Corona Constitution Class: Legislative Authorities Enumerated. . .

Tuesday, 6:00 pm, AllStar Collision, 522 Railroad Street, Corona, CA Note: This is the last class until October 24 due to the fact that I have speaking engagements on each of the next two Tuesdays in Torrance and Big Bear Lake respectively. Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com           Lesson 03   Legislative Authorities Making Law, and Enumerated Powers   Making Law   As covered when we studied Article I, Section 1, all legislative powers belong to the Legislative Branch.  According to Article I, Section 7, Clause 2, all bills must be approved by both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before they can be presented to the President for signature.  Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 indicates that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.   The structure for making law was established by the Founding Fathers in the way that it was in order to ensure that all parts of the system had a voice in the approval, or disapproval, of the law.  The people through their representatives in the House of Representatives voted their approval or disapproval of the bill, the States did the same through their voice in the United States Senate, and the federal government's voice through the executive was the final approval.  If the executive did not like the proposed law, he could veto it.  However, all did not stop there.  If Congress felt strongly enough about the bill, and had enough votes, they could override the veto with two-thirds vote in each House and make the bill a law without the signature of approval from the President.   In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the process in which United States Senators are chosen. Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the U.S. Senators, making the U.S. Senate quite literally the voice of the States.  The Senators at that time voted with the interests of the States, and more specifically with the intent of protecting their State's sovereignty, in mind.  With the House of Representatives acting as the voice of the people, and the Senate acting as the voice of the States, the dynamics of making law was quite different from what it is today.   The process of making a law as originally intended ensured that the people, the States, and the federal government, all each had the opportunity to approve or disapprove the piece of legislation.  If either the people or the States did not like the bill, its journey to become a law stopped.  If the federal government, via the President, felt the bill was unconstitutional, or that its passage is not in the best interest of the nation, he could veto the bill.  The veto by the President in turn could be overturned with a two thirds vote from each house of Congress.  The reason for this system was for the purpose of checks and balances, and to keep the States involved in monitoring the federal government through advise and consent authorities.  This gave the people through the House of Representatives, and the States through the U.S. Senate, the ability to check each other, and the ability of them together to check the federal government.   The people and the States together, if in agreement, served as a united check against the federal government, or more specifically in the case of making law, the executive branch.   We The People hold original authority in the process of making law.  The members of the United States House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are voted into office by direct election of the people.  All of the officials involved with appointing or electing members of the branches of the federal government (as well as the U.S. Senate prior to 1913) were also originally voted into office by the general population.  Our original authority also reaches even farther back than the descriptions above, because it was the people, as the sovereign states of the union, who originally held all of the authorities prior to the writing and ratification of the U.S. Constitution.  Under British rule, original authority belonged to the monarchy, as per Royal Prerogative; but in the United States, original authority belonged to the people.    By Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 establishing that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House of Representatives, the Constitution grants to the voice of the people the power to fund, or defund, any function of government affected by legislative action.  The power of the purse-strings gives the House of Representatives the ultimate check against the other parts of government, and ultimately gives the House of Representatives a significant amount of power. Should the House of Representatives, for example, disapprove of a military action being carried out by the Commander in Chief, the action can be stopped by the House of Representatives simply defunding the military operation by not including funding for that action in a budget proposal.  Refusal to accept the proposal by the Senate, or the Executive, places at risk the funding for other parts of government as well.  The Senate, though unable to originate bills raising revenue, may propose amendments to be added to such a bill that originated in the House of Representatives, but no bill raising revenue may originate in the Senate.  Upon approval by the Senate, if the Senate made changes, the bill would still need to go back to the House of Representatives for approval.  The approval by both houses of Congress must be for an identical bill.   If the President approves the bill, and signs it after it has been approved with a majority vote in each of the two houses of Congress, the bill becomes law.  If the President does not approve of the bill, he may refuse to sign it, or veto the bill, and return it with a written explanation of his disapproval.   Should the Houses of the United States Congress determine with a two-thirds vote in each house to reconsider the bill, the bill will still become law despite the executive objection.   All votes in the two houses of Congress shall be determined by yeas and nays, which will be entered into the respective house's journal.  The journal entry will include the names and votes of the members voting for, or against, the bill.   If the President refuses to sign the bill presented to him, but does not return the bill with his written objection within ten days (excluding Sundays) the bill becomes law as if the President signed it.  The exception to this clause is if Congress does anything to prevent the bill's return, such as through their adjournment.  In that case, the bill remains to be only a bill, and only becomes law should any of the afore mentioned processes be met.   Terms:   Original Authority: Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.   Veto: The power of a chief executive to reject a bill passed by the legislature and thus prevent or delay its enactment into law.   Questions for Discussion:   1.  Why did the Founding Fathers decide to give the power of the purse to the House of Representatives?   2.  How did the Senators being appointed by the State Legislatures enable State involvement in the federal government?   3.  If the people have original authority, how does that affect the relationship between the people through their States, and the Federal Government?   Resources:   Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).   Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp     Enumerated Powers   The powers granted to the federal government in relation to legislative powers are listed in Article I, Section 8.  These authorities are also known as "Express Powers."   Implied Powers is a concept invented by Alexander Hamilton while he served as treasury secretary in 1791.  He wrote in a report titled, "Opinion on the Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States" that "there are implied, as well as express powers, in the Constitution, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.  Implied powers are to be considered as delegated to the federal government equally with the express ones."   Hamilton, in his report, went on to argue that a nationalized bank was one of these implied powers.  Hamilton's argument stated that his power to create a nationalized bank was implied as "necessary and proper" for the federal government to carry out its enumerated powers, such as borrowing money, regulating currency, and providing for the general welfare of the country.   Thomas Jefferson disagreed, arguing that the express powers delegated to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution were expressly stated because they were the only powers granted to the federal government by the sovereign States when they ratified the Constitution.  New authorities could only be granted by the amendment process, which includes the requirement of ratification by three-quarters of the States.   The Concept of Implied Powers remained, and the statists of history have used Implied Powers to rewrite the Constitution through regulatory actions, and liberal judicial activism.   From the emergence of Implied Powers came the theory that the Constitution is a living document that can be modified at will through interpretation and the use of Implied Law.  Hamilton's concept of Implied Powers laid the groundwork for generations of lawyers and judges using the courts, rather than the amendment process, to alter the Constitution, and render the limiting principals powerless.  The concept of Implied Powers is one of the concepts that have fed the false idea that the courts "interpret" the Constitution.   Alexander Hamilton also argued that there were "resulting powers" as well, which are powers that exist as a result of any action the government takes.  These "resulting powers" are de facto constitutional by virtue of the fact that the action by the federal government occurred in the first place.   With the use of the concepts of Implied Powers and resulting powers, Hamilton believed the central government had unlimited powers to act as any member of the federal government deemed necessary.     General Welfare Clause   "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." --James Madison   The General Welfare Clause is one of the most misunderstood clauses in the U.S. Constitution - and it was not even supposed to be a clause.   Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 includes "General Welfare" not as an authority to the federal government, but as a description of the Republic should the laws of the land be made in accordance with the authorities granted by the Constitution.   If we go back to the Preamble, we read that one of the reasons the Founding Fathers created this new government with the writing of the Constitution was to "insure domestic Tranquility."  One must ask, "Why was there a need for domestic tranquility?"   The States were much like siblings.  The States fought over just about everything.  They argued over commerce, borders, legal jurisdictions, currency, weights and measures, communication, religion, and a number of other issues.  Yet, despite their disagreements, when it came to the American Revolution, they united against a common enemy.  After the war, the quarrels resumed.  The fighting between the States became such a problem that many worried it would tear apart the union.  One of the many reasons for the need of a new government, as provided by the U.S. Constitution, was so that the central government would have enough authorities to act as a mediator between the States.   Acting as a referee in matters that caused disputes between the States would help the federal government provide for the General Welfare of the republic.   Another reason for the writing of the new constitution was to give the federal government enough power to defend the union from invasion and domestic insurrection.  Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government was unable to provide for the common defense because the government did not have the authority, nor the financial means, to field a military.  With the ability to field a fighting force, the federal government would be able to protect the States from foreign invasion, while also keeping internal conflict at bay as well.   By providing for the common defense, the federal government would also be ensuring the General Welfare of the Republic.   In other words, if the federal government was doing what it was supposed to do, as a mediator between the States, and as a protector of the States by providing for the common defense, the States would enjoy a general welfare of the republic.  The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure that squabbles, internal conflict, or foreign intrusion did not place the welfare of the union in jeopardy.   General Welfare is an adjective, not an authority.   The General Welfare of the republic was the goal, which would be achieved if the federal government abided by the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution.   