

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/massive-80-earthquake-strikes-off-coast.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/yellowstone-joins-earthquake-storm.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/earthquake-fears-grip-los-angeles.html

Hon. Mention/10.  North Korea and South Korea Exchange Fire

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/shots-fired-between-korean-maritime.html

Hon. Mention/9.  CIA Confirms What We Already Knew About Benghazi

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/cia-no-benghazi-riot-talking-points.html

Hon. Mention/8.  Obama discontinues Key Missile Programs

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/obama-to-discontinue-tomahawk-and.html

Hon. Mention/7.  NSA Confirms Warrantless Searches

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/nsa-confirms-warrantless-searches.html

Hon. Mention/6.  Anti-Gun Democrat Busted for Weapons Trafficking

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/anti-gun-senator-busted-for-missile.html

5.  Shooting at Fort Hood

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/another-shooting-spree-fort-hood-video.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/active-shooter-at-fort-hood-1-dead-14.html

4.  Finland and Bulgaria Wary of Russian Expansionism

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/russia-eyes-finland.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/bulgaria-wary-of-russian-expansionism.html

3.  Obamacare Deadline

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/obamacare-deadline.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/gop-slams-obamacare-figures-ultimate.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/obamacares-cooked-books.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-difference-between-obamacare-and.html

2.  Secret Amnesty Ploy

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/secret-amnesty-ploy.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/03/biden-illegal-aliens-are-already.html

1.  Paul Ryan’s Budget Bill

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/dick-morris-house-gop-should-reject.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2014/04/ryan-budget-cuts-spending-by-5-trillion.html

Dick Morris's 2014 Senate Scoreboard

by JASmius

Maybe Barack Obama's ObamaCare enrollment April Fool's joke will have an impact, maybe it won't.  But right now, the GOP's prospects are looking better and better:

Republicans lead in seven Michigan

Land (R) 40
Peters (D) 38

(Open seat; Carl Levin retired; amazing run for a Republican in deeply blue state)

North Carolina

Tillis (R) 46*
Hagan (D) 45

(Tillis leads in tough primary; Hagan well under 50% of the vote)

Alaska
Treadwell (R) 47*
Begich (D) 43

(Treadwell faces tough primary but Begish is way behind and further under 50%)

Montana

Daines (R) 51
Walsh (D) 37

(Open seat; it's over)

Louisiana

Cassidy (R) 46
Landrieu (D) 42

(Landrieu way under 50%)

South Dakota

Rounds (R) 51
Weiland (D) 31

(Open seat; it's over)

West Virginia

Capito (R) 49
Tennant (D) 35

(Open seat; it's over)

Republican tied in one

Arkansas

Cotton (R) 46
Pryor (D) 46

(Pryor is under 50%)

Republican close in three

Iowa

Jacobs (R) 38*
Braley (D) 41

(Open seat; Jacobs still faces tough primary, but possible pickup)

Colorado

Gardner (R) 40
Udall (D) 42

(Udall way under 50%)

Minnesota

Ortman (R) 41*
Franken (D) 44

(Franken way under 50%)

That's a GOP pickup of seven seats; I'd include Arkansas in that category because Mark Pryor is a dead man walking in a state that "red," and I don't think Mitch McConnell is in any real trouble, or he wouldn't have gotten re-elected in the disastrous 2008 cycle.  So that'd be an eight seat pickup with the possibility of three more.  Sweet - but there's a loooooooong way to go.

Exit question: Would a 56-44 Republican Senate and 250+ Republicans in the House change the despotic, Obamacentric power realities in D.C.?

American Daily Review: Spring Cleaning Edition

Pray while you still legally can, because Earthquakes and the Koreas are starting to rumble.  Benghazi is becoming more clear as Obama dismantles our ability to defend this nation.  The government knows what you are doing, though they hate to admit their own anti-gun proponents have their hands in a cookie jar full of missiles.  Shooting has resumed at Fort Hood, while Finland and Bulgaria expect the shooting to start in their neck of the woods, too.  But it is all okay, now, because Obamacare's deadline has passed, as the Republicans try to commit suicide with amnesty, and budget bills.

UPCOMING BROADCASTS

02:00 Hours beginning at Noon Pacific

American Daily Review

Welcome to the pre-game show for Constitution Radio on the Political Pistachio Radio Network [(KCAA-1050AM (Los Angeles), KCXL-1140AM (Kansas City), and WHTH-790AM (Youngstown, Ohio)]! Hang on every word of Blog Talk... more

by ADR CoXHost
in Politics Conservative

Constitution Corner: "Regulate"

by Douglas V. Gibbs

The word "Regulate" appears in the U.S.Constitution twice.  The first time is in Article I, Section 8 in the Commerce Clause.  The clause gives the authority to the federal government to regulate commerce, including commerce between the States.  The second time is in the Second Amendment, where gun rights are protected by the well-known amendment that begins, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . ."

In today's vernacular, we automatically assume that when the government is given the authority to regulate, it means "to control," or "restrict."  However, that was not the intent of the word during the Constitutional Convention in 1787.  If one refers to the definition of the word in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary, one finds the definitions are not necessarily as expected.

The primary definition in the 1828 Webster's dictionary of the word "regulated" concerns weights and measures.  For example, when you determine how much sugar to put in your coffee, you are regulating the amount.  The final definition, or "the least used," listed in Webster's early 19th Century dictionary, is closer to today's primary definition, assigning to the word the meaning of "control," and "to restrict."  The second definition, however, is the one the founders were focusing on.  Some constitutionalists will say that during that time the word meant, "To make regular," which is correct. However, Webster's 1828 dictionary gives us a better and more accurate wording: "To put in good order."  So, for the federal government to "regulate commerce," it is their job to put commerce in good order by acting as a mediator between the States.  A "well-regulated militia" is a militia that is in good order, properly uniformed, well-trained, and with standard weapons and munitions.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trey Gowdy vs. Jim Moran On Congressional Impoverishment

by JASmius

Moran makes quite a Bob Cratchit, doesn't he?

Mozilla CEO Resignation Raises Free-Speech Issues

by JASmius

Well, not exactly.  Yes, it raises speech issues, but it ought to be obvious as the nose on my face that free speech is a thing of the distant, ancient past, depending on what it is that you wish to say:

The resignation of Mozilla's CEO amid outrage that he supported an anti-gay marriage campaign....

Stop the tape.  Not even a full sentence into the lede and the first tell-tale sign of semantical deck-stacking already appears.  No, Assholiated Press, it was not "an anti-gay marriage campaign," it was a defense of true, traditional marriage by opposing the police power of the state being used to force everybody to recognize and accept, to describe it in corporate terms, a hostile, debased takeover.

....is prompting concerns about how Silicon Valley's strongly liberal culture might quash the very openness that is at the region's foundation.

"Might"?  What "openness"?  Any "strongly liberal culture" will and does inevitably produce fascist levels of "closedness" and vicious intolerance in short order because it is based on an assumed foundation of atheism coupled with moral supremacy.  That's the key difference between a "strongly liberal culture" and a, you know, culture -  and especially a Judeo-Christian one: Yes, we are given the ultimate moral code, but it comes with a humility that recognizes that nobody is capable of keeping it, and consequently we need self-indwelling divine forgiveness and assistance.

Nothing takes the edge off viciousness like the daily reminder of one's own fallibility.  If SiliconValley-ians had that app, this fellow might still have a job today:

Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich stepped down Thursday as CEO, just days after his appointment. He left the nonprofit maker of the Firefox browser after furious attacks, largely on Twitter, over his $1,000 contribution to support of a now-overturned 2008 gay-marriage ban in California.

This raises the other issue of why Eich didn't either ignore this Twit-storm or issue a public statement politely and diplomatically telling his tormenters what to go do with themselves.

There's an exchange from the upcoming X-Men: Days Of Future Past movie in which the young Charles Xavier reproachfully accuses the young Erik Lensherr of taking from him everything he ever held dear.  Lensherr doesn't hang his head in shame or contrition, nor does he seek Xavier's forgiveness; glaring right back at him, the man known as Magneto retorts, "Then you should have fought harder for them!" (Mr. Gibbs will appreciate that line)

To wit: Why didn't Eich - who co-founded Mozilla, after all, so it was, in fact, not him getting bleep-canned but rather his company being ripped away from him - fight for his position against the lynch mob trying to not-so-figuratively drag him out of town and throw him off a cliff?  Did he forget where he lived and worked?  Taking a stand for true, traditional marriage is like being a missionary in the cannibals' village; sooner or later they're going to eat you.  Unless you want to cut straight to martyrdom, you've got to at least cause them to have to stock up on anti-acids.

