Syria Strikes were Constitutional

Chemical Warfare in Syria
was even used against children.

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

My friend and co-host on Constitution Radio, Dennis Jackson, has a saying.  "For God so Loved the World, he didn't send a committee."

That kind of sentiment is exactly why the Framers of the United States Constitution placed the concept of a separation of powers in the Constitution, as well as a bunch of authorities for the President that do not necessarily require congressional approval.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in an overly strong executive.  I recognize that, as Article I, Section 1 tells us, all legislative powers belong to Congress, so the President cannot legislate from the White House.  There are many things he can only do if legislation exists first regarding particular issues.  That's why Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, requires that an executive order must contain a ‘citation of authority,’ saying what law it's based on.  (Gregory Korte, “Obama issues ‘executive orders by another name’,” USA Today, December 16, 2014; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/ [accessed February 9, 2018])

That said, National Security and the power to "wage war" belong to the President, and to carry out those duties, the President of the United States does not necessarily have to consult with Congress before carrying out those duties.

Seton Motley, who fancies himself a constitutionalist, posted on Facebook,


He then followed up the inaccurate proclamation with,


While I respect the opinions of my fellow Americans, and I am willing to listen to my fellow conservatives about their feelings regarding the unfortunate reality of war, I have real difficulty with their statements when they try to say something is constitutional, or unconstitutional, and do so without having a full understanding of the original intent of the document.

Seton Motley's statement that attacking Syria was completely unconstitutional was, to use his words, titanicallly stupid.

Please understand, my argument is not about if the United States "should" have conducted airstrikes against Syria.  My argument is if the Trump administration "could" have conducted airstrikes against Syria.

Mr. Motley's opinion about if Trump "should" have launched airstrikes against Syria largely runs in line with the Founding Fathers' assertion (George Washington's, in particular) warning against "foreign entanglements."  The common belief among many of the Framers of the Constitution was that unless necessary to repel an attack, or if it is thought that the country is in eminent danger of attack, military operations should not be engaged.

During the John Adams presidency, when Britain and France were going at it, Vice President Thomas Jefferson desired that the United States get involved, or at least pick sides.  Adams disagreed, using the foreign entanglements argument as his defense.  From May to July of 1797 President John Adams appointed a peace mission to France in hopes to resolve the issue of American rights as a neutral maritime power during the Anglo-French war.  It was the first of two such peace missions.  While in the Spring of 1798 President John Adams declared a state of "quasi-war" with France, that ended in October of 1800 at the Convention of Mortefontaine, as did the Franco-American alliance of 1778.

Many people in today's political dialogue, using the "foreign entanglements" argument, will tell you that the power to declare war, listed in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, belongs to Congress for that reason, and the President may only act as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Military with a congressional declaration of war, or if we are directly attacked, or it is believed we will eminently be attacked.

The nice thing about studying the original debates surrounding the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the subsequent State Ratifying Conventions, and other documents from that time period, is that one may act as a sleuth and get to the bottom of the argument to discover what the Founding Fathers really believed, and authorized.

According to Seton Motley,


In response, I asked, "Show me where in the Constitution it says that?"  I then added that the Constitution does not state what he claims, and I would prefer he does not claim the Constitution says something that it does not.

Seton Motley responded,


During my debate with Mr. Motley, I was in the middle of performing a number of tasks, including getting out the door for a Holocaust Remembrance event in Murrieta, California, so I was using the verbal function on my smart phone to debate with him.  When I said "That is false," as I had earlier on a previous post, this time the auto-correct spelled it out to say "You are false."  As you can see from the above Facebook post, Motley jumped all over my, from his point of view, bad grammar.

I responded, explaining that his attack, which basically said if my grammar is not perfect then my argument must not be valid, is a common liberal leftist tactic.  The fact is, after over and over asking him where in the Constitution it says what he was claiming it says, he still could not come up with an answer.

Notice, I didn't attack his misspelling of the word "eminently" in an earlier post.

Then, he changed his argument.

He was trying to turn the tables on me.  Suddenly, since Mr. Motley realized the Constitution does not say what he claimed, he decided to argue that it doesn't say what I claim it says, either, therefore, my argument must be invalid, and he wins.

False.

Here's my argument in a nutshell. . .