Taxes and Debt   Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.   The authority to tax was for the express purpose of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union.  The federal government could tax the States only if the taxes were uniform throughout the United States.  The federal government could not originally tax the individual citizens directly.   The stated purposes for giving the Congress the power to tax are to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."   The need for the central government to be able to defend the union militarily was one of the initial reasons the Founding Fathers planned the Constitutional Convention at the Annapolis Convention in 1786.  Shays' Rebellion proved to the founders that the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak to defend the union.   Some of the members of the Constitutional Convention were concerned that a military may be used by the federal government against the States, but the reality of the world they lived in was that the union would not survive without the ability to defend itself. It was argued that the independent militias needed to be joined under a single federal army, and for the protection of the trade routes a United States Navy also needed to be established.  In order to have a military, however, the federal government would need the power to tax in order to pay for the military it would be afforded.   The second clause of Article I, Section 8 grants the authority to the U.S. Congress to borrow money on the credit of the United States.  If the federal government ever found the necessity to enter into military operations on the battlefield, to help pay for the expensive endeavor of warfare, the federal government would need to be able to borrow money for the war effort. Therefore, the States through the new Constitution granted to the federal government the authority to create a national debt.  The founders did not recognize any reason other than for war that the United States would need to borrow money.  Alexander Hamilton, however, suggested that a continuous national debt was necessary to hold together the union, for if the States all felt they were responsible for the repayment of the deficit, they would be less likely to break away from the union.   Commerce Clause   Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 grants to the Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.   Remember, the States did not get along too well.  Like siblings, they argued over just about everything.  The individual States bickered over the borders between the states, turf, and interstate trade. As sovereign entities, the States continually tried to gain the upper hand on the other States in regard to commerce across State lines. Recognizing that the squabbles between the States were actually hindering commerce across State lines, the federal government in this clause was given the authority to do what was necessary to enable the flow of commerce to be more regular.   When you turn on a faucet full blast you are regulating the flow, just as you are regulating the flow when you restrict it by turning the faucet off.  Likewise, the federal government was expected to act as a mechanism that ensured that the flow of commerce between the States was more regular.   The 1828 Webster Dictionary defines regulate in its second definition: "To put in good order."  Some historians state that regulate in the 18th Century meant "To make regular."  The word "restrict" was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of the word.  In today's dictionary "restrict" appears in the first definition of regulate.   Today, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted to mean the opposite of its original intent.  The Commerce Clause in today's political atmosphere is used as a means to restrict and heavily control commerce between the States. If one was to adopt the progressive definition of the Commerce Clause, one could then surmise that the Founders wrote this clause because commerce was flowing too easily, and needed to be controlled by the federal government. Such a notion is not only untrue, but outside the normal tendencies of the Founding Fathers. The Founders believed in limiting the powers of the Federal Government, so why would they allow the Federal Government the kind of unlimited powers over interstate commerce as suggested by today's progressive?   The federal government's role according to the Commerce Clause was to act as a referee, or mediator, whenever the flow of commerce was hindered by disagreements between the States, while with foreign nations and the Indian Tribes the federal government was expected to take a more active role.   Naturalization   Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization.  What this means is that all naturalization rules must be identical in all States.  One State cannot decide to have rules for naturalization that are different than what the federal government has established. This is an example of an "exclusive jurisdiction."  However, realize that immigration is not mentioned here.  Immigration is a concurrent issue, with authorities held by both federal government and the States.   Bankruptcies   In Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 the federal government is also given the authority to establish uniform rules on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.    Prior to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, each State had its own rules on bankruptcy.  Citizens would simply cross state lines to start over financially.  The clause bringing bankruptcy under federal jurisdiction was for the purpose to stop the abuses, and to establish uniform rules nationwide.   Money, Weights, and Measures   Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 establishes that the duty of coining money belonged to Congress.  Note that the Constitution called for coining money, rather than printing federal reserve notes (bills of credit).  The coins produced by Congress were expected to be made of metals that reflected the worth of the coins. In other words, the gold in a coin, if taken to a goldsmith, would be worth the same as the value of the coin. Later, the banks realized they could loan on the gold in their vaults backing the currency, leaving less gold as a reserve.  They did this by issuing receipts, or bills of credit.  When this happened, if there was a bank run, where everyone brought their receipts in to cash it in for gold all at once, the bank would be left in a situation where they did not have enough gold to cover all of the notes.   If one goes back to the Articles of Confederation, it is important to note that under the confederation, there had been no power given to the central government to regulate the value of foreign coin, an omission, which in a great measure would destroy any uniformity in the value of the current coin, since the respective states might, by different regulations, create a different value in each. As a result, the States were prohibited in Article I, Section 10 from coining their own money, thus taking away their ability to manipulate the value of currency as a means of effecting the economies of the other states.   The authority to coin money was given specifically to Congress so that no outside interest could manipulate the value of American money.  This included private banks.  Nonetheless, we have seen three nationalized banks run by private bankers in the United States issuing the currency.  The third is the currently existing Federal Reserve Bank.   Thomas Jefferson was against national banks.  Alexander Hamilton created the "Bank of the United States" in 1791 for the purpose of acting as a depository of government funds, issuing paper currency backed by gold and silver, and creating a system of mercantilism in America.  The bank's charter lapsed in 1811.  The Second Bank of the United States was formed in 1817, and lasted until President Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of its charter in 1836.  The bank existed for 5 more years as an ordinary bank before going bankrupt in 1841.  In a letter to John Taylor in 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."   Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 also establishes that Congress shall have the power to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.  Fixing a standard of weights and measures was important for the reason of uniformity, and the ease of commerce. This clause suggests that before the Constitutional Convention the States were able to independently fix their own weights and measures, which not only added confusion to commerce, but enabled the States of use unsavory trading tactics against each other.   Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 establishes that the U.S. Congress will provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States.  This power would naturally flow, as an incident, from the antecedent powers to borrow money, and regulate the coinage.  Indeed, without the ability to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, the powers of coining money or creating securities would be without any adequate sanction. The word "securities," in this clause, means: a contract that can be assigned a value so that it may be traded, like a "bond."   Post Offices and Roadways   In Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 the Congress is granted the authority to establish post offices and post roads.   As with the other clauses in Article I, Section 8, this clause is designed to promote the Union. In this case, it ensures that communication remains intact.  The clause gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices, but nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to partially privatize the post office as we have seen in the modern era.   Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 gives the federal government the authority to "establish" post roads, but not create or maintain them. The Constitution does not give the federal government any other authority over roadways. In fact, this is the only reference to roadways to the federal government in the entire Constitution.  This clause makes the federal highway and Interstate highway system, as well as the other workings of the federal transportation department, unconstitutional. It was up to the States to create and maintain their roadways. If the States desired to remain connected, and receive their mail, they would keep up their roads.   In 1817, Congress proposed a bill that would provide federal funding for boatways and roadways, claiming it was for the "general welfare" of the nation. President James Madison vetoed the bill, claiming it to be unconstitutional, because the federal government was not given the authority to fund transportation routes.   Patents and Copyrights   Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 authorizes Congress to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.   This clause is the basis for the creation of the U.S. Patent Office, and Copyright Office. Patent and copyright protections already existed in the British Empire, and for the protection of American inventions and writings, the Founding Fathers saw the need to establish such a power under the federal government as well, expecting that by being under federal authority, the rules would be uniform.   Federal Inferior Courts   Article I, Section 8, Clause 9 authorizes Congress to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.  This means that the legislative branch was tasked with the duty to establish the lower federal courts.  However, by enabling Congress to establish new courts whenever necessary, this has given some administrations an opportunity to abuse this power in the hopes of stacking the courts.  John Adams was the first example of this abuse, when he appointed many midnight judges in order to help retain federalist power in the courts as Jefferson's Republicans gained the White House, and the majority in Congress.  Some may argue that Adams' decision to expand the court was not as sinister as Thomas Jefferson made it out to be, for John Adams had been requesting an expansion of the judiciary for years.   President Franklin D. Roosevelt also sought to "pack" the court with justices favorable to his social policies.  His animosity toward the Supreme Court emerged when his New Deal of social and economic reform via government intrusion was struck down as unconstitutional by justices that had been largely appointed by his rival Republicans.   The high court invalidated the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934, a law that had established pensions for railway workers, and the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933.  Roosevelt's anger against the justices for their rulings led him to hold contempt for the conservative-minded court of "Nine Old Men."  In January 1936, the court ruled the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional, as well.   