Implicit in the notion of "standing up to The Man" and "speaking the truth to power" is that (1) "The Man" won't immediately cut and run like a mewling quim and (2) the truth be spoken.  Since Eich had the truth on his side, why did he flee so easily?  Blackmail?  Death threats?  Hostile work environment?  It isn't how Tony Stark would have handled it.

"There was no interest in creating an Internet lynch mob," OkCupid co-founder Sam Yagun, whose dating service site was among those engaged in online protest, said Friday. "I am opposed to that with very bone in my body."

Bull.  Bleep.  Bull-bleeping-bleep.  That is exactly what came after Brendan Eich, you meant to do it, you knew you were doing it, and you're still celebrating it.  He violated your inviolable groupthink and for that unforgivable sin, he had to be destroyed.  You, Mr. Yagun, do not oppose that any more than you oppose breathing, or you wouldn't have been party to it.

But, again, listen to that phony-baloney, plastic banana, good-time-rock n' roll piety.  His erstwhile "friends" and "colleagues" have torn Brendan Eich limb from limb and messily devoured his entrails like a zombie horde for transgressing the biggest tribal taboo - Thou shalt not fail to bow down and worship the Golden Cornhole - and now that the deed is done, back they morph into little angels of light, astonishedly wondering how anybody could see what they did as anything other than what it wasn't.  What would you call driving a man out of his own company over a cultural difference of opinion, Sam?  "Tough love"?  And what would your reaction be in Eich's shoes and in the mirror opposite circumstances?  Do we even have to ask?

But Eich's abrupt departure has stirred the debate over the fairness of forcing out a highly qualified technology executive over his personal views and a single campaign contribution six years ago. And it raises questions about how far corporate leaders are allowed to go in expressing their political views.

What "questions"?  Seems pretty clear to me: corporate leaders are as free as the wind to express their political and cultural views....as long as they're the "right" views.  Otherwise, shut the bleep up.

In retrospect, however, Yagun said he wished he had framed the Firefox boycott in a slightly different light....

Stop the tape.  Bleep you, Yagun.  Ditto the rest of your lib lynch mob.  With big, rubber bleeps.  With thumbtacks and razor blades attached.  How about you try owning what you did to Brendan Eich instead of trying to reconcile it to your own conceited "deified" self-image?  A bubble that is in desperate need of popping.

Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker touched on the delicate balancing act in her Thursday blog post announcing Eich's resignation.

"Mozilla believes both in equality and freedom of speech," Baker said. "Equality is necessary for meaningful speech. And you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard."

My advice to Yagun applies just as much to you, "Ms." Baker.

While a handful of workers at top tech firms including Apple, Yahoo and Google supported the gay-marriage ban, the vast majority gave money to oppose it.

Well, I guess their asses should have been pink-slipped with hellfire missiles, shouldn't they?  After, wouldn't true "fairness" demand it?

Funny how Mr. Eich didn't do so.  I guess we know the wages of gracious restraint, when distributed on yet another one-way street.

Hard Starboard Radio: They'll Shoot ObamaCare, Won't They?

Gawker’s Adam Weinstein suggests arresting those on the “wrong side” of the climate-change debate: This time, for real; The Obama Democrats and IMF want the U.S. to slow down even more and divide up the shrinking, desiccated pie: This time, for real; Why John Kerry collapsed the Middle East: This...ah, !@#$ it; Obama is funny, just not....funny; Another bogus Obamacare enrollment claim; Pro-Obamacare defiance won't save Senate Dems; CoveredOregon: An ObamaCare state exchange for the ages; Time to do the humane thing, pity we can't past The Pen and The Phone to get at it.

The purpose of open thighs is to close on something big at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Just ask Irino Spalko.

Are Democrats In A Political Party Or An Organized Crime Gang?

by JASmius

Democrat politicians are falling like flies. They are being arrested all over this country. You'd almost think the Democratic Party was one big widespread organized crime enterprise.