Show me in the Constitution where it says that the president can only wage military operations with approval from Congress. If you study the Articles of Confederation you will recognize that the founding fathers believed there were two Powers regarding War, the power to declare war, and the power to wage war. While Congress has the power to declare war, the president as commander-in-chief does have the ability to wage war without Congressional approval. I am not necessarily saying that I approve of a president Waging War at will without any discussions with the people around him, or congress. In Article 2 it clearly states that he may seek advice from those around him. If Congress has a problem with his operations in Syria then they can defund it, that is the whole point of Congress having the power of the purse strings. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison during the Barbary pirate Wars waged war without a Congressional declaration of war, but then later the money was appropriated. Those were Undeclared Wars. Are you willing to tell me that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not understand the Constitution?

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 20h

Seton Motley The Constitution states that without Congress, the president may only act when America is attacked or threatened. 

Which is why until recently we didn’t behave is such a stupid manner as bombing ourselves into an irrelevant country’s civil war.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h

Douglas V. Gibbs You are false, the Constitution does not state that without Congress the president may only act when America was attacked or threatened. Show me article and section in the Constitution that says that? You are referring to the War Powers Act of 1973 which changed the authorities of the president without amending the Constitution, that is an unlawful Act. Again, I'm not necessarily saying I want a president to be going around Waging War right and left, I do believe that George Washington was right when he warned against foreign entanglements. I am just stating that that from a constitutional point of view the move on Syria without a declaration from Congress is not unlawful. If you are going to State the Constitution says something please show me where it says that, otherwise don't claim the Constitution says something that it does not.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h · Edited

Seton Motley Yes it does. 

And you aren’t “false.” You’re incorrect. 

Perhaps your inability to write and read properly explains your profound wrongness.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h

Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley Constitution does not say that. Give me article and section to prove otherwise. I teach classes on the United States Constitution. I'm here to tell you it does not say that. you are wrong in what you are saying. Please do not spread false constitutional information. Once again, if you truly believe it is in there, give me the article and section in which that phrase is in the Constitution. Since it is not in the Constitution you will be unable to do so. As for my choice of words, if you're trying to state that I don't know what I'm talking about because I miss verbalized a particular word then that makes you no different than liberals because that's what they do. Once again, the burden of proof is in your court, tell me what section and article in the United States Constitution that it says that the president cannot wage war without Congressional approval unless we are attacked or it is a direct response to an eminent attack. Your move.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h

Seton Motley Your students should ask for their money back.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h

Seton Motley You miss the fundamental tenet of the Constitution. 

The federal government must be expressly empowered to do something. Or it can’t do it. 

Where in the Constitution is the president without Congressional approval expressly empowered to insert itself in the middle of irrelevant nations’ civil wars?

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h

Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley I don't miss the fundamental tenet, I understand what it is. But you also have to understand the history behind the language. If you read Madison's notes on the US Constitution you will understand that as commander-in-chief the president has the ability to wage war as necessary. In Article 2 Section 2 it indicates that the president is commander-in-chief over the US military which is always in service of the United States, and of the militias when they are called into service of the United States of America by Congress, which is detailed also in Article 1 Section 8. Once again you have to go back to the definitions of the time. Not your current thinking of what you think it means. Go back to Madison's notes, the Articles of Confederation, and the ratification conventions of the time, and you will determine based on what you read that there are two powers granted when it comes to war, the power to declare war and the power to wage war. They are separate Powers. So while Congress may declare war, which makes it an action that has been formally announced, the president is allowed to wage war without a declaration. Once again, the Barbary wars were Undeclared Wars, so are you telling me that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison did not understand the Constitution? As for the Articles and sections, which you seem not to be willing to look up, in Article 1 Section 8 it grants Congress the authority to declare war, and in Article 2 Section 2 it grants the power as commander-in-chief to the president of the United States. I offer the classes for free, by the way. And as for any criticisms of spelling or word usage or capitalization, I am using the verbal function on my phone to communicate with you because I am also acting as an advocate for the Constitution outside. Thank you for keyboard Warriors like yourself, every once in a while it might be a good idea to get some sun.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 19h

Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley a textbook I have written regarding government and the US Constitution that is being picked up by a bunch of home school programs and a couple of private schools will be available for sale in a couple months, I would be glad to send you a copy so that you can learn the Constitution better.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Seton Motley You’re wrong. 