In 1937, Roosevelt disclosed to his aides a bill he was going to propose that was designed to reorganize the federal judiciary. The measure called for all federal judges to retire by age 70. If they failed to do so, the president could appoint another judge to serve in tandem with each one older than 70.  If the bill passed, it would enable Roosevelt to appoint six more Supreme Court justices immediately, increasing the size of the court to 15 members.  The Democrat dominated Congress, he believed, would undoubtedly approve the appointment of judges friendly to Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda.   The proposal never got off the ground, as Roosevelt's explanation regarding why the proposal was necessary fell flat.   Both the federal government, and the States, have court systems.  The shared power by both the federal government and the State governments to establish a judiciary is a concurrent power.   With the ability to establish the inferior courts also comes the authority to eliminate them. Congress, in addition to the authority to establish federal inferior courts, can also shut them down.  When in the 2012 Republican Campaign Newt Gingrich stated that Congress should use the federal marshall to bring unconstitutional judges to face members of Congress and answer for their actions, he was accurate that Congress can do that.   Trade Routes and Offenses Against The Law of Nations   Article I Section 8, Clause 10 authorizes Congress to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations.   One of the factors in having this included was the problem with piracy in the Caribbean, as well as difficulties the new nation was having with the Barbary Pirates (Muslims). Though the United States was careful to create a system of justice that included due process for the citizens of the nation, the Constitution gave the federal government the power to punish offenses by foreign forces on the high seas without having to worry about habeas corpus, while still providing a courtroom setting for the offenders. In Federalist 42, Madison carefully explains that this provision "extends no further than to the establishment of courts for the trial of these offenses," such as military courts, or international courts for international war crimes.   This clause is the only place where the Law of Nations is mentioned.  Some historians claim that the capitalization of the "Law of Nations" suggests that the founders were specifically referring to Vatell's volumes of which the founders often used for definitions and the clarification of concepts like Natural Born Citizen.   War, Army, and Navy   Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.   During the debates, according to Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, the delegates debated over whether or not to give the legislative branch the power to make war.  After intense debate, it was decided to grant the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, the authority to "wage" war, and Congress the power to declare war. A declaration of war is a formal declaration that warns those not involved to stay out of the conflict. If those entities become involved, they become open targets.  The president, as per the debates, may wage war without prior approval by Congress, or without a declaration of war being issued.   The ability to wage war, however, is checked by the fact that the House of Representatives are able to refuse to fund any military conflict. This keeps the president from abusing his position as Commander in Chief by giving Congress a way to limit executive wartime authorities.  If the President continues to act upon his war powers in a manner not approved of by Congress, and the President does so despite the lack of funding for the military operations, Congress also has the authority to impeach the President in order to stop the executive's objectionable actions.   A Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy which was universally reviled.  These mercenaries was also known as "privateers."   Congress was also given the power to make rules regarding captures on land and water.  This is the clause used when the Bush administration, with the blessings of Congress, decided to hold prisoners captured during the war on terrorism at Guantanamo Bay, and to use military tribunals as the vessel of their trials.   Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 authorizes Congress:   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;   To provide and maintain a Navy;   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;   Remember that one of the primary reasons for deciding to hold the Constitutional Convention in the first place was to defend the union with a uniformed military.  Note that the fear of an army being used by a centralized government, and a potentially tyrannical government for that matter, as had been in the case with the British Empire, influenced the writings of this document, and encouraged the founders to limit the existence and funding of an army to two years at a time. A navy, however, was deemed as much more important, particularly because of the need to protect trade routes, and America's immediate waterways and inlets. Therefore, the authority to provide and maintain a navy was granted in perpetuity.  The United States Marine Corps, from the beginning, falls under the umbrella of the United States Navy.   The rules for the governance of the armed forces do not fall under the purview of the Constitution. It is up to Congress to provide the governing rules.  Any claim that rules regarding the military are unconstitutional is a bad argument.  According to Article I, Section 8, Clause 14, it is up to Congress to set the rules, regardless of the Constitution.  Military training in order for the armed forces to be well disciplined may not benefit from same social rules of the civilian world.  Therefore, the basis of governance over the armed forces is not the Constitution, but instead the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, it is the military's duty to protect and preserve the U.S. Constitution, and in a manner of tradition, Constitutional Principles have an unofficial influence on military politics.   Congress also has the authority to call forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union (Constitutional federal laws), suppress insurrections (inserted in response to Shays' Rebellion), and repel invasions (one may consider the illegal entry into the United States an invasion, therefore this clause gives the federal government the authority to use the militia to guard the national borders).  Currently, in this country, we have an organized militia (National Guard, State Militias), and an unorganized militia (you and I). U.S. Code Title 10 still defines these militias as such.   Federal Properties   Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 calls for the Congress to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.   This clause was for the creation of Washington DC, giving the United States Congress exclusive legislative powers over the District of Columbia and other federal properties, and to allow the federal government to erect military bases, and other necessary federal facilities by consent of the Legislatures of the States in which those properties are obtained, and for the federal government to purchase those properties. This makes land seized for conservation, and National Parks, unconstitutional, for those were not approved by the States, nor purchased by the federal government, and finally it is not being utilized for the purpose of the erection of "needful buildings."   Necessary and Proper Clause   Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 is also known as the "necessary and proper" clause. It reads:   To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.   Today's government officials misuse this clause greatly. Notice the emphasis on carrying into execution the "foregoing powers" (authorities herein granted).  What that means is that the Congress may make laws that fall within the authorities granted by the U.S. Constitution that the Congress recognizes to be "necessary and proper."  Today's federal government has taken this clause to mean they can make "any" law they feel to be necessary and proper.   "The plain import of the clause is, that congress shall have all the incidental and instrumental powers, necessary and proper to carry into execution all the express powers. It neither enlarges any power specifically granted; nor is it a grant of any new power to congress. But it is merely a declaration for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those, otherwise granted, are included in the grant." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833   In order to carry out some express powers of the Constitution sometimes certain actions by the government are necessary and proper.  For example, when establishing a post office, as expressly authorized by this article and section, the federal government will have to grade the land, hire construction crews, purchase the equipment for carrying out the services of the post office, and so forth.  All of these things are necessary and proper in order to carry out the "foregoing power" of establishing a post office.   This clause is also sometimes referred to as the "Elastic Clause."   Terms:   Concurrent Powers: Powers that are shared by the state and the federal government.  The power to enforce immigration is also a concurrent power.   Duties: A tax levied by a government on the import or export of goods.   Excise: Tax on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of goods, or upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, or upon corporate privileges.   Exclusive Powers: Sole authority over a particular power, be it for the States within their own territorial boundaries, or sole federal powers.  Also known as Reserved Powers.   Express Powers: Authorities explicitly authorized to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.   Implied Powers: Legal or governmental authority not expressly stated by the U.S. Constitution, but considered to be logical extensions or implications of the other powers delegated in the Constitution.  The concept of Implied Powers is often defended by the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18).  Implied Powers is an unconstitutional concept.   Imposts: A tax, especially an import duty; Import Duty is a tariff paid at a border or port of entry to the relevant government to allow a good to pass into that government's territory.   Questions for Discussion:   1.  True power of government is the ability to make law.  Is listing the authorities in Article I the founders way of telling us that?   2.  How has the unconstitutional concept of Implied Powers been used in today's political atmosphere?   3.  How has the war powers been misused in recent years?   4.  Name examples of how the Commerce Clause has been misused?   5.  If post roads are the only mention of roadways in the Constitution, then what does that say about recent attempts by the federal government to fund public works projects?   6.  The Necessary and Proper Clause depends upon the laws being within Constitutional Authority.  Are there other clauses requiring this as well?   Resources:   Andrew M. Allison, Mr. Richard Maxfield, K. Delynn Cook, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009).   Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781; http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp   David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001).   Donald Porter Geddes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt - A Memorial; New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation (1945).   Ethan Pope, America's Financial Demise; Dallas: Intersect Press (2010).   James Madison, Federalist No. 41: General View of the Powers Conferred by The Constitution (addresses General Welfare Clause as well), http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm   James Madison, Federalist No. 42: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp   James Madison, Veto of Federal Public Works Bill 1817; Constitution dot org: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm   Jay A. Parry, Andrew M. Allison, and W. Cleon Skousen, The Real George Washington; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2010).   K. Daniel Glover, FDR's Court-Packing Fiasco; Enter Stage Right: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm (1999).   Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot's History of the United States; New York: Sentinel (2004).   Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp   Robert Brown, Gold and Silver Coin or Paper Money?; The John Birch Society: http://www.jbs.org/blog/gold-and-silver-coin-or-paper-money.html (2010)   Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse; New York: Three Rivers Press (2008).   U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 311: Militia: composition and classes; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html     Copyright: Douglas V. Gibbs, 2014