You'd also think that Barack Obama wouldn't be so lazy as to let so many of his minions be pursued, much less caught, by law enforcement.  After all, law enforcement is only supposed to enforce laws against enemies of the Regime - dishonestly, unfairly, unjustly, and tyrannically.  They're not supposed to actually enforce the law equally, like everybody was on the same level before and under it.  They're only supposed to collect political prisoners, not real ones.  Who the heck is minding the store at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, anyway?

Ah, well.  Never forget that I'm the one that coined the name "La Clinton Nostra" fifteen years ago.  You're a little late to the party, Wayne.

TERRORISTS INTIMIDATE GOP

By James E. Horn, www.jamesehorn.com/

The Moslem Brotherhood’s Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has unleashed a sustained assault on the Republican Party regarding curbing Republican activities in educating Americans in the arena of American politics. This action is consistent with the Moslem Brotherhood’s efforts to suppress the First Amendment rights of free speech, the freedom to speak, and the freedom for others to hear.

The GOP must ignore these bullying jihadi (the holy war against our Constitution) attempts at intimidation aimed at silencing (killing the messengers) America’s important Republican organizations. This is what a patriotic, Constitution supporting organization must do – work tirelessly to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies bothDOMESTIC and foreign. CAIR is a domestic enemy created by Hamas terrorists (three of five of the CAIR founders have been imprisoned and/or deported based on terrorism convictions)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has identified CAIR as a criminal enterprise and has ceased participating in many activities with CAIR. CAIR is not much different than the Mafia. [A book, MOSLEM MAFIA, goes into great detail about CAIR’s criminal activities.]

CAIR is an unindicted (meaning there was not sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction) co-conspirator in the Holy Land Trial where CAIR played a lead role in raising funds, laundering the money, and transferring that money by illegal means to Palestinian terrorist groups. CAIR was founded by Islamist Palestinians using money provided to them by covert (illegal) means. Of the five founders of CAIR, three have been sent to prison on terrorist convictions and/or have been deported from the United States.

CAIR is one of many front organizations operating under the control of the Moslem Brotherhood whose chief objective is to replace our Constitution with Islamic sharia law (and to turn us into a Moslem governed nation such as Pakistan, Gaza, Egypt, etc., where misery, poverty, fear, and hatred rule.) Chief among the objectives of these domestic enemies is to undermine and to cancel out the First Amendment to the Constitution – freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.

Within the American Moslem community, CAIR has notoriously taught Moslems to NOT cooperate with any elements of US law enforcement without a representative of CAIR present to lie for them, etc.
Political discourse is essential to our liberty and the GOP has a long, successful history of playing a major leading role in American politics and should not be silenced by any organization for any reason.

It is imperative that the GOP and all of its affiliates avoid falling for this jihadi operation utilizing these tactics of CAIR (and others) to compel the GOP to become submissive servants of the colonizers (Islam) regarding disseminating truths and facts about political Islam. Political Islam is the most significant existential threat to the USA.

CAIR has intervened to successfully intimidate and bully several significant GOP and conservative entities and functions into submitting to commands ordered by CAIR. This is taking place at the national level (CPAC), state, county/parish, and city levels (with mosques and other such symbols of Islamic conquest). CAIR bullies are working tirelessly to block states from enacting legislation calling for American Laws for American Courts because the Islamists want to impose bigoted Islamic laws on our courts.

On March 31st, CAIR’s Michigan chapter called on Oakland County, MI, Republicans to drop Richard Thompson as a speaker for its April 1 meeting. Thompson is President of the Ann Arbor based Thomas Moore Law Center, an organization well established in educating Americans about Islam and in defending patriots in court when they are attacked by Islamists such as CAIR and dozens of other Moslem Brotherhood mouthpieces.

In many instances, wise, competent people have recognized CAIR (and other Islamic branches of the MB) jihadis efforts to bully their way around, and have thwarted those efforts.

The GOP and all of its entities and leadership should reject CAIR’s intimidation and continue hosting and promoting renowned expert speakers who know, understand, and are not intimidated by Islamist thugs such as CAIR. Most if not all of the below listed speakers have been condemned by Islamists who have issued fatwas (injunctions to silence them) against these very knowledgeable speakers and writers whom the Islamists fear and hate: Bill Warner, Claire Lopez, FBI expert John Guandolo, Andrew Whitehead, Jim Horn, Dave Gaubatz, Tom Trento, Allen West, Steve Amundson, Gary Fouse, Robert Spencer, Congresswoman Michelle Bachman, Pamela Gellar, Nonie Darwish, Steve Martel, Wafa Sultan, Steve Klein, and many more.