And I don’t have a birdcage to line - so you can keep the book.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Seton Motley If you asked any Founding Father “should we militarily intervene in an irrelevant country on the other side of the planet’s civil war?” - they’d laugh you out of the room.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley One last thing. There is nothing I hate more than conservatives activating a circular firing squad. I am not trying to go to war with you. It's just that the Constitution is very specific, if we understand the language, and when people begin spreading information that is not true, it really chaps my a$$. That's why my first book addressed the myths about the Constitution . . . and the difference between waging war and declaring war is one of those myths I address. Ought the President of the United States consult Congress before taking military action? Sometimes. As a friend says, "For God so loved the world he didn't send a committee." The ability to wage war was given to the President so that if necessary, the Commander in Chief may wage war as he sees fit. However, there are no limiting factors listed with that authority. He may wage war as necessary. That said, there are checks against abuse of that power, which includes defunding such operations, and impeachment. That all said, technically, the move against Syria was not unconstitutional. The President of the United States is Commander in Chief over the United States Military, which means, based on original intent, he may utilize those forces as he sees fit. Declaration of War simply puts out there a formal declaration that a state of war exists, which carries with it certain legal protections that are not in place if the President wages war without a declaration. That all said, on August 17, 1787 in the Constitutional Convention the word "make" was removed and replaced with "declare" because the delegates were uneasy giving Congress that authority, and felt it was best to leave "making" war with the President. Mr. Sharman argued that there should be language only allowing the President to "repel attacks," so that he could not "commence" war. George Mason also voiced his own uneasiness of giving the power of making war to the President. In the end, it was decided to leave any language out of the Constitution limiting the President's ability to make war so that he may make decisions quickly in any situation where war may be warranted. Thomas Jefferson wrote in November of 1793 (Works 1:325-30) a great deal on the subject, recognizing the importance of Congress having the power to declare war, but that there would be times the President would need to use his ability to make war . . . and that sometimes to defend, one must be on the offense. In a letter from James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798, recognized that the executive branch held all of the powers to make war, but desired that such a power must be closely monitored. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex[ecutive] is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it." He then explains how the Congress is a check in place, in case those powers are abused. Alexander Hamilton, the leftist of the bunch, spewed your position. In fact, on December 17, 1801 he wrote, "it belongs to Congress only, to go to war. But when a foreign nations declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very face, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary." In a letter by "A Georgian" on November 15, 1787 it is recognized in his letter that "it is his right" to wage war as Commander in Chief, and then the writer asks what the consequences and protections are in case the President abuses that power. In the North Carolina ratifying convention, when, on July 28, 1788 the question of Commander in Chief was brought up, it was explained, "In almost every country, the executive has the command of the military forces. From the nature of the thing, the command of armies ought to be delegated to one person only. The secrecy, despatch, and decision, which are necessary in military operations, can only be expected from one person. The President, therefore, is to command the military forces of the United States, and this power I think a proper one; at the same time it will be found to be sufficiently guarded." What he meant by "guarded" was the provision that if military conflict expands into a major war, Congress alone may declare that war. The House of

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Douglas V. Gibbs Representatives June 22, 1797 also explains that when it comes to the Navy, the President has the authority to use the Navy as necessary. "Why should this power be limited" it was asked by a Mr. Sewall.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Douglas V. Gibbs Sorry about the break. I am momentarily in my office, and wanted to give you a properly sourced response, and I accidentally hit the "return" key after "The House of. . ."

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Douglas V. Gibbs Again, I recognize the concern for executive abuse of that power, and I agree it is a very real possibility. But, if it is abused, Congress has tools to check against such abuses. However, technically, the President has constitutional authority to wage (or shall we say "make") war without having to go through the lengthy process of herding cats in Congress to get the authority. Therefore, the strikes against Syria were not unconstitutional. By some opinions they may have not been wise, but they were not unconstitutional.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 18h

Douglas V. Gibbs Seton Motley As for your comment about asking the founding fathers about if we "should" intervene in an irrelevant country on the other side of the planet, that's not the issue, here. I suppose there would be a variety of responses, but most likely most of them, if they knew the full context, would be wary to take such action. But, the question on the table is not "should" the president have done what he did. The question is "could" the president constitutionally do what he did. Regardless of the "should," the answer to "could" is "Yes." If he shouldn't have, then Congress may act to check his actions, or he may wind up only serving one term as a consequence of his actions. Again, I am not arguing about "foreign entanglements," I am addressing the black letter of the rule of law as it is presented in the United States Constitution.