Vegas Shooting's Reality

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Before we get started, be aware that evidence is pointing towards the Las Vegas Shooter being a liberal left anti-Trump Democrat, so while the Democrats are screaming for gun control, I am wondering if we should be more worried about Democrats with guns since so many Democrats wind up being identified as mass shooters.  Also, note that nearly all of the modern day mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones, proving that the "no guns allowed" liberal policy is a lie.  As for the gun control argument, because the firearms the Las Vegas shooter was using are already illegal, gun control would not have stopped the Las Vegas massacre.

That said, in the beginning I knew about the shooting in Las Vegas shortly after it happened.  But, I decided to wait until I knew all of the details before writing about it.

On Sunday Evening at 11:37 pm, October 1, 2017 I received a message from a friend about his son.  "Andrew is in Vegas at the Mandalay, guy next to him was shot.  He says they are in the airport, safe."

I struggled with the choice of if I should research and write about the shooting immediately, or go to bed as planned, pray for the fallen, and wait until all of the details were in.  The problem, often, with the news regarding such events is that the reporting agencies jump to conclusions before all of the facts are known, and then make up the news as they see fit.  Confusion sets in, and the facts remain unknown.

My thoughts at the moment were that a few things were inevitable.  Conservative writers and commentators will immediately assume the attack was orchestrated by a Muslim, and most of the time, they would be correct when it comes to this style of shooting.  Liberal left writers and commentators will immediately hope the attack was orchestrated by a white Republican.  Since the concert was a country-western music festival, someone on the liberal left will speak without thinking and say something like Phil Montag, former volunteer co-chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party's technology committee, did regarding the shooting of Republicans at a baseball practice in Washington D.C. a few months ago when he said of GOP Congressman Scalise who was shot during the incident, "I hate this motherf***er. I'm f***ing glad he got shot. I'm glad he got shot ... I wish he was f***ing dead."  And, Democrat Party legislators would immediately move to create more gun control laws because they believe that the sick minds of killers could not possibly have anything to do with the carnage.  The blame, from their point of view, rests solely on the existence of guns in the hands of Americans.

Early in the morning at a time when the only people probably getting out of bed are truck drivers and airline pilots, I woke up and during the short time I was up-and-around I checked my phone and another message came in from my friend at 1:34 am.  He wrote, "100+ injured, 20+ dead, police dead, "asian" [sic] (muslim?) [sic] woman, no id of shooter.  She is on the loose."

Again, unconfirmed information, but the insinuation was ominous.  Could the deed have been carried out by a female Muslim shooter?  I still decided not to check the news, just yet.  I wanted to wait until the facts truly fell into place before I mustered an opinion piece regarding the shooting.

Later in the morning, at 8:23 am, a friend from KMET 1490 AM radio (the station where my radio programs air on Saturdays) texted me that one of my colleagues from the station, Chris of the Christopher Show that airs before my afternoon program does, was "at the show in vegas [sic] when the shootings happened.  His friend he was standing next to was shot."

I've asked him to be on my radio program on Saturday Afternoon to discuss what he witnessed.

I knew that the shooting in Las Vegas at the Mandalay Bay hotel was becoming the story that the talking heads on the news networks would be talking about all day.  But, the identification of the gunman remained shrouded in mystery, and while I wanted to write about the horrid event while the news was hot, again, I wanted to know the details before I did so.

One thing was becoming clear as I began to gather information here and there.  The shooting in Las Vegas would wind up being the worst shooting of its kind in the modern history of the United States.  59 dead, hundreds injured.  The words "massacre," and "slaughter" came to mind.  The pictures emerging were horrifying.

Another interesting part about the shooter, once he was finally identified and his identity was made available to the public, was that the politically biased writers hoping for him to be one thing, or another, were not satisfied on all sides.  The gunman at first seemed to be a nobody that would have been on nobody's radar as being the kind of guy to do this kind of horrible thing. “No affiliation, no religion, no politics. He never cared about any of that stuff,” Eric Paddock, the shooter's brother, said as he alternately wept and shouted. “He was a guy who had money. He went on cruises and gambled.”

As indicated above, some folks are not convinced that the Vegas killer was apolitical.

ISIS, before the details were known, claimed the act of terror was by one of their own.  They told us he was a soldier of ISIS.  Now that the details are known, while the shooting was carried out in a style that one would expect from a Muslim jihadist, the reality is that the guy probably wasn't one to even give Islam much of a thought.  That said, ISIS continues to insist the shooter was a recent convert to Islam, and belonged to them.  Stephen Paddock, the Mandalay Bay Shooter, was not a Muslim terrorist, he was a millionaire, a retired accountant, and a guy who loved to gamble (hence, Las Vegas).

One thing is for sure, Paddock meticulously planned the shooting in advance (therefore, every time a news person says he "snapped," I just shake my head), and he used an arsenal that negated the idea that a killing needs high-capacity magazines.  Yes, high-capacity magazines were found in the hotel room the gunman was firing from, but he also had 23 guns in there with him.  He didn't need to reload.  All he needed to do was keep firing until the magazine was empty, and then grab the next gun in line.  The flurry of shots sounded like they were from an automatic firearm.  While the presence of an automatic firearm has not been confirmed, officials say they found two gun stocks that would allow the shooter to replicate fully automatic fire.  At Paddock’s home, authorities found 19 more guns, explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Also, several pounds of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be turned into explosives such as those used in the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, were in his car, the sheriff said.

The crowd of 22,000 country music fans heard the shots, but the reality of the danger that lurked above was not realized at first.  They didn’t understand what was happening when the band stopped playing and singer, Jason Aldean, was led off stage.

“That’s gunshots,” a man could be heard saying emphatically on a cellphone video in the nearly half-minute of silence and confusion that followed. A woman pleaded with others: “Get down! Get down! Stay down!”

The shooter committed his terror from a 32nd-floor hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort, firing down into the crowd of country-western music fans below.  The 64-year-old gunman was eventually discovered, and when police approached his room, Stephen Paddock shot through the door at them, injuring a security guard. Paddock then shot and killed himself, police said.

The 59 people killed represented a broad swath of society, there for the Route 91 Harvest Festival, a three day event in its final day of country music on the Vegas Strip.  Looking at the pictures of the victims, mostly white, one wonders if the shooting had happened at a Rap Music Concert if the screams from the liberal left Democrats would have been "racism!"

Nonetheless, the liberal left wasted no time to politicize the shooting as a way to, in their minds, advance their political agenda.  As expected, the Democrats are already using the Las Vegas shooting to demand more gun control. Democrat Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy issued a statement calling for Congress to “get off its ass and do something” following the shooting.  Democrat Massachusetts Senator, and Presidential consideration, Elizabeth Warren wrote on Twitter, “Tragedies like Las Vegas have happened too many times, we need to have the conversation about how to stop gun violence. We need it NOW.”  Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat that was once Speaker of the House, called for Congress to form a special committee regarding gun violence.

Hillary Clinton targeted the oldest Civil Rights organization in the United States, the National Rifle Association (NRA), whose original creation was for the purpose of defending the gun rights of blacks so that they could defend themselves against the Democrat Party sponsored KKK, by writing, “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.”

Self-Proclaimed Socialist, and 2016 Presidential Candidate that nearly dislodged Hillary Clinton, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont wrote on Twitter, “It is long past time for Congress to take action on gun safety to save innocent lives.”

Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey demanded Congress “close the gun show loophole” (which is a myth and does not exist) in response to the shooting. (There’s no evidence at this time that Paddock bought his weapons at a gun show.)

A note about the mythical gun show loophole:

Typically, at a gun show, only federally licensed dealers are allowed to participate.  Some gun sellers at gun shows are individuals.  I've seen them walking around with the gun they have for sale slung over their shoulder.  Technically, even those individual to individual sales are supposed to be scrutinized by federal regulation (and State regulation).  In some States, however, there are some person to person sales that are allowed without a background check.  Some long rifles, in particular, usually fall under this "loophole."  This is not a "gun show loophole."  This is an allowance in some States for one person to sell to another person (of the same residency of the same State) certain firearms in which that particular State allows person to person sales of without a background check, and is not fully covered by federal regulations. 

Here's what it comes down to.  There are some sales, and other transfers of ownership, that the federal government doesn't know about, that are perfectly legal, and it drives Democrats nuts.  Their call to "end the gun show loophole" is another way of saying that they don't like the fact that some guns are purchased without their knowledge, and that not all transfers of ownership falls under federal control.  In other words, the Democrats (without actually saying it) are pushing for a full scale, no exceptions, national registry.

New York Representative Carolyn Maloney demanded Congress “show they care by taking action” on gun control.

“How long do we let gun violence tear families apart? Enough,” wrote former Vice President Joe Biden. “Congress & the WH should act now to save lives. There’s no excuse for inaction.”

“It has been barely a year since what was previously the largest mass shooting in American history — the deadly attack at Pulse nightclub. In the interim, thousands more have been lost to the daily, ruthless toll of gun violence,” Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal said in a statement.  “Still, Congress refuses to act. I am more than frustrated, I am furious.”

The politicization of the horrible massacre is not enough.  Some Democrats are even willing to go so far to place their politics above giving respect to those who died during the Las Vegas slaughter.

Democrat Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton wrote, "As after #Orlando, I will NOT be joining my colleagues in a moment of silence on the House Floor that just becomes an excuse for inaction...Thinking of everyone in #LasVegas, and praying Congress will have the courage to do more than stand in silence to commemorate them."

While the politicians disgust me regarding this, it was a member of the media that gave us the verbal tirade that revealed what they are really thinking regarding the shooting.  A member of CBS, one of the company’s top lawyers, said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican.”

CBS fired her, and issued a statement.

“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families.”

Hayley Geftman-Gold's social media pages are no longer available for viewing, but the Daily Caller caught a screenshot of the offensive post.

CNN also gladly pointed out that the crowd was likely dominated by Republicans.

The leftist madness didn't stop there...

Actress Alyssa Milano's F-Bomb for the NRA was challenged by a Gay Patriot asking her why she wants to take guns away from gays, women and minorities to protect themselves.

Michael Ian Black claims that the NRA is a Terrorist Organization.

Lady Gaga's message for gun control was directed to the younger generation who doesn't understand that history shows that unarmed populations are enslaved populations.

Through it all, the ignorance of the liberal left has also been percolating to the top.

In the image on the left, ConsMilitia says, "The Constitution provides for such institutions - 'well regulated Militia' #2A which the @NRA seems completely unaware of."

Does ConsMilitia believe that the term "well regulated Militia" means a government controlled and regulated militia?

Wrong answer.

A well regulated militia, based on the definition of "regulated" at the time, means a militia that is in good order.

Since the militia during the Revolutionary War was in poor order (not well trained, poorly armed, not equipped with the equipment necessary to win decisively), the Founding Fathers realized to protect this country the people needed to all be armed without federal interference (the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, anyway, so no government interference is allowed in the first place), and in Article I, Section 8 the Congress is authorized to provide for the training of State militias (of which nearly half the States continue to maintain).

The ignorance regarding the 2nd Amendment, and guns in general didn't stop with ConsMilitia's idiotic Tweet, however. The halls of government, and the world of former government officials, is filled with people who are so ignorant about guns that the moment they open their mouth, the idiocy comes pouring out.  One of those very ignorant Democrat morons almost became President of the United States in the last election.  In the case of Hillary Clinton, she's the one that tried to start a conversation about the dangers of silencers.

Hillary Clinton remarked, "Imagine the Deaths if Stephen Paddock Used a Silencer."  She Tweeted, "the crowd fled at the sound of gunshots."

Dana Loesch, always consistent in her ability to point out the facts to moronic Democrats.  She Tweeted, "Suppressors only reduce by a few decibels, still same decibel level as a jackhammer."

Hollywood has us convinced that silencers fully silence gunshots, and even a pillow would deaden the sound of a gunshot.

For those who have been around guns, ear protection is a necessity because of how loud the sound of gunfire truly is.  Even devices designed to reduce the loudness of the gun blast is not capable of "silencing" it.

The New Republic magazine/website has proclaimed that all guns should be banned immediately. They even called for getting “rid of guns…on police.”