CAIR recently mounted an assault on ABC TV for planning to air a (true documentary) show regarding American Citizens being kidnapped from the USA and brought to the Middle East and into servitude, and the USG’s doing little-to-nothing about this crime. CAIR attacked and is trying to block viewers from seeing MOSLEM DIARIES, an educational program depicting atrocities being committed against Moslem women every day.

Colonial Islam is here in America and is encroaching on our freedom and liberty. Given the opportunity, these colonizing Islamist terrorists will do with us Americans just as the Europeans did to the American Indians, annihilate them (us) and their (our) civilization.

Editor's Note: Jim Horn will be the guest speaker at the Constitution Association monthly meeting at Boston Billie's, 26850 Cherry Hills Blvd., Menifee, California at 5:00 pm on Saturday, April 5, 2014.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Networks Refused Prime-Time Slot For Obama Speech

by JASmius

Holy crap.  That's like denying St. Peter's Basilica to the Pope:

The White House asked major TV networks for a prime-time slot for President Barack Obama's Tuesday speech proclaiming Obamacare had reached its 7.1 million enrollment milestone, but network officials rebuffed the request.

Citing three sources familiar with the request, Buzzfeed reports that the broadcasters refused to make any accommodation, leaving Obama to host his address in the Rose Garden during the day while daytime talk shows were airing.

And it isn't even a ratings "sweeps" month, either.  Guess the nets figured that Lost reruns would do better ratings than the forty three trillion and thirty-first Obama "historic" speech.  Ditto a Naked & Afraid special with Roseanne Barr, Rosie O'Donnell, and Ellen DeGeneres.  And this was a Mark Gastineau-esque....



....in-your-face end zone celebration/gloatfest/taunt-orgy, too.  The nets usually bust their nuts at the orgasmic prospect of putting those front & center.  They couldn't even muster enough idolatrous fervor to do it one more time?  Not even for nostalgia's sake?  Man, I guess the magic really is gone.  And, you know, their "god" has completely morphed into an Urkel-turd.

You know what that means: Tesseract to the rescue!

Anti-Gun Senator Busted For Missile Trafficking

by JASmius

Read the fine print, folks - that headline is no joke.  His clients?  Jihadists.  Touches so many leftwingnut bases.  Kinda makes Yee a poster-boy for the Democrat Party, doesn't it?  Only things missing are his "coming out of the closet" and a pastor's severed head on a spike in front of his home.

"An epic gun-control hypocrite." California State Senator Leland Yee, a leading gun-control extremist, was arrested March 26th in an FBI sting and charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption. "This is heavy-duty international arms trafficking with organized crime figures," says Civil Rights Attorney Chuck Michel. "The laws that he was pushing pale in comparison to the laws that he was breaking."

Michael Reagan: Right Would Challenge My Dad

by JASmius

Yup:

"The reality of it is, if Ronald Reagan were to run today in the United States of America or even for governor of California, there's a good chance that there would be an argument about him becoming governor or president and that would come from the right, it would not come from the left," Reagan told Newsmax TV's John Bachman, J.D. Hayworth and Ed Berliner on "America's Forum" Thursday....

He maintains that the media machine is working against Republicans because GOP politicians are too worried about what conservative talk show hosts such as Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will say about them to act.

Yu....wait a minute....

"They're frozen in time on what to do. Everybody on the planet knows you need an immigration policy, but everybody's afraid to put one forward because they do not know what the big three are going to say about it in talk radio the next day. The Republican Party needs to find its own message and take the message away from talk radio and others," he said.

What kind of immigration policy, Mike?  A full, fortified fence?  Deportation?  Only legal immigrants allowed?  A restoration of national sovereignty and meaning to the word "citizenship"?

Asked what steps he would take to get the conservative media more friendly to Republicans, Reagan replied, "Quit looking for the perfect candidate and do the Ronald Reagan Rule. Do the 80-20 rule. Well you're not going to agree with somebody 100% of the time, but my God, don’t throw them under the bus.

Okay, I'm with you so far....

We…took Jeb Bush, we also took Marco Rubio when they tried to come up with immigration policy and threw them under the bus."

Well, yeah - because the "immigration policy" was amnesty, Mike.  Your dad was the greatest president of the twentieth century; he restored the American economy, rebuilt the American military, won the Cold War without firing a shot, ran rings around the Democrats effortlessly and with a smile on his face.  He didn't make many mistakes, but the 1986 amnesty was his biggest.  It cost the Republican Party California, which is much of why the country languishes under foreign-thinking occupation today.  You let Jeb and Rubio "Gang of whatever" their way to another amnesty, which would be - what?  Four times the 1986 version?  Five?  Six?  And wave buh-bye to the entire southwest, including Texas, and therefore the country.  And bear in mind that I already believe the country is lost.  This would be like burying the corpse under a mile of cement, running around the tomb seven times, and jerking off on the headstone.

Senator Rubio was buried a year ago after his "Gang of Eight" foolishness because amnesty is, probably more than anything else, something the GOP base simply will not accept.  Ever.  From anyone.  Period.  They'd tar & feather Ted Cruz if he started making friendly noises towards "comprehensive immigration reform," Mike.  That's not the fault of Limbaugh, Hannity, or Levin; they're just reflecting and channeling the sentiments of their audiences.  If Republicans fear running afoul of the fearsome talk radio beast, here's a suggestion: Stop bleeping dicking around with importing the entire Mexican population, and start backing an immigration policy that enforces the border and has zero tolerance for foreign trespassers.  Then we can move on to mauling each other over legal immigration policy.  Deal?

Besides, I don't even know exactly what you're talking about by your "throw them under the bus" metaphor.  Are you suggesting that if a GOP pol screws up, s/he should be immune from criticism from "within the family"?  I don't think your dad's "Eleventh Commandment" goes quite that far, and regardless, lotsa luck getting the Tea Party to abide by that stipulation.  Or are you speaking in a 2016 presidential nominating context?  In which case, Jeb and Rubio are as free to give it a try as are Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Gumby, Joe Scarborough, Zippy, Ultron, and Randee of the Redwoods - even Mitt Romney again, if he decides to make Ann Coulter's dream come true.  But they should also understand that they're gonna get ripped from rectum to belly button by the center-right voters who hate amnesty for any amnesty dalliances.

Where I'm with you, Mike, is in the unsavory event that an amnestizer like Jeb or Rubio or Double-C captures the nomination.  At that point, yes, ranks have to be closed and the focus turned on the real enemy (if we even get the chance).  But you've gotta understand that a lot of Tea Partiers won't let go of their fratricidal enmities and will stay home at best, try to drum up an election-blowing third party candidacy at worst.  The more Pachyderms of your pro-amnesty bent try to push that bent, the more the base will shove back.  That's just the way it is, and it ain't going to change.

Rather than insistently engaging in this Bonfire of the Inanities, how about following your dad's example and appealing to all Americans (not just Hispanics) with the shining-city-on-a-hill message of constitutional conservatism?  Free market capitalism, strong national defense, traditional moral values - Americanism - can still be an election-winning message.  And if Mexican nationals want to come here, tell them that that means earning their citizenship, immigrating legally, because that's the only way to become a part of something the most unique and special "in the long history of man's relations to man".

Your dad was one of a kind, Mike.  But Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is his "grandson in the faith," wouldn't you say?  If you truly are interested in the GOP winning again.

Sheriff Gore's Response

By Douglas V. Gibbs

On March 16th I wrote about the ATF raid of Ares Armor gun shop in San Diego County, and the final post of those three articles was a letter I sent to San Diego County Sheriff William D. Gore.  Today, I got a response.

First, my letter to him, then his response:

From the desk of

Douglas V. Gibbs

www.douglasvgibbs.com

XXXX XXXXXXXXX Ave.

Murrieta, CA  XXXXX

Phone (951) XXX-XXXX 

ConstitutionSpeaker @yahoo.com

March 16, 2014

William D. Gore, Sheriff

John F. Duffy Administrative Center

PO Box 939062 

San Diego, CA 92193-9062

Dear Sheriff Gore,

The oath of office you took as Sheriff of San Diego County is the same as the one taken by peace officers, and like the one I took to join the military when I wore a younger man’s clothes a long time ago.  However, yours has a special caveat attached.  You are more than an officer of the law.  Your position as a County Sheriff carries great constitutional responsibility.  You are the lawful Chief Executive Officer and highest Peace Officer of the entire County, and unlike the police, you must report directly to the Citizens of the County.  You are a constitutional officer, and your duties, responsibilities, and authorities are not subject to legislation, or federal intrusion.  Only the citizens, through constitutional amendment, can diminish your duties as a constitutional officer, which means it is your obligation to support, defend, and honor the United States Constitution, and the California State Constitution.

Your position as Sheriff carries with it the trust of the people in that you will defend their constitutional rights against anyone that aims to disregard those rights.  You are expected to exercise these powers honestly, and as the opinion in an early Wisconsin case says, (State ex, rel. Kennedy v. Brunst, 26 Wis. 412, 7 Am. Rep. 84)  “Now it is quite true that the constitution nowhere defines what powers, rights and duties shall attach or belong to the office of sheriff. But there can be no doubt that the framers of the Constitution had reference to the office with those generally recognized legal duties and functions belonging to it in this country, and in the territory, when the Constitution was adopted.”

While the legislature may impose additional duties upon the sheriff, where he is recognized as a constitutional officer, it cannot restrict or reduce his powers as allowed by the Constitution, or as they were recognized by the people when the Constitution was adopted.

During the founding of this nation, everyone clearly understood the duties, responsibilities and authorities of Sheriffs, therefore it was not necessary to include a lengthy enumeration of their duties in the U.S. Constitution, or the State Constitutions. The office of the Sheriff dates back to about 500 AD in England and existed in the colonies in America from the time they were created.  The constitutional offices of Sheriffs, Coroners, and Constables were clearly established in the State Constitutions of that time, and continue to this day.

What this all means is that you are the highest, elected constitutional authority in the county, therefore not only is it your obligation to protect the natural rights of your citizens, but that any outside agency, if they are to operate within your jurisdiction, must seek approval from you, first.

In this time of expanding governments, and unchecked powers by executives and members of judiciaries, there has been a force in place unlawfully working to eliminate, or at least minimize, the Office of the Sheriff and/or their duties, responsibilities and authorities since the American Civil War.  These attempts are null and void, for those agencies do not have such an authority.

In your county, Sheriff Gore, the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) federal agency has been operating in an unconstitutional manner, working with like-minded judges, to seize the personal records of Ares Armor, and confiscate legal products.  The ATF is acting in direct opposition of the 2nd Amendment, and Article I, Sections 9 and 10 where it states in the United States Constitution that neither the federal government, nor the States, may pass ex post facto law.  Since the ATF is operating in San Diego County, conducting raids against a business owner conducting legal business transactions, the conclusion is that either (A) you gave this agency permission to seize the business’s records, and violate a restraining order against the agency, placing you in position of being in dereliction of your constitutional duties, or (B) the agency acted without your permission, which obligates you to arrest the members of the ATF that conducted the raid inside your county.

I ask that you take appropriate action, or you will soon find out that the citizens of your county may feel obligated to take their own appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Douglas V. Gibbs

Host, Constitution Radio, KCAA  AM 1050

Managing Editor, Constitution News Quarterly

Author, 25 Myths of the United States Constitution

Writer for PoliticalPistachio.com 

and now for his response:

Dear Mr. Gibbs:

I want to thank you for taking the time to write to me such a thoughtful letter.  You raise a number of issues relating to the U.S. Constitution, the separation of powers, and the historic role of the sheriff.  With respect to the actions of ATF and its current investigation, you correctly note that this is a federal case and that is currently in litigation in a federal court.  Like you, I am interested in seeing how it plays out since it raises important questions regarding personal privacy.

Again, I appreciate you taking time to share your views with me.

Sincerely,

William D. Gore, Sheriff

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ex Post Facto; Gun Store Owner Refuses Federal Government

ATF Ignores Restraining Order, Raids Gun Shop

San Diego County Sheriff Gore's Dereliction of Constitutional Duties

Temecula Constitution Class: Congress's Express Powers, Prohibitions

Last Thursday we wrapped up most of Article I and the Legislative Branch and we began to touch upon Article II, which establishes the Executive Branch.  Tonight we go back to Article I, to discuss Making Laws, Enumerated Powers, and Prohibitions to the Federal Government, and the States. . . 

Article I:

- House of Representative holds the power of the pursestrings

- The veto was not originally used by the President to reject laws he doesn't like, as is used today, but to not allow unconstitutional bills to become law.  This is why he was expected to give a written explanation as to why he vetoed the bill.  He was supposed to lay down the reasoning he was using in direct relation to the constitution.

- Congress can override vetoes.

- Congress's power to lay and collect taxes is directly related to the common defense.

- The power to borrow money was specifically meant to enable Congress to raise money in the time of war.  Only statist Alexander Hamilton, and his allies, believed that a perpetual national debt was a good thing.

- The Commerce Clause's use of the word "regulate" means that the federal government has the power to put in good order commerce with other nations, and interstate commerce by being a mediator when conflict over trade arises.

- A national bank printing money takes away the constitutional authority to Congress to coin money.

- The authority to establish post offices and post roads did not give the federal government the authority to establish a federal highway system.

- Congressional power to establish inferior courts gives the Congress the power to dismantle them, too.

- The power to declare war is different from the power to wage war.

- A limit was placed on congressional appropriation of funding to raise and support armies to protect the people from the federal government having a standing army that could be used against the people.

- The rules for the government and regulation of the military is by Congress, through the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The Constitution does not apply to the military.

- The militia is listed as being the force that can be called forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions because the founders did not want the standing army operating on American soil.

- The creation of Washington DC was for the purpose of the city being the seat of government only.  It was not supposed to have a resident population.

- Federal ownership of any land requires the consent of the State legislature involved, as well as payment to the State for that property.  Federal ownership of property is supposed to be for needful buildings, not conservationism.

- The elastic clause requires that only laws necessary and proper, and within the authorities granted by the Constitution, can become law.  In other words, the government is not supposed to make law just because it can.

- Article I of the Constitution begins the process of the abolition of slavery in America by putting an end to the Atlantic Slave Trade.

- Immigration is specifically addressed, giving the federal government the power to prohibit certain people from immigrating into the United States, but not the power to force the States to accept a particular group of immigrants.

- Americans are ensured due process, and cannot have their right of Habeas Corpus suspended.

- Congress can pass no law that enables them to act judicially.

- Congress can pass no law that is retroactive (if your gun was legal when you bought it, they can't make it illegal and confiscate it).

- The federal government cannot enact direct taxation.  Taxation must be based on the enumeration of population.  The 16th Amendment targeted that concept, so that the federal government could tax directly.

- The federal government cannot implement tariffs on interstate commerce, nor can the federal government in their duties as mediator favor one State over another.

- All federal money must be properly appropriated.

- No title of nobility or preference shall be granted by the federal government.  Nobody can be treated preferentially in the eyes of the law.

- States also had certain prohibitions to ensure they did not interfere with the constitutional workings of the federal government.

Last Thursday I made Lesson 09 the Executive Branch, and that was an error.  The Executive Branch is Lesson 10 for a few weeks away. 

Lesson 09: Legislative Authorities

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
www.politicalpistachio.com
www.douglasvgibbs.com
www.constitutionassociation.com

Thursday Nights at 6:30

Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Rd.
Temecula, CA


Lesson 09

- Making Law

- Enumerated Powers

- Prohibitions to the Federal Government

- Prohibitions to the States

I will correct and update the Temecula Constitution Class website shortly.

Hard Starboard Radio: Mitch McConnell's Revenge

The coming ObamaCare shock for 170 million Americans; The Left seeks a separate set of rules for themselves; The Founders’ epistemic humility and Obamunists’ epistemic arrogance is a lesson for all time; The SCOTUS vindicates freedom of speech, for a change; Gawker’s Adam Weinstein suggests arresting those on the “wrong side” of the climate-change debate; The Obamunists and IMF want the USSSO (United Soviet Socialist States of Obamerika) to slow down ever more and divide up the already-shrinking, moldy, desiccated pie; And JFK collapses the Middle East - with a bullet.

Celebrating Olympus's stand for free speech via the judicial review power they're not supposed to have at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.  Anybody got an Ibuprofin?

How Barbra Streisand Imperils Your First Amendment Rights

by JASmius

A man shooting a gun on his own property had his guns confiscated by an off-duty police officer. After the gun owner posted a video of the incident on the internet, a judge demanded that he remove the video. What does this have to do with Barbra Streisand and her Malibu estate? Find out as Trifecta discusses the state of the First and Second Amendments.