Seton Motley never responded, after that.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Join Me at the Holocaust Memorial March of Remembrance in Murrieta, California

Successful Syria Strike, Despite Early Reports

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

I flipped through the different stations last night and the reports from the ground, according to the mainstream media, was that the strikes on Syria were not effective.  Other hosts claimed it was the same old line, false reports of chemical attacks, and a military strike with not enough evidence to support taking action.

Then, the sun came up, and the reality is, the strike against Syria was very successful.

The scalpel precision targeting, according to today's reports, crippled Syria's chemical weapons making capabilities.

The Pentagon said Saturday morning that the U.S.-led allied missile strikes in Syria successfully hit all three targets and have “significantly crippled” Syrian President Bashar Assad’s ability to make more chemical weapons.

“I think we dealt them a severe blow,” Lt. Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Pentagon after the overnight bombing. “We’ve attacked the heart of the Syrians’ chemical weapons program.”

McKenize identified the targets as Barzah Research and Development, the Him Shinshar Chemical Weapons Storage Site and the Him Shinshar Bunker Facility. He also said 105 missiles were launched by air and sea.

The strikes were launched in response to evidence that the Assad regime killed civilians in an April 7 chemical attack, the latest in country’s years-long civil war.

That's the good news.  The bad news is that the Democrats will be in full force against this, and use this as another excuse to pursue impeachment proceedings.  Meanwhile, it will be another excuse for Islam to launch another invasion, with more of their jihad-age males, into Europe and America.

There has been no reports of civilian casualties following the U.S.-led strikes, but the pictures coming out of the area by Muslim groups will be horrific, staged, and screaming for more slots in our societies for the poor, misplaced refugees.

Expect the claims of Islamophobia to screech into the air, and for the hard left loonies to embrace their Muslim brethren even more . . . as Islam raises their sword, and prepares for more terrorism against the very people who claim to love them, and who calls them peaceful.

As for world opinion, Europe, British Commonwealth allies such as Canada and Australia, Israel, Japan, and the Middle Eastern duo of Turkey and Saudi Arabia (who fear Iran more than they hate the infidel), are all in agreement with us (or at least their government leaders are) regarding the strike against Syria.  Russia and Iran are siding with the Syrian government on this one (as expected), and China is quietly watching in the wings, and they are not daring to have an opinion. . . just yet.

Meanwhile, for the Democrats screaming that Trump is a war-mongerer, and will send us into World War III with these kinds of strikes, let's not forget the headlines of April, 2015 . . .

Obama launches 2,800 strikes on Iraq, Syria without congressional approval

Nearly 3,000 strikes in Iraq and Syria to date

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

San Fernando Welcomes Douglas V. Gibbs

Douglas V. Gibbs: Constitutional Myths, Facts and Basics

Hosted by Tea Party Patriots of the San Fernando Valley

Douglas V. Gibbs: Constitutional Myths, Facts and Basics

Saturday, April 14, 2018
2:30 PM to 5:00 PM

Rosie's BBQ & Grillery
8930 Corbin Ave. · Northridge, CA

We're in the side sports/service room just left of the entrance

Check out Doug's latest book . . .

Constitution Radio: Striking Back

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturday 1-3 pm Pacific LIVE

Call in 951-922-3532

Today's Hosts: Dennis Jackson and Alex Ferguson

Doug will be in Northridge today speaking to a Republican Club, so Dennis and Alex are grabbing the reins.

Special Guest:  Edwin Duterte, Congressional Candidate and target of Facebook's censorship team for daring to post about a gun range fundraiser.

If you are not local, and cannot pick-up the program on KMET 1490-AM on your radio dial, Listen Live online at www.kmet1490am.com. KMET also has a phone app, and the podcast will be available if you miss the show live.

Miss the program? Podcast will be Here.

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

CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week, April 14, 2018:

⬝ From Prostitution to Constitution

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/04/from-constitution-to-prostitution.html

⬝ Idiotic Gun Control Argument

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/04/idiot-gun-control-sign-from-march-on-dc.html

⬝ Strike Against Syria

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/04/syria-tweet-reminds-us-trump-is-anti.html

⬝ Using the National Guard on the Mexican Border

https://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/04/troops-to-border-by-federal-order-is.html

www.constitutionquest.com

Troops to Border by Federal Order is Constitutional, State Defiance Is Not

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

The federal government has decided that the invasion from the south needs more than a wall.  President Trump is wanting to fill the border with troops . . . specifically from the National Guard.

California has been defiant (sending troops, but not to comply with Trump's wishes regarding their duty), and Oregon refuses to comply (saying her troops WILL NOT be sent to the border).

Constitutionally, the States do not have a choice in the matter.

While the Democrats scream about Posse Comitatus, the reality is, that law was written to keep the federal government from using a standing army against the citizens of the United States.  Illegal Aliens do not fall into that category.

Article IV., Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government protect the States from invasion.  Considering that invasion is defined as an "unwanted encroachment," and that the population crossing the border illegally includes terrorists and those who wish to bring harm to our population (not to mention that a large part of the border-crossing illegals declare without remorse that they believe California to belong to Mexico so they plan to overthrow America's hold on the land and perform "white ethnic cleansing"), there is no doubt in my mind what we are experiencing is an invasion.

Article I, Section 8 indicates that the Congress of the United States may call forth the militia to "repel invasions."

The U.S. Code recognizes the National Guard as being a part of the militia.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law
Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The National Guard, while it is essentially assigned to the States, may be called up for federal use, and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the States to interfere.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the...Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States."

Oregon and California are in open rebellion against the U.S. Constitution, something the State of California was already committing with their unconstitutional sanctuary status laws.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: The Ladies, and Mike

Saturday 8:00 am:
Conservative Voice Radio

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

Conservative Voice Radio is normally hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, with President of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party.  Doug, when this week's program was recorded, was recuperating after a hospital visit, and Glenn was out of country.  So, Mike joined Jan and Diane for this week's episode on KMET 1490-AM.

Podcast available at https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/conservative-voice-radio

Syria Tweet Reminds Us: Trump is the Anti-Appeasement President

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

The bombings have commenced.  It's a limited strike, and a necessary move, as was Trump's tweet that missiles were coming that everyone was all up in arms about because, well, the decision hadn't been made, yet.

Kim Jong Un of North Korea is coming to the negotiation table because of Trump's tough talk and tough stance.

Remember the idea about peace through strength?  President Ronald Reagan pushed that same idea, as did George Washington.  It was Washington, after all, who said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”

Strength only works if you prove you are willing to back up your threats.

That kind of attitude has been working well for President Trump.  He took a strong stance on trade, and put into place tariffs against pretty much everyone's advise.  The result?

The politicians screamed that's not politics as usual, don't do it.  The globalists said not to do it, too, because it would hurt the global economy.

"Trade war is coming," they screamed.  They feared making China mad.

China has been waging a trade war with us for a long time, already.  Trump's tariffs, to be honest, have been a long time coming.

China has, for decades, engaged in a one-sided “trade war” with the United States that doesn’t involve tariffs but wide-spread and wide-scale theft of intellectual property.

Were we ever planning to respond?

I like free trade, but I don't agree with stupid trade.  Trump's tariffs levels the playing field when it comes to international trade.  What were they going to do?  The United States is the largest consumer in the world.

They grumbled, and they complained, but in the end, the tariffs have turned out to be a very good move.

A strong move.

I suppose appeasement is the Democrat way to go.  It seems to be the Republican way to go, too.  It's like standing in the schoolyard, allowing the bully to beat on you because you've been taught by the appeasers not to fight, and to settle for participation trophies.

Sometimes, it's necessary to fight back.  Sometimes, strength is necessary to knock the bully off his feet, and teach him a quick lesson.

Trump understands the necessity for strength.  Appeasement is not the Trump way to go.

Now, Trump is getting tough with Syria after a chemical attack by Assad against his own people . . . and the freaks are pissed.  Didn't Obama hit Syria in response to a similar attack, and then applauded him for it?

While Assad is being blamed for the chemical attack, it is not completely out of the realm of possibility that it may have been the rebels (of whom Obama was arming).  Some of the anti-war activists are claiming the claim of a chemical attack is fake news, and a false flag.  Russia says the British did it.

You know how conspiracy theories are.  While sometimes there may be a little bit of truth in them, they are usually designed to fit an agenda, help an agenda, and maintain an agenda.

As for the question about Obama's strike against Syria being applauded, and Trump being slammed for it, I suppose the difference is that Trump tweeted about it before it happened.  It couldn't be because the leftist media hates everything that Trump does, even if they were applauding Obama for the same thing, could it?

Swinging a big stick worked with North Korea.

Some folks have hammered Trump because they thought he was the non-interventionalist president when he was elected.  Trump, after all, questioned the moves of Bush and Obama in the Middle East.

It's amazing what happens when you sit down in the Oval Office and learn what you could only know as President of the United States.  Knowing what he now knows, Trump has apparently realized that a military response, at the moment, is the only option available.

What is interesting to me about the Syria attack is that it is essentially a face-off moment against Putin of Russia . . . wait, I thought the Democrats say that Trump is Putin's puppet.  If that's so, why would Trump move against Russia's buddies in Syria?

The airstrikes in Syria are not a travesty as being reported.  It's brilliant. It's a reminder of who the United States is.  We are liberators, and we are willing to fight for liberty when necessary.  We are not appeasers . . . well, unless the Democrats are in charge.

It was appeasers who gave Hitler Czechoslovakia prior to World War II.  It was the appeasers who allowed the Cold War to escalate.  It was the appeasers who did nothing when Americans were held hostage in Iran in 1979.  It was appeasers who allowed Russia to take Crimea and attack Ukraine.  And it has been appeasers who have been looking the other way as Islam has invaded the West and waged war on us through terrorism.

Peace through strength has to be accompanied by a show of strength.  That's just a reality.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

High Praise for Constitutional Liars

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

The story of America's journey from a constitutional republic to a liberal democracy spans our entire history as a country.  It began the moment the U.S. Constitution was signed, and the process has progressed steadily over the last 230 years.

BUY NOW!

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Confusion and Fear Fed into Little Children Through Transgender Lessons

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

Kindergarten-age children and Pre-schoolers are being taught the sexual topic of transgenderism. . .

The damage being caused by the liberal left's push for "gender neutrality" and the normalization of the mental health disease of transgender leanings is culture killing, to say the least.  From a Marxist point of view, however, that is the point.



Video by Brad Dacus' Pacific Justice Institute

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Idiot Gun Control Sign from March on D.C.

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

I feel like singing "Back in the Saddle, Again."  Regular readers know what I mean.  My ride this week with stupifying pain issues still didn't make me as stupid as the kid with the sign in this picture.  The dope was one of the "March For Our Lives" thing a couple Saturdays ago, but thanks to this image his moronic idiocy will live on.

Let's break it all down . . . "Reasons for Gun Control":

#1 Guns are ICKY

Apparently, this young man was a star in his English classes (or is it language arts?)  The word, in the English language, is essentially baby talk for "making one sick."  In a sense, by using the word "icky," he is calling himself a baby.  I couldn't agree more.

#2 A "Well Regulated Militia" doesn't mean the people, it means the government.  The government was just giving itself the right to own guns. (Because that's not pointless and redundant)

Yeah, let's give the government all of the guns, and give none to the citizens.  What could go wrong?

A 94-year old woman who will be speaking at the Murrieta Holocaust Memorial March of Remembrance on Sunday, April 15, who is a concentration camp survivor, is originally from Hungary.  After World War I, the citizens of Hungary were forced to disarm.  When the Nazis arose in Germany, and they moved on Hungary, the country fell quickly, because none of the citizens were armed, therefore, none of them were capable of defending themselves against the Nazis.

One time I was perusing a high school text book and it explained the 2nd Amendment as meaning "the people have a right to keep and bear arms when a part of an approved militia, such as law enforcement, or the military."  This kid has apparently been drinking that Kool-aid by the buckets.

Studying basic history, the truth about the 2nd Amendment becomes very clear