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

The New Yorker took a similar stand the morning after the Las Vegas attack, suggesting there “can be no truce with the Second Amendment.” They criticized President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). They then wrote in support of gun control:

Gun control acts on gun violence the way antibiotics act on infections—imperfectly but with massive efficacy. Yet, even with that knowledge, some of us, in our innocence, proposed a sort of truce about Second Amendment issues in the face of the ongoing national emergency—the Trump Presidency—in which it seemed essential to make common cause, even with those who have the strange American fixation on the right to own military-style firearms.

The writer at the New Republic does understand that bad guys still will get their hands on guns, again, right?  We see shootings in Europe all the time by Muslim terrorists, and European gun laws are very strict.  The gun genie has been out of the bottle too long.  Heck, if I wanted to, I could make a gun with a rock and a metal pipe.

The idea that the shooting may be a false flag incident with multiple people involved.  Who gave Stephen Paddock automatic weapons?  How did he manage to get all of the guns and ammunition into the hotel without being noticed, on his own?  What about the woman who told people that death was coming before the concert?  The gun control nuts have been desperate for another shooting to use for their agenda, after all.

One more thing.  Was there a second angle of shooting from the fourth floor of the hotel in Las Vegas?

The Las Vegas Shooter did not work alone.

If it's not a false flag operation orchestrated by the deep state of leftists, the other possibility is that it truly was a Muslim terrorist attack, but the extent of the operation is being hidden by the deep state of leftists in the government and in the media because they don't want the Muslim connection revealed.

Understanding the Threat by John Guandolo offers the following:

There has been a lot of speculation in both mainstream media and social media about Sunday night's tragedy in Las Vegas, where, according to the latest from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 516 people were injured and 59 people were murdered by Stephen Paddock.

Before any real information about the shooter was put out via U.S. media outlets, UTT published a tweet at 6:34 AM CST on Monday assessing the Las Vegas attack was likely a jihadi operation.  So far as UTT has been able to ascertain, we were the first organization in America to reach this conclusion.

The following were the basis for that assessment:

1. The Islamic State has previously called for attacks on the U.S. homeland and has specifically mentioned Las Vegas, Nevada as a target.
2. The Islamic State issued a statement last week through one of it's information outlets Nasher News calling for muslims to avoid places in America (and elsewhere) where "Crusaders" gather and have mentioned major events as good targets.
3. In recent days, jihadis have launched attacks in Europe.
4. The target of the attack.
5. The method and execution of the attack.

While investigation reveals Paddock was a politically left-wing individual with possible Marxist ties to Antifa and other groups, the evidence points to jihad.

Since UTT first published it's initial assessment, the Islamic State claimed the Las Vegas attack was conducted by one of their "soldiers."

It should be noted, this is a very strong data point in understanding the events in Las Vegas.
The Islamic State has never claimed responsibility for an attack that was not carried out by a jihadi.

Later in the day Monday, the Islamic State issued a second public message calling Stephen Paddock a "soldier of the caliphate" and a "martyr" and stating he converted to Islam in the last few months.

The Islamic State further gave Paddock the Arabic name of Abu Abed al Bir Al-Amriki.

The fact the FBI found "no evidence" of links between Paddock and "terrorist organizations" is, in fact, evidence he is likely linked to such organizations.

The FBI has been wrong on every single attack of this nature over the last 8 years.

The FBI had investigations on and interviewed nearly all of the jihadis who ended up killing Americans in the attacks in Little Rock, San Bernadino, Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando, Boston, and others.

The government called the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas and the beheading of a woman in Oklahoma as "workplace violence."

The government continues to catastrophically fail in their basic duties to (1) know the enemy and (2) protect the public.

UTT reminds the public that on numerous occasions we have identified threats inside communities that later produced jihadis who initiated attacks inside the United States.  Once such case involves the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (ICCP), which UTT included in several presentations given to law enforcement in Arizona beginning in September 2014.  UTT briefed law enforcement and local leaders that the center and its leaders are a danger to the community.

On May 3, 2015, two muslim jihadis from the ICCP went to Garland, Texas to kill people at the Draw Mohammad contest.  Fortunately, the jihadis were killed by police before they could harm innocent non-muslims.

While UTT makes this assessment based on the facts at hand, we will be monitoring the ongoing investigation, as well as the response by law enforcement (federal and local), state and national leadership, as well as the Islamic State.  We will continue to provide the information and our assessment of the situation to American citizens.

I am not suggesting I am fully convinced that the shooting in Vegas was a false flag operation, or that I know for sure that Islam had its own involvement in the massacre, but I do believe in our journey to discover the truth, no stone should be left unturned.

Trump's reaction was without mention of gun control or terrorism, and instead filled with sadness, shock, grief, and an offer of prayer.

We will never be able to reach security and full safety.  In a system of liberty, carnage of this level is possible.  Fact is, even in a system where there are government programs in place to outlaw guns and provide strong security, these kinds of things still happen.  Europe, Sydney, and attacks in Russia are examples of the reality that Islamic terrorism, and other forms of evil terrorism, exists. Truth is, the world is full of evil people, and unstable people.  When it comes to security, bag checks, and things like that, will have to exist.  Gun control, however, is not the answer.  Gun control only disarms the citizens, not the crazies.  And the problem is, once the people are disarmed, it gives government, who is now not worried about any resistance, the freedom to do as it chooses.

One last thing.  Israel stands with us as the image below shows.  I haven't seen any support from Muslim groups, only ISIS claiming to be behind the killings.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Chad Prather Tackles the NFL

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The End of the NFL Over a False Narrative of Racism

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

● NFL PROTESTS CONTINUE: 49ers KNEEL...

● Browns Raise FISTS...

● Dolphins STAND for 'GOD SAVE THE QUEEN'...

● Bar plays patriotic music instead of games...

● JAY-Z Wears Custom Kaepernick Jersey on 'SNL'...

Never mind Concussions.  The end of the NFL won't be because of how brutal the game is, but because of how stupid its players and management are.  As a business, they have stuck their middle-finger in the faces of most Americans who appreciate and respect the American Flag and the National Anthem.  But, they know not what they do. Like trained circus animals, they are simply obeying the demands of cultural Marxism, which demands that they stand by a false premise as they destroy their product and lose the loyalty of their consumers.

I served in the military, and I don't care how many times the protesters claim it's not about the flag or the National Anthem or patriotism.  What the NFL kneelers are doing is a kick in the gut of people like me who were willing to put our lives on the line while serving in the United States Military so that these overpaid children who play a game could kneel when they should stand, or so that they can shove their fists into the air in support of a misguided belief that is actually a call for collectivism.

I am probably the last conservative in the country that has not completely boycotted the game of professional football, but I am pretty close to turning my back on the game, as well.  It's a game, and I am a fan.  My favorite player, Derek Carr, not only did not kneel, he stood tall with his hand on his heart, and offered a prayer along with it.  So, I am still watching the games. . . but I will not be buying any more merchandise (well, I might get a Carr jersey to show my support for him), and I will not be traveling to a stadium to see a game.

That said, aside from class-acts like Carr, a large portion of the NFL players have been in trouble with DUIs, arrests for domestic violence, arrests for assault and battery, and drug usage. They are overpaid kids who never experienced the middle class as adults, and have fallen for a false narrative of racism and police brutality that simply does not exist.

They act like thugs, and then wonder why the police give them a second look.  The players get paid incredibly high amounts of money, then act like there is something that is holding them and their brethren back.  If you think everyone is racist, and you think all of their actions are racist, then racism is all you are going to see, regardless of the facts.

They say the cause of all of the woes of the Black Community is racism, and so they kneel and raise their fists in a proclamation that the American System, its flag, and its National Anthem is somehow oppressive.

Really?  Let's look at the facts.

► In 1960 only 22% of families in the black community were single-parent households.

Now, that number is about 72%. Daily Signal

► According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, in 1938 about 11% of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today about 75% of black children are born to unwed mothers. Walter E. Williams

► In the decades following emancipation, poverty was widespread throughout the black community regardless of the status of the family.  Today, about 22% of blacks in total live in poverty. U.S. Poverty Statistics

► Two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8% of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5%. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37%. As early as 1900, when racism was rampant, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites. Today, in a time were we just finished two terms of the first black President, and experienced the candidacy of a black neurosurgeon named Ben Carson in the last election for the White House, it’s about 30 percent longer. Daily Signal

► In 2016, only 16 unarmed black men all year were killed by police.  In 2015 the number was 36.  Washington Post 2016, Washington Post, 2015.

► The black population in the United States is roughly 47 million (43 million "black only"), or about 14.5% of the total American population.  Lightning strikes about 300 Americans annually.  14.5% of 300 is 43.5, which means if one was to stick strictly to the percentages, about 43 to 44 blacks are possibly struck by lightning each year.  Taking into consideration that only 16 unarmed black men all year were killed by police last year, and 36 the prior year, based on the numbers a black is more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a police officer.  Black Demographics

► The National Review reports it's not true that black men are constantly stopped by the police for no reason. Indeed, black men are less likely than white men to have contact with the police in any given year, though this includes situations where the respondent called the cops himself: 17.5 percent versus 20.7 percent. Similarly, a black man has on average only 0.32 contacts with the police in any given year, compared with 0.35 contacts for a white man. It’s true that black men are overrepresented among people who have many contacts with the police, but not by much. Only 1.5 percent of black men have more than three contacts with the police in any given year, whereas 1.2 percent of white men do.  Only 0.6 percent of black men experience physical force by the police in any given year, while approximately 0.2 percent of white men do. To be fair, these are probably slight undercounts, because the survey does not allow us to identify people who did not experience physical force during their most recent contact but did experience such force during a previous contact in the same year.  Only 0.08 percent of black men are injured by the police each year, approximately the same rate as for white men. A black man is about 44 times as likely to suffer a traffic-related injury, according to the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. Moreover, keep in mind that these tallies of police violence include violence that is legally justified.  Data from 2015 suggests that black men are three times as likely to commit violent crimes as white men. To the extent that cops are more likely to use force against people who commit violent crimes, which they surely are, this could easily explain any disparities, even though the differences are very slight.

The facts show us that racism and police brutality is not running rampant throughout the United States as we are being falsely advised by the media and leftist politicians.  In fact, based on the poverty numbers as compared to the numbers regarding the family unit, it is apparent that the problem does not lie in the Democrat Party's false accusation of racism, but in the reality that the family unit has been devastated by some kind of interference that is plaguing the black community more so than other communities.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "The effect of married fathers on child outcomes can be quite pronounced. For example, examination of families with the same race and same parental education shows that, compared with intact married families, children from single-parent homes are: 

⬝More than twice as likely to be arrested for a juvenile crime,[3]⬝Twice as likely to be treated for emotional and behavioral problems,[4]⬝Roughly twice as likely to be suspended or expelled from school,[5] and
⬝A third more likely to drop out before completing high school.[6] 

The effects of being raised in a single-parent home continue into adulthood. Comparing families of the same race and similar incomes, children from broken and single-parent homes are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact married families.[7] Compared with girls raised in similar married families, girls from single-parent homes are more than twice as likely to have a child without being married, thereby repeating the negative cycle for another generation.[8] 

Finally, the decline of marriage contributes to declining self-sufficiency and increased official poverty in future generations. Children living in single-parent homes are 50 percent more likely to experience official poverty as adults when compared with children from intact married homes. This intergenerational poverty effect persists even after adjusting for the original differences in family income and poverty during childhood. 

The War on Poverty and the Decline of Marriage 

Throughout U.S. history, marriage was the norm. Prior to the mid-1960s, nearly all children were born to married couples. When the War on Poverty began in 1964, only 7 percent of children were born to unmarried women. However, over the next four-and-a-half decades the share of non-marital births exploded. In 2013, 41 percent of all children born in the U.S. were born outside marriage.

The reality is two-fold.  One, the problems that exist in the black community are not the result of racism or police brutality, but instead is directly related to the breakdown of the family unit.  Two, the breakdown of the family unit began to occur at about the same time as President Johnson kicked the welfare system into high gear.  The Democrat Party remains to be the party of government dependency. Under the presidency of Barack Obama, by 2012 (only halfway through his presidency, mind you) federal spending on welfare programs increased by 32%.  The number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010.  Washington Times, Daily Caller.

The reason black lives did not improve during the Obama presidency is because President Obama was doubling down on the policies that have been destroying the black community, and keeping some blacks from realizing the American Dream.  It takes strong family units, and working to do so without government dependency, in order to activate one's pursuit of happiness.

As for the call for equality, the people kneeling at football games are calling for "equality in results", which is Marxist at its foundation, and has no place in the American System.  In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson did not write, "all men are expected to live with equal results thanks to government mandates."  He wrote that "all men are Created equal."  In other words, equality in the American System is not based on man's communist definition of equality, but God's definition of equality.  After our creation, the equality stops, and our pursuit of happiness takes hold.  Our individual talents and work ethics, combined with various environmental conditions, lead us all in different directions.  Some of us achieve higher than others.  I, myself, am still working to achieve some of my dreams and aspirations.  Our happiness and achievements are ours to pursue, not government's to give us.  In short, while the protesters in the black community has their "black-power" fists in the air with the expectation of government to somehow fix the woes of some members of the black community, the reality is, healing won't begin until the heart issues are resolved first.

As Benjamin Franklin so wisely said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom."  With an unwillingness to keep the family together, and a refusal to break away from the gifts of government that do nothing more than kill incentive, how can the percentage of blacks who remain in poverty ever expect to change their own conditions?

Democrats, with leftist progressive policies in place, have been running the big cities for generations, and nothing has improved.  If anything, it's getting worse.  Crime is escalating.  Black on black violence is escalating.  Education in the black community is in a state of dismal failure.  Perhaps it is time for the black community that votes Democrat to realize that the liberal left does not have the answers to their difficulties, and if anything, are contributing to the woes of the black community.  Perhaps the answer lies within themselves, and a form of government that is less intrusive than what the Democrats have to offer.  Perhaps the encouragement for self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual incentive through a free market system that is left alone by the government is what the black community needs.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Candace Owens, Black Issues and the NFL

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

Fire them all. . .






-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Catalonia: Vote with Bloodshed

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

In Spain's northeastern region of Catalonia, daring to vote for independence from the socialist progressive leftist government of Spain is punishable by violence. . .

The "YES" vote for secession won, as expected, but voters paid in pain and suffering.

More than 800 people were injured as riot police attacked peaceful protesters and unarmed civilians trying to cast their ballots.

Ninety percent of the 2.26 million Catalans who voted chose the “yes” side in favor of independence, not counting ballots confiscated by Spanish police during violent raids that aimed to stop the vote.

The question remains regarding if the Catalan officials will take the next step removing the only economically non-socialist region from Spain (and by the way, the most prosperous region in Spain).

To do so could ignite a civil war that would likely be quickly and savagely put down by the leftist progressive government in Madrid.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary 

Catalonia Bid for Secession Met with Spanish Aggression

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

When the southern States seceded as America approached the dawn of the War Between the States, the secession was committed with the understanding that the United States is a voluntary union. The States have the right to secede if they feel the federal government has breached the social contract called the United States Constitution, or if they believe the conditions are not beneficial for them if they remained in the union. Alexander Hamilton suggested that the United States should be in perpetual debt, for if the States have a stake in the national debt, they will be less likely to secede.

Most other countries are not constructed in a manner similar to the United States. They are nationalistic centralized systems, with perhaps the exception of the United Kingdom, which is a union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Spain was once divided. Prior to the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula by the Roman Empire, the area was home to four primary groups, the Iberians, the Celts, the Lusitanians, and the Tartessians. After Roman control and the invasion and occupation by Germanic Tribes (during which the area was split into 11 regional divisions) that followed the fall of the Roman Empire, Muslim hordes invaded (711 A.D.) and took possession of Spain (718 A.D.). Under Islamic control, with only a sliver of a monarchy of the Christian Kingdom of Asturias along the northern coast, the Muslims used their control over the Iberian Peninsula as a base for invading Europe, reaching at one point into northern France, where the Islamic soldiers were repelled by the West Germanic Franks at the Battle of Tours in 732.

During the centuries approaching the Age of Exploration, the wars between Christians and Muslims in Spain increased, with the north eventually consisting of eight Christian kingdoms: Portugal, Galicia, Leon, Toledo, Castille, Navarra, Aragon, and the Catalan Counties.

By the 1400s, the Muslims had been driven to only a southern region called Granada, which also included at the western edge of the territory Gibraltar.  What remained was an independent Portugal, and Castille & Leon, Navarre, and Aragon.  Various minor regions exited within those three kingdoms.  Catalonia and Valencia existed withing the Kingdom of Aragon.  By the end of the 14th Century, the Muslims were completely driven from the Peninsula.  The Jews and Muslims who remained on the Iberian Peninsula were then compelled to convert to Christianity, or face death.

When Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon married, it united the kingdoms under Christian Rule and stet the stage for modern Spain.  In an effort to increase the strength of the new unity of Spain, and to compete with Portugal whose plan to round the horn of Africa had given the country on the western coast of the Iberian Peninsula a route to the Orient without having to deal with the Muslim hordes should they make a journey by land, when a young Italian sailor named Christopher Columbus with a plan to sail westward to reach the riches of the far east came to Isabella and Ferdinand with a request of financial help, the Spanish rulers agreed and fully funded Columbus's trip.  As a result Spain enjoyed a sudden influx of wealth, propelling Spain into a position to be the dominant power in Europe for the following two centuries.  Strategic marriages of the five children of Ferdinand and Isabella ensured political stability, and peace with Spain's European neighbors.

The Spanish Empire's growth led to Spain's global empire to be the largest geographical empire in world history.  Continued military campaigns, largely with the Barbary Pirates of North Africa, and a great plague during the intersection of the 16th and 17th Centuries that killed somewhere between 600,000 and 700,000 people, were early contributors to Spain's reduction in power as the world's greatest empire.  In 1640, during a war that turned in France's favor, Portugal and Catalonia rebelled.  Portugal was lost, but Catalonia's independence was suppressed.  In 1659, the Treaty of the Pyrenees finished off the world dominance of the Spanish Crown, and brought to the end the Spanish Golden Age.  By the end of the 17th Century, Spain's position as the greatest empire had been completely lost, and the Spanish Golden Age was becoming a distant memory in the rear-view mirror of history.

After rule over Spain by the Bourbons, who also ruled over France, Spain took advantage of the French Revolution that overthrew the Bourbons.  Though militarily ill-prepared as the Napoleonic forces began their age of terror, the peasants took to arms to defend Spain from France.  Spain, however, was defeated, and the Spanish King was eventually dethroned by Napoleon.  The Spaniards revolted in 1809, and the Spanish guerrillas proved to be too much of a headache for France, eventually resulting in a collapse of French power in Spain.  By 1812, after Napoleon's disastrous campaign in Russia, France recalled many of its forces from Spain to assist in defending France against Russia and other coalition forces.  In 1814, Ferdinand VII was restored as King of Spain.  During those tumultuous years, however, Spain had also lost all of her New World colonies to revolts, except Cuba and Puerto Rico.

In 1820, due primarily to economic troubles that made it difficult for Spain to pay its soldiers, a revolution exploded on the Iberian Peninsula.  In 1822 France intervened as the unrest was reaching a crescendo.  During the 1830s, war broke out again, and the fight for control over Spain led to yet another change in power, and dictatorial-style rule. In 1846 another uprising, which led to the Matiner's War, emerged in Catalonia, but was suppressed by the centralized Spanish government forces in 1849.  In 1868 another revolution emerged, leading Spain into a two-year period of anarchy.  Another rebellion followed, but after the whole mess the First Spanish Republic emerged in 1873.  A year later Alfonso XII of Spain was crowned as King, and a restoration of Bourbon Rule led to more than a decade of economic and political stability.  Trouble once again began to brew with the unexpected death of Alfonso XII in 1885, and rule was given to his son who was born after the king's death.  The assassination of the prime minister followed in 1897.  A war with the United States in 1898 led to the loss of the Philippines, Guam, Cuba and Puerto Rico.  A bloody revolt in Catalonia in 1909 was savagely suppressed.  Though Spain remained neutral during World War I, a flu epidemic from 1918 to 1919 still devastated the population.  In 1923 a dictator, General Miguel Primo de Rivera, seized control of the government, but the economic disaster of the Great Depression weakened his rule, and in 1931 general elections were held to replace his oppressive government rule.

The rise of fascism and communism in Spain led to a full-scale Spanish Civil War in 1936, pitting leftists against leftists.  The Nationalist rebel forces supported by Nazi Germany and Italy defeated the socialists, anarchists and communists in the civil war, sparking the rise of yet another dictatorship.  Francisco Franco ruled over Spain with an iron fist from 1936 to 1975.  During his reign Spain eventually lost all of her remaining colonial possessions.

While Spain enacted its current constitution as a means of continued unification in 1978, the country admits it is actually comprised of 17 autonomous communities.  In 1982 the socialists gained complete control of the country, and only Catalonia has emerged as an economically stable region.  The Catalans embrace a free market style system that remains autonomous from the remainder of Spain.  However, Spain uses Catalonia's prosperity to fund her progressive programs of government dependence in other non-Catalan regions.  A campaign for independence has once again emerged in Catalonia, embracing the motto "Spain robs us."  The claim is that an independent Catalan State, released form its financial contributions to the rest of Spain, would prosper and enable the region to resolve their own financial difficulties.

The latest call for independence by the Catalans has been declared unlawful by Spain's left-wing centralized government.  Despite the order disallowing the vote, tens of thousands of Catalans are expected to defy Spanish authorities and attempt to vote in the banned independence referendum on Sunday.

At the potential polling places, people have brought sleeping bags and prepared to bed down on gym mats.

The ballot, according to government officials in Madrid, and Spain's Constitutional Court, has no legal status.  Spain's government claims the vote is at odds with the 1978 constitution.

According to polls, about 40 percent of Catalans support independence The region of 7.5 million people has an economy larger than that of Portugal.

It is believed the "yes" vote will win, considering most of those who support independence are expected to cast ballots while most of those against it are not.

Police monitored schools earmarked as polling stations and occupied the Catalan government's communications hub on Saturday in an effort to prevent the referendum from going ahead.

The government states police have been ordered to remove people from polling stations on Sunday.

Organizers are calling for voters to arrive at 5 a.m. for the planned 9 a.m. vote at polling stations and to wait in line until the schools open.

"We must be sure there are lots of people present of all ages," they said in instructions disseminated on social media.

Any volunteer staffing a voting station with use of a census listing eligible voters would be liable for a fine of up to 300,000 euros.

In Madrid, hundreds gathered waving the national flag and chanting 'Spanish unity' and 'Don't fool us - Catalonia is Spain'.

Clashes with police have already begun, storming polling stations, and already, more than 337 people have been injured.  Non-lethal rubber bullets are being used, and have already been fired at pro-independence members of the population. 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary