Saturday, March 03, 2018

Hope For California

By Senator Mike Morrell

In meeting with various groups throughout the state, I am often asked if there is still hope for California. I have had my doubts with all of the challenges and problems we face, but I am confident that the answer is “yes.”

It is said that “as California goes, so goes the nation.” With almost 40 million people and as the world’s sixth largest economy, our state is too important to lose.

As citizens committed to limiting government’s power, we are drawing a line in the sand and setting a course to take it back.

I have four reasons to believe that there is hope for California.

First, 40 years of one-party rule by Senate Democrats in Sacramento has reached a tipping point. They have overstepped their bounds and voters are becoming more aware of the negative effects. They have recklessly pursued an agenda of progressive/socialistic policies that expand the bureaucratic state and affect us economically, politically, and spiritually.

On their watch, education rankings have dropped to 44th in the country. California has at least 34 percent of the entire nation’s welfare caseload. We have the highest state sales tax and now among the highest gas and car taxes.

For over a decade, surveys of 500 CEOs around America have rated California the worst place to do business. During the same period, we have seen a net loss of one million residents.

Perhaps most egregious is what is happening to public safety. Laws created by the governor and Democratic legislators to release at least 40,000 convicted felons into our neighborhoods have put our loved ones in harm’s way. Now a judge has ruled that another 10,000 sex offenders should be eligible for early parole.

Their policies have failed us.

Secondly, while many of my friends across the aisle refuse to face reality, others see the writing on the wall. That is why their default is to argue through politically correct speech. They know they have lost the debate so their go-to plan is to blame and accuse, making them weak. Therefore, we can win.

We as Republicans have practical and substantive answers. We believe in limiting government’s power, letting Americans keep more of their money to invest in their families, churches, and charities. We recognize that citizens rank above the state and that politicians and bureaucrats work for us. They are public servants, not masters.

Next, and more importantly, we have seen throughout history that America’s morality and religion are indispensable supports for our nation’s peace and prosperity, a point made by Alexis de Tocqueville, 19th-century author of Democracy in America.

I have seen his observation ring true in recent months as I have spoken to many business groups as well as nearly 600 pastors, whose influence reaches over two million people. They are serious about taking back our state – I have not seen this kind of engagement before now and it is encouraging.

We are seeing a revival of the rich spiritual heritage of our state, which is my fourth reason to believe there is hope for California. Consider the planting of 21 missions, a ministry begun by Father Junipero Serra. Furthermore, World Vision, Focus on the Family, Campus Crusade for Christ, and the Pentecostal movement were all started here, and in our very own San Bernardino Mountains, a young Billy Graham made a world-changing decision to preach the Gospel.

For these and other reasons, though we live in difficult times, I do not believe Providence has written California off.

However, as the Declaration of Independence reminds us, we are governed by consent – a government of, by, and for the people. It is our responsibility to plant the flag and regain our state.

Only when those who have a vested interest in preserving our religious, political, and economic freedom, such as people of faith and business owners, take a stand will we make headway in this cause.

In 1941, the University of Rochester awarded Winston Churchill with an honorary degree. He delivered acceptance remarks broadcast from London. He spoke on the realities facing the world in the lead up to the entrance of the United States into World War II:

“We are sure that the character of human society will be shaped by the resolves we take and the deeds we do. We need not bewail the fact that we have been called upon to face such solemn responsibilities. We may be proud, and even rejoice amid our tribulations, that we have been born at this cardinal time for so great an age and so splendid an opportunity of service here below.”

Though the circumstances are different, Churchill’s words are a fitting description of our time and age. With your help – and the resolve of millions of other Californians – I have faith that we will rise to meet the challenges we confront.

State Senator Mike Morrell represents the 23rd Senate District in the California State Legislature, which includes portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles counties.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Facebook Threatens Satire Site for Being Satirical

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

How dare a parody website not report accurate news . . . oh, wait, it's satire.  It's poking fun.

Facebook doesn't care.

Snopes rated the story by the Babylon Bee false, so Facebook is threatening the parody site for making fun of CNN.

How dare they!

It's a Christian satire site, or at least that is what The Babylon Bee claims to be.  Satire means parody, which means don't take them serious, it's tongue in cheek sarcasm and fun.  But, since Facebook, and the liberal left, are targeting everything they disagree with for termination, The Babylon Bee received a terse warning from Facebook after "independent fact-checkers" at Snopes reported that one of the site's humor articles was "false."

The article was a joke about CNN, with the headline: "CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication."

Facebook didn't find it funny, or took it way too seriously, and therefore threatened The Babylon Bee with a reduction in distribution, and their ability to monetize and advertise is to be removed.

Really?

It's pretty obvious the whole thing is a joke buy the headline, alone.

Here's Snopes' angle on the whole thing:

Claim: CNN invested in an industrial-sized washing machine to help their journalists and news anchors spin the news before publication.

Rating: False

"Although it should have been obvious that the Babylon Bee piece was just a spoof of the ongoing political brouhaha over alleged news media 'bias' and 'fake news,'" Snopes explained, "some readers missed that aspect of the article and interpreted it literally."

Facebook, included.

By the way, at the bottom of The Babylon Bee’s website, they spell it out for you.  "Your Trusted Source For Christian News Satire".

Facebook, it was a joke, you stupid imbeciles.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Association: Chad Bianco, Riverside County Sheriff


Constitution Radio: Constitutional Crisis


Douglas V. Gibbs hosts Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific Time.

Live on the Radio Dial: Banning, KMET 1490-AM
Live on the Internet: KMET1490AM.com
Live on your mobile phone: KMET APP
● Android   ● Apple
Archived as a Podcast: Sound Cloud

Join us, not only to listen, but to participate. Phone in during the show, 951-922-3532

Here's this week's AllStar Collision/CarStar Big Stories of the week:


- The Courts

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-judicial-weapon-against-trump.html

- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/03/guns-democrats-and-common-sense.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/students-use-misinformation-to-attack.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/funded-anti-gun-protests-law.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/gun-violence-increasing-why.html

- National Security

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/03/russia-reveals-insecurity-with-claim-of.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/03/mueller-indictment-deception.html

- The Left's Left Turn

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/02/california-democrat-party-snubs.html

- Chappaquiddick

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/03/finally-chappaquiddick.html


Conservative Voice Radio: General Plan


Conservative Voice Radio

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan, and Diane.  We were also, once again, joined in the studio with Lloyd White of the Beaumont City Council to discuss what is going on locally.

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at www.kmet1490am.com or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's topics:

- Democrats Fail to Offer Endorsement to Feinstein, or Gavin Newsom

- SCOTUS Rejects DACA, rewrites laws

- Lloyd White: General Plan of Beaumont

- Europe's Invaders

- NRA Attacked, Gun Shows Respond in Florida

- DACA Recipient Threatens School Shooting

Friday, March 02, 2018

Maywood, California majority illegal alien city?

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


https://youtu.be/u0SfSH37uoI

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Judicial Weapon Against Trump

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

The judicial branch was supposed to originally be the weakest branch of government, but over time it has become the most powerful branch.  From the point of view of the framers of the United States Constitution, the judicial branch was not supposed to have the power of interpreting the Constitution, or to interpret the laws of the United States.  Their job was to apply the laws to the cases they heard, and if there was a concern regarding the constitutionality of a law, then they were allowed to offer an opinion regarding their interpretation.  To this day the dockets begin with the words, "It is in the opinion of the court."

Yet, here we are, with the courts acting in ways that is frankly none of their business.

DACA: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump administration's appeal of a federal judge's ruling that requires the government to keep the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program going.

According to the ruling of a lower court, the Department of Homeland Security must continue to accept renewal applications from the roughly 700,000 young people who are currently enrolled in the program, known as DACA. The administration had intended to shut the program down by March 5.

Why is it the courts are involved in the first place?  DACA was put into place by executive order, an unconstitutional means of establishing the program.  According to Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, all legislative powers belongs to Congress.  How is it that Obama was able to put DACA in place through an executive order without legislative authority?

Since DACA was put into place by executive power, whether it was constitutional or not, it can then be removed by executive power, as well.  Yet, the courts are going to tell Trump he can't?  Why?

In short, the courts are challenging President Trump because they disagree with him ideologically.

There is no authority granted to the federal court system to strike down an executive order, so Trump ought to tell the courts to pound sand.

The court system's overreach is not only happening at the federal level. At the State level, for example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has told the State legislature that the Gerrymandered map that has been in place in that State is unacceptable, so the court issued its own congressional map to replace the old one. The GOP had an advantage, it has been assumed, under the old map, so the leftist judges have offered their new map to make it more fair.

The Supreme Court drew the map after Republican lawmakers and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) failed to come up with their own agreement by a set February 15 deadline.

The problem is, according to the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

At no point in the Constitution are the courts given any authority regarding elections.  It is purely a legislative authority.  In short, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally.

Here's the problem.  The courts are defying the rule of law by declaring that they are the rule of law.  Over the last two hundred plus years we have been told by the courts that they are the final say on everything, and we have to simply believe them. . . even though there is no authority granted for them to seize such a power.

At what point do we finally start impeaching judges and dismantling courts for their flagrant disobedience to the U.S. Constitution?

Congress has the power, but the reality is, they either don't realize it, they are too fearful to do anything, or they are complicit.

Most folks have told me they believe the latter to be the problem.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Republican Assembly Kicks Off in Buena Park

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

The California Republican Assembly, according to President Ronald Reagan, is the "Conscience of the Republican Party."  The organization will be spending the weekend discussing resolutions, initiatives, and various other committee meetings.  As a member of the Board of Directors, I am looking forward to Don Dix as being our Master of Ceremonies.  He's a radio host on KTIE AM590 The Answer, and good friend of mine.

The CRA Convention from March 2-4, 2018 is being held at the Knott's Berry Farm Hotel in Buena Park, California.  Last year we were in Fresno.  I am currently in a Resolutions Committee Meeting, among which one of the resolutions possibly being offered will be my City Ordinance for Cities opting out of California's SB54 Sanctuary State law.

I have chosen not to participate in the meals, but will be in as many meetings and workshops as possible.  I am a member of the Board of Directors.

The final Friday presentation tonight will be by Congressman Dana Rohrbacher and Congressional Candidate Tim Donnelly titled, "Battle for Congress - Which Seats are at Risk!"

Saturday's schedule will be filled with candidates speeches and various CRA reports, a State of our State Luncheon - Ignite the Grassroots with State Senator John Moorlach and Assemblyman Matthew Harper, and various workshops and speeches regarding activism, engagement with non-Republicans, the History of Identity Politics, and a presentation by Nick Adams titled "American Exceptionalism."

Sunday's prayer breakfast will have Pastor Jim Domen of Church United providing the keynote address.  Then, in the late morning, we will hold the CRA State Officers Elections, nominations and endorsements for candidates, endorsement of Statewide Ballot Measures, bylaws and resolutions, and finally the 2018-2019 CRA Board of Directors Meeting.

And, in between it all, I am squeezing in time to write, judge a 4-H Competition Saturday Morning, host my radio program from 1-3 pm, and host the Constitution Association Monthly Meeting on Saturday Night.

Whew, I love being busy.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Russia reveals insecurity with claim of new missile

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

President Trump has whipped out a more manly military strategy, and it's got Putin feeling a little small. So, as do all men when the insecurity begins to eat away at them, Vladimir Putin verbally claimed his was bigger.

My first question is how it is that a country with a third world economy who has historically had to steal our technology to jumpstart their own, has suddenly developed James Bond Movie level weapons?

During his annual State of the Union address (is that already a wannabe American thing?) Vladimir Putin has proclaimed that his country has a new prototype missile that "can reach any point in the world" and a supersonic weapon that cannot be tracked by anti-missile systems.  If attacked, Russia is ready to go nuclear.

Putin joked that the two new strategic nuclear weapons he described — the global cruise missile and the subsurface unmanned vehicle — did not have names yet and lawmakers could submit their suggestions via the Defense Ministry website.

"We see increased opportunities with the armed forces," he said. "We've done a lot to strengthen our army and navy and they are equipped with modern weaponry."

A video using computer animation wowed the audience as it showed them how one of the prototype missiles would work, explaining that the new system would have no limitation on range. "It can attack any target, through the North or South Pole, it is a powerful weapon and no missile defense system will be able to withstand," the president said.

Putin promised more was to come, including a "small nuclear power energy system" — a nuclear warhead — that can be deployed on a cruise missile system that can also, he claimed, "avoid all interceptors."

He said the country had tested this cruise missile with the "nuclear power energy unit" in 2017 and it was successful. Russia would start manufacturing this now, he added.

"This is unheard of and nobody else has such a system in the world. They might create something like this in the future but by then our guys will have created something new as well."

Putin's new arms race has him standing a lot more erect, emboldening him to say things like "but even this is not the end."  He then claimed to have a system capable of destroying intercontinental targets with "hypersonic speed."

"I'm pleased to inform you that after certain experiments, we are sure that soon Russia's strategic missile forces will have a new system capable of destroying intercontinental targets with hypersonic speed and high-precision, able to maneuver both in terms of its course and altitude. There are no systems like that in the world."

He said Russia had been open about the development of such a system but that "nobody listened to us, but listen to us now." Lawmakers gave Putin a standing ovation at that point.

Overall, Putin's claim is that Russia has adopted 300 new models of weaponry providing the armed forces with 18 new ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles), and two submarine-based ballistic missiles. He added that the country had commissioned three new nuclear submarines and also increased the number of its high-precision long-range missiles.

He said Russia had developed new weapons as a response to the U.S.' withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002. The treaty, signed between the U.S. and then Soviet Union in 1972, barred the countries from deploying defenses against strategic ballistic missiles.

Russia has complained repeatedly about the U.S. placing anti-ballistic missile systems on its doorstep, as a result of what it called "eastward NATO expansion", in the form of the global missile defense system in Romania and Poland.

Putin said that if Russia had done nothing in response, its nuclear potential could have been undermined. Instead, Russia had responded by creating weapons that could bypass the U.S.' global missile defense system.

'I'm not bluffing'

My memory hearkens back to Ronald Reagan, who baited Russia to join him in an arms race.  As Russia spent money to keep up, Reagan continued to out maneuver the Soviet Union . . . until eventually the Russian military budget was breaking into the money needed for taking care of the people, and it collapsed the communist country, and eventually led to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

While Putin insists that Russia has no plans to attack anybody or to take anything away from anybody, saying "we have everything we need," the reality is that their 3rd World economy cannot sustain the kind of weapon development programs Putin is boasting.

While Putin is shouting, "I'm not bluffing," and that Russia is ready to defend herself, he sounds more like a child in the schoolyard trying to bully everyone into believing his stories of greatness . . . as everyone snickers about his actual shortcomings.

"I hope all these things I have said will sober up any potential aggressor and any unfriendly steps taken towards Russia like deploying missile defense systems and expanding NATO towards our borders."

"Russia's growing military power is just a guarantee of peace on our planet," he insisted, and it would preserve the balance of powers in the world.

Right.  Sure.  You know, it's hard to believe Putin's "we're surrounded by aggressors" moment of crying shortly after his military took Georgia, South Ossetia, Crimea, and invaded Ukraine.

Putin also swung back and forth his claim that Russia is developing new underwater drones that can carry nuclear warheads. These were described as un-manned, noiseless submarines that move at ultra-deep levels and at high speed. "This is just fantastic," Putin said.

"There is no defense system that can cope with such subsurface vehicles that can be equipped with conventional or nuclear weapons, attacking coastal defenses and infrastructure facilities." These underwater drones are 100 times smaller than a conventional submarine, Putin noted.

Trump is watching.  America is watching.  You think you got something, Russia?  I am thinking Putin will fall short if it comes to a moment of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."

In the end, I am thinking Putin's claims are impotent, at best.  Well, at least I hope so.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Finally . . . Chappaquiddick

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

I wonder how accurate the movie is.  Does it give us the 1969 cover-up as the murder it really was, or does it protect the Kennedy name as the Democrats have been doing for as long as they can?  We'll find out when the film hits theaters on April 6.  Hollywood, after all, tends to lean leftward . . . but, you never know.  I've been stunned before (in National Treasure, Ben Gates played by Nicholas Cage, says, "Before the Civil War, the states were all separate. People used to say, "The United States are." Wasn't until the war ended people started saying, "The United States is." - which is correct).



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Guns, Democrats, and Common Sense

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

At first, when David Hogg, the alleged shooting victim from the high school in Florida turned anti-gun activist, began attacking the NRA, I thought the kid was simply an uninformed buffoon.  Now, with his latest offering regarding AR-15s, I've decided he's a complete moron . . . at least when it comes to guns.  Then again, aren't most (if not all) anti-gun Democrats and their allies complete idiots when it comes to their gun ignorance?

You know, like Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D., N.Y.), who called for a ban on "machine gun magazines" during a press conference Tuesday.

What in the hell is a machine gun magazine?

I am going to guess that she got bump stocks and high-capacity magazines all jumbled in her head, and since she has no clue what she's talking about, she rifled them together into an idiotic quote.

According to Katie Pavlich, getting back to David Hogg The Ignorant, his latest target in his crusade is specifically the AR-15.

On MSNBC, Hogg commented, "Who wants to go down the barrel of an AR-15, even with a glock? And I know that's what these police officers are supposed to do, but they're people too."

Hogg, like his classmates, know nothing about guns.  A quick trigger finger to them may have sounded like an automatic - even though they've likely never heard the sound of automatic gunfire (except maybe in movies and video games) before in their lives.  As I wrote a couple weeks ago about one of Hogg's classmates, "The cries of emotion are based, unfortunately, on false information. For example, the kid who claimed you don't need an AR-15 for hunting probably thinks the rifle is fully-automatic (pull the trigger, and a spray of bullets comes out), and that's just not true. Fully automatic rifles, which are closer to the definition of what an 'assault rifle' is, are already illegal. As for not needing it for hunting, the only difference between an AR-15 and a common hunting rifle are cosmetic accessories that make it look more military. The AR-15 essentially performs in the exact same manner as any other hunting rifle."

Well, the statement is accurate as far as semi-automatics go.  I will have to admit bolt-actions, lever-actions, and pump-actions will not be as fast.

Do kids like David Hogg even know the difference between a semi-automatic and firearms that require an action prior to firing the next round?

Hogg tried to say a Glock on a cop's hip couldn't keep up with an AR-15.

Reality is, they are both semi-automatics (one shot per trigger squeeze, no additional action required to drop the next round in the chamber, it happens "automatically").

Pavlich explains, in her article, that "In 2015 Garland Police Officer Gregory Stevens, armed with a Glock, took out two ISIS terrorists in Texas when they attempted to murder attendees of a 'draw Muhammed' cartoon contest. The terrorists were armed with AK-47 rifles. Like the AR-15, an AK-47 is a semi-automatic rifle."

The gunmen Stevens faced, considered terrorists by the FBI, were armed with assault rifles and body armor. Stevens stopped them with a handgun.

Despite the close-range firefight, Stevens left unscathed.

Last summer, Capitol Hill Police officers Crystal Griner and David Bailey engaged a man armed with an SKS 7.62-millimeter caliber semi-automatic rifle. Both of the officers were injured, but continued to pursue the man until he was neutralized. They were armed with handguns.

The inaction of the deputy on campus in Florida was not because of the gun's size in Nikolas Cruz's hands.  The deputy who did not engage made that decision out of fear of the gunfight, not the size of the gun.  I get it.  It's a scary thing.  I've been in a similar situation before where you are looking the guy who wants to kill you in the eyes, and what saves your life is that you are a better shot.  It's very scary, very heart-thumping, and something you never forget for the rest of your life.  That said, I had a .45 ACP 1911 in my hands, and the other guys had AK47s.  I'm alive, they are not.

Hogg's claim that a semi-automatic pistol cannot win a firefight with an AR-15 is hogg-wash.

In fact, I would even bet that someone who is trained and a good enough shot could have even taken out Cruz with a single-action revolver. . . a .22 at that.  Cruz was a coward, and acting erratically.  A level head and a well placed shot would have ended it all.

The crusade to take away firearms from law-abiding citizens, for the Democrats, is not a winning argument for them, by the way.  Most people believe that stricter gun laws will either have no effect or lead to increased violent crime.  Rasmussen finds that 54% think massive government failures are mostly to blame for the Parkland, Florida shootings, while only 33% blame a lack of gun control. Interestingly, the finding is even more pronounced among those who have school-age children: 61% think government is mostly to blame, while only 23% point the finger mostly at guns.

As always, throughout American History, when leftists threaten to take away our guns, the public says, "Hell, NO!"

Pavlich's article also made me aware of a video where CNN’s Gary Tuchman is firing an AR-15 at a range, and he obviously has no idea what he is doing.  He has the rifle too low to get his eyes lined up in the sights, he's anticipating the recoil and as a result his gun’s muzzle is bouncing all over the place, and I am convinced that if there is a target in front of him, not a single round has penetrated it.  Check it out on Twitchy.

President Trump went so far as to say that a firearm in the firefight might not even have been necessary for him to be willing to engage Cruz. “I really believe I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon,” Trump said.

Late-night talk show hosts ran with it.  Comedians Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, and Trevor Noah joked it up quite a bit over Trump's comments.

Except, Trump has already proven in his life that what he said, he would do.

The Epoch Times reports:
...the president’s claim matches his behavior during a violent mugging described in a Nov. 20, 1991, Daily News article. 
The original article, “Mugger’s Trumped: Donald stops attack,” written by Daily News staff writer James Rosen, is now only available from Philly.com archives, but images of it are circulating on the web. 
“I’m not looking to play this thing up,” Trump said in the Nov. 20, 1991, report. “I’m surprised you found out about it.” 
In the incident, Trump ordered his driver to pull over after he saw “a big guy with a big bat” bashing another person. 
“Someone in the car looked over and said, ‘Gee, look at that, it’s a mugging,’” Trump said. “I said to my driver to stop the car because it was brutal-looking.” 
Witnesses told the Daily News that Trump got out of his black stretch limousine on Monday during the assault in Manhattan. Marla Maples, who was married to Trump in the 90s, was seen grabbing his arm.
The story goes on to explain how Trump, unarmed with anything but his wits and compassion, confronted the individual, and ended the beating.

People like Mr. Hogg want you to believe that America's gun culture is the problem.  That, because we allow gun ownership in this country, we are spiraling out of control with deaths by firearms.  Surely, with so many guns in the hands of citizens the homicide rate for America must be among the top in the world . . . and surely, socialist havens with strict gun control laws must be much safer.

Three years ago, in a video titled Number One With A Bullet, Bill Whittle reveals otherwise.



I believe there are a number of causes, regarding what gun violence we do have . . . that is, if you believe the media that it is rising and getting out of control.

Among the reasons we are seeing an uptick in gun violence, and violence in general, especially when it comes to our younger generation, is that in our culture we have turned our back on God.

Benjamin Franklin provided an insight to the importance of being a godly society when he wrote, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.  As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

Meanwhile, the "masters" have been literally putting in place laws to worsen the situation, not make it better.

Breitbart reports, "The Broward County school district’s adoption of a school discipline policy that was praised by the Obama administration for seeking to reduce the reported number of school suspensions, expulsions, and arrests may have played a role in the fact that Nikolas Cruz remained under the radar until his shooting rampage in Parkland, Florida, on February 14."

Okay, I can hear the leftists now . . . crying because I am claiming that the shooting may be Obama's fault.  The thing is, the facts shout louder than their cries.
“The facts pattern that has emerged strongly suggests it played a role,” Manhattan Institute senior fellow Max Eden tells Breitbart News. “It’s not actually accurate to say that what Broward County did was the result of the Obama policy. It might be more accurate to say that what Broward County did was in some way the inspiration for Obama’s policy.” 
The Obama-era Departments of Education and Justice – under education secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder –issued school guidelines in 2014 that claimed students of color are “disproportionately impacted” by suspensions and expulsions, a situation they said leads to a “school-to-prison pipeline” that discriminates against minority and low-income students. 
“Broward County was the first to have the goal of lowering suspensions, lowering expulsions, lowering arrests,” explains Eden. “And, so, they decided to reduce police involvement by not bringing in cops to arrest kids for a whole range of serious offenses, and then, as you would expect, the arrests go down when you stop arresting. That was taken to be a sign of success, based on that metric alone.” 
According to the Obama administration’s 2014 “Dear Colleague” guidance, any school district whose disciplinary measures showed “disparate impact” – meaning a disproportionately greater number of minority students are affected – is open to investigation by the Departments of Justice and Education, regardless of whether the behavior leading to the discipline is unacceptable.
Are you digesting this?  What they are saying is their brilliant way to reduce the problem of too many trouble-makers is to not report the trouble-makers.

What kind of backwards, cockamamie thinking, is that?

But, it gets even more interesting:
Eden explained at National Review in November how the Obama-era school discipline policy “extended Black Lives Matter’s ideology down into America’s classrooms”:

Social-justice activists assumed that just as racial disparities in the criminal-justice system must be evidence that cops are (at least implicitly) racist, so too racial disparities in school suspensions must be evidence that teachers are (at least implicitly) racist. Therefore, teachers — like cops — have to be restrained. 
Several years before the Obama school discipline policy appeared, however, the Broward County school board hired as superintendent Robert Runcie – who had worked for Duncan in Chicago – and also joined with the NAACP, law enforcement, and government agencies to adopt the district’s Collaborative Agreement on School Discipline, dubbed PROMISE (Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Interventions, Support, and Education). 
As M. Catharine Evans reports at American Thinker, in academic year 2011-2012, just prior to the school board’s decision to hire Runcie, the Broward County public school district had 1,062 school-related arrests – the highest number in Florida. 
Evans continues:

The Obama administration’s Department of Education was also involved in implementing PROMISE. Obama, who routinely dangled carrots in the form of matching federal grants to local districts for their participation in Common Core and Race to the Top, doled out millions to Broward. 
With the promise of federal monies, it’s no surprise that Superintendent Runcie (annual salary: $335,000) was happy to oblige his friends in D.C. Within a year of Runcie’s arrival, student arrest rates were down 66 percent, and Broward County Schools were about to hit the federal jackpot. 
One of the premises of the PROMISE program cited in the agreement and supported by data from the Obama Department of Education Office for Civil Rights reads:

WHEREAS, across the country, students of color, students with disabilities and LGBTQ students are disproportionately impacted by school-based arrests for the same behavior as their peers. 
“In 2015, the Obama administration brought them to a White House Summit on rethinking school discipline and to highlight their success and tell school districts throughout the country, ‘Look at what Broward is doing as an example,’” Eden says.
Broward County Sheriff Union president Jeff Bell told Laura Ingraham on Fox News that he places some blame for the horrific shooting on the school board and the adoption of its PROMISE program:

For years they know that the schools have been soft targets, and they claim that they want to have better police presence inside the schools, and they want tougher security, but, yet, they do not want to cough up the money to pay for that better security and fortify their schools and have better designs. They don’t want that. And, then when they are fortunate to have a school resource officer deputy on scene, and armed police presence, a lot of the liberal-thinking principals on campus there, they don’t want the police officers making arrests on campus, and they don’t want the drugs to be found on campus, and they don’t want the warrants to be served on campus because it looks like there’s bad stats at the school. 
So, I place a lot of blame on the school board with that and some of the programs that they’ve initiated with the state attorney and the sheriff’s office in years past. For example, the PROMISE program … the problem is when that program started, we took all discretion away from the law enforcement officers to effect an arrest if we choose to.
“If we’re trying to answer the question, ‘How did Nikolas Cruz remain under the radar?’ it certainly seems as though part of that answer is the fact that the radar was shifted and that students like him were supposed to be put under the radar in the first place,” Eden suggests. “The point of the PROMISE program was to not let them know about it.”

We've become godless and senseless . . . and we wonder why the crazies are shooting people.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, March 01, 2018

Constitution Association: Chad Bianco . . . Constitutional Sheriff

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs


Temecula Constitution Class: Natural Rights, States Rights (Amendments 9 and 10)


Join us Thursday Night at 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
 
 
 
Lesson 16
 
Rights and State Sovereignty
 
A Protection of Rights Not Enumerated, 9th Amendment

The Bill of Rights was created to appease the Anti-Federalists, but many of the Framers envisioned possible dangers in its creation. In fact, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #84 suggested that there existed the possibility of misinterpretations that may place the rights of the people in danger from an overpowering federal government. In Federalist #84 Hamilton suggested that government may create exceptions to powers not granted, and argue the power exists because it is not denied by the Bill of Rights. In other words, because the Constitution was designed to grant authorities, and those not listed are not granted, the Bill of Rights muddies the waters because those amendments tell the federal government what it can't do. Furthermore, many of the delegates in the Federal Convention of 1787 argued that the Bill of Rights is unnecessary, because prior to the creation of the Bill of Rights, the federal government was not given the authorities by the first seven articles over any of the issues listed in those first ten amendments in the first place.
 
Regardless, the Anti-Federalists demanded the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, or they would not ratify the document. Needing the support of the Anti-Federalists in order for the Constitution to be made law, the Founding Fathers that were at odds with the creation of the Bill of Rights compromised, and James Madison was given the task to write out the Bill of Rights based on proposals received from the several States.
 
Hundreds of proposed amendments were offered by the States. Only twelve were considered. Ten were ratified by the States during that time period. Answering concerns of the Founding Fathers that the federal government may interfere with rights not enumerated by the Bill of Rights, the 9th Amendment was included as one of those ten.
 
The Founders expected the people to protect their own rights through self-government. With freedom comes responsibility, therefore the people, when it came to their rights, should be governed by their conscience, not government. This concept tasked the people, with their individual judgment, to be civil, and to not encroach on one another's freedoms. If citizens were guilty of violating someone else's rights, the civil court system in each State would address the issue. Local courts were controlled by juries, and left all issues regarding rights at the local level.
 
The very notion of the federal government putting itself into a position of encroaching on the rights of the people was seen as tyrannical, and dangerous. After all, how could a centralized, far removed, governmental power that is unfamiliar with local customs and laws properly administer private rights issues?
 
The problem presented by the Bill of Rights, however, is that by listing specific rights that the government shall not infringe upon, many of the founders believed that would open up the opportunity for the federal government to "interpret" the Constitution to mean that all other rights not listed are fair game. Therefore, the wording of the 9th Amendment was carefully fashioned to enable the reader to recognize its intent.
 
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
In other words, the government cannot "deny or disparage" any rights, even the ones not listed in the Bill of Rights, because our rights are given to us by God. This does not give the federal government the authority to guarantee our rights, however. To allow a central government to force lower governments to abide by the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights is to open the door for government to later dictate to the lower governments other actions they would have to take regarding rights. Since rights, as the Declaration of Independence reveals, are "self-evident," as well as individual possessions, the authority to resolve disputes regarding rights remains at the local level.

Terms:

Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
 
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
 
Federal Government - System of government in which power is distributed between central authority and constituent territorial units.
 
Federalist Papers - Series of essays written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton defending, and explaining the principles of, the Constitution in order to encourage the New York Ratifying Convention to decide to ratify the Constitution.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Why were the Anti-Federalists so worried about the creation of the federal government through the Constitution?
 
2. Who gives us our rights? Why is this significant?
 
3. What are the dangers of enabling the federal government to "interpret" the Constitution?
 
Resources:
 
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
State Sovereignty

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
The 10th Amendment was designed to restrict federal powers from encroaching on State authorities. The article states that any powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution, and any powers not prohibited to the States, belongs to the States.
 
We must remember that originally all powers belonged to the States, a concept known as Original Authority. In order to create a central government, the States granted some of their powers to the federal government so that it may function in the manner necessary to protect, preserve, and promote the union. The States, in Article I, Section 10, are denied powers that would be in conflict with the federal powers granted. However, since the States originally maintained all powers, any authorities not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States for the purpose of enabling the federal government to do its job, were retained by the States.
 
The 10th Amendment was also designed to correct the problems that arose through the creation of the Bill of Rights. By the Bill of Rights being composed in such a manner that the first ten amendments tell the federal government what it cannot do, the worry was that the argument in support of unconstitutional activity by the federal government would entail the argument, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?" Such an argument by the central government may open up opportunities for the federal government to compromise Americanism, and fundamentally transform into a big government tyranny.
 
The Constitution was designed to grant authorities to the federal government so that it may function in the manner originally intended. The powers granted to the federal government are the only authorities the federal government has. If the powers are not enumerated, the federal government does not have those authorities. The 10th Amendment was written to remind us that even though the first eight amendments tell the federal government it "shall not infringe," the rule of the Constitution is that all federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution, and if the power is not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the States, the authority remains with the States.
 
This article was written to support State Sovereignty. It is the Tenth Amendment to which one must first go when debating States' Rights. The amendment clearly states that all federal powers are enumerated, and the remaining unlisted powers, if not prohibited, belongs to the States.
 
James Madison makes a clear argument in support of the concept of State Sovereignty in Federalist #45: ". . . each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments. . . The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. . ."
 
The States serve in a manner similar to that of parents. The people, through their States are the parents of the federal government, but the petulant child is not only acting in ways never authorized, but the parents, through representation, and other means, have determined for themselves that they have no ability to rein in the out of control creation. The 10th Amendment reveals the reality that the States are sovereign, and that the federal government has only limited powers.
 
When breaking down the language of the Tenth Amendment, the previous articles of the Constitution become clear. It is in the Tenth Amendment that the principles of a limited government are most clearly articulated.
 
The concept that the Constitution was designed not to tell the federal government what it cannot do, but to tell it what it can do, is presented clearly in the first portion of this amendment. Powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are not authorities granted, meaning that the federal government is limited to only the powers enumerated by the Constitution.
 
Some powers, despite the fact that original authority of all powers belongs to the States, are prohibited to the States. The authorities prohibited to the States are those that, if the States had those powers, may interfere with the federal government's task of protecting, preserving, and promoting the union. The list of powers prohibited to the States, any amendments doing the same notwithstanding, are located in Article I, Section 10.
 
The word reserved was chosen carefully for this amendment. "Reserved" is used rather than the word "granted," because the States are not granted any powers by any source. All of the powers already belonged to the States from the beginning. Any powers the States did not grant to the federal government, nor decide to prohibit to themselves through the Constitution, remain with the States. The presence of the word "reserved" reveals that fact. Reserved, in the context of this article, also means "To hold for their own use."

Terms:
 
Americanism - A philosophy of freedom that actively seeks less government and more personal responsibility.

Original Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
 
Reserved - Kept for another or future use; retained.
 
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
 
States' Rights - The authorities of the States over local issues, and other issues, that are not directly related to the preservation of the union or are considered as federal issues.
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1. Why was it important to ensure the federal government did not encroach on State authorities?
 
2. What did Madison mean when he wrote, "the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments."

3. Why is it important that the enumerated powers limit the authorities of the federal government?

4. How does the fact that the States have original authority in regards to all powers bring into perspective the relationship between the States and the federal government?
 
5. Why was the word "reserved" used in the Tenth Amendment, rather than granted?
 
Resources:
 
About the Tenth Amendment, Tenth Amendment Center:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/about/about-the-tenth-amendment/

Definition of Enumerated, 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,enumerate

Definition of Reserved, 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,reserved

James Madison, The Federalist Papers #45, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).

Thirty Enumerated Powers, Tenth Amendment Center:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/historical-documents/united-states-constitution/thirty-enumerated-powers/
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Mueller Indictment Deception

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

I was in a tense discussion with a family member who is so far the the left politically that he might as well admit, right now, that he's a communist.  He yelled at me about how civilians should not be allowed to own guns, how the States can't be trusted (making my position of supporting "state sovereignty dog and pony act as dangerous as supporting slavery"), Christianity is the "true mental disorder and all people who believe in a magical invisible being somewhere in the sky ought to be committed and never let out - especially if they say that fictional being is talking to them", and when it comes to Trump I might as well shut up because "Mueller is finding the truth, and has already gotten one Trump campaign team member to plead guilty about colluding with the Russians."

What?  All of what he said was nuts.

My responses were as follows:

"Civilians should not be able to own guns?  Yeah, let's take all guns from the people, and allow only government to walk around with them.  What could go wrong?  Hang on, let's ask the German people or the Russian people, after their bouts with dictatorships that took guns as their first priority."

"The States created the federal government to handle the external issues, and for the States to handle their own issues.  Do you really want a federal official in an office on the other side of the country who knows nothing about your local culture or local needs determining the rules of your own community?"

"So you want to lock away people who disagree with you religiously even though they are the same people who promotes peace and love through Christ and believes in the God of Adam, Abraham, and Isaac?  And you call who the NAZIs?"

And finally . . .

"Who pleaded guilty to Russian collusion?"

He got excited.

"Gotcha!"

"No, it's not a GOTCHA," I responded.  "There is no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.  Besides, if there was any meddling by Russia in the American election, why would they want Clinton to win?  She's practically an ideological ally with the Russians.  On the very surface the Trump collusion claim is ridiculous."

He grinned.  "Look up Rick Gates."

"Trump campaign aide," I quickly quipped.  "So?"

"He pleaded guilty."

"Not to Russian collusion.  What he pleaded guilty to, which is a whole list of things, were all unrelated to what Mueller is supposed to be investigating.  It turns out the guy was a dirty player with his hands in a lot of illegal pots, including pots that may have been connected to Russian and Ukrainian interests . . . but it was the result of his greed and opportunism.  He wasn't colluding with Russia to help Trump win the election."

A large part of the problem with the opposition is that liberal left Democrats don't look very deep into any information given to them.  They don't read details unless they think the details will assist them in their argument.  Instead, they tend to only read headlines, and perhaps a sentence or two, and then decide what the whole article was about based on their own assumptions.

The liberal left media knows the tendencies of their sheep, and use it to the max. . .

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-trump-campaign-aide-rick-gates-set-plead-guilty-n849256
The assumption, if you are a liberal, and you are not willing to read beyond the first sentence, is that Gates, whoever he is, must be connected to Trump, and he must have plead guilty to collusion with Russia.  Game Over.  Let's go smoke a marijuana joint.

But ... that's not what was said in the article.

If you read further, the article explains what Mueller has been looking for, and what the investigators believe happened, but not that they actually got anything they wanted.  "Former campaign aide Rick Gates, pleaded guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators."

No details.

"In a statement of offense attached to the plea agreement, Gates admits he conspired with Manafort 'in a variety of criminal schemes,' including moving millions of dollars from offshore accounts without paying taxes on the money, which was disguised as loans."

Nothing about Russian collusion, only a lot of illegal movement of money.  Was there Russian meddling in the election?  Is it possible that infiltrators or dishonest people played along?  Both are possible, but as Trump tweeted:

I never said Russia did not meddle in the election, I said “it may be Russia, or China or another country or group, or it may be a 400 pound genius sitting in bed and playing with his computer.” The Russian “hoax” was that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia - it never did!
4:33 AM - Feb 18, 2018

There is much more than meets the eye, as well.  As the Democrats think they are getting closer with each battle, they are losing the Russian collusion war.  General Mike Flynn's conviction is looking like it may be thrown out.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano notes, the judge who sentenced Flynn — Rudolf Contraras — was the same jurist who sits on the FISA court for Washington, D.C. Judge Contraras unexpectedly recused himself from further involvement in the Flynn case, without explanation. Napolitano speculates that Contraras might have been the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant that was based on the dossier. (Contraras is one of three judges on the FISA court for Washington, and one of those three signed the warrant).

Judge Sullivan took over the case after Contraras’ recusal.

So, the entire basis of the Mueller probe may come crashing down.

As Judge Napolitano said, it only takes one “courageous judge.”

Is the investigation even about what we are being told?

According to a report by FOX News' Tucker Carlson, the Podesta brothers and Paul Manafort are the "central figures" Robert Mueller's investigation, not President Trump.  The source, Carlson said, told him about events that implicate Manafort, the Podesta brothers, Hillary Clinton and her State Department, and Russian oligarchs. The source has been interviewed by Mueller's independent investigators.

"If true," Carlson said, the story weaved by the source shows the media is focusing on the wrong Russia story.

The source tells Tucker Carlson that Paul Manafort worked extensively with the Podesta Group as far back as 2011 on behalf of Russia. Manafort's Russian associates wanted to influence Washington and sought the Podesta brothers because of their ties to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

He said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a meeting with the Podestas that included a representative of the Clinton Foundation that specifically was about how to assist Uranium One in a deal that reportedly netted the foundation $100 million in donations.

"Sometimes, our source said, ties between The Podesta Group and the Clintons were explicit," Carlson explained. "Tony Podesta spoke regularly to Hillary Clinton while she ran the State Department. Our source remembers Podesta's assistant announcing that 'Secretary Clinton is on the line.'"

"At one point in either 2013 or maybe early 2014 our source says a meeting was held that included both Tony Podesta and a representative of the Clinton Foundation. The explicit subject of that meeting? How to assist Uranium One, that's the Russian-owned company that controls 20% of American uranium production, and whose board members gave more than $100 million to the Clinton Foundation. As our source put it, Tony Podesta was basically part of the Clinton Foundation," Carlson shared.

"'They are more focused on facilitators of Russian influence in this country,' says our source, than they are on election collusion," Carlson said. "The Podesta Group he says, 'is in their crosshairs.' We should note the obvious, that many of the lobbying efforts our source described to us today are not yet illegal necessarily and that tells you a lot about modern American politics."

"If true, the story we heard overturns much of what we think we know about Russian attempts to influence American policy. We believe our source is telling the truth. We don't think he has reason to lie to us. The facts we've been able to check have turned out to be accurate. We believe our source has exposed behavior that undermines this country.

There's a lot more to the story than fake news is reporting. . . but we knew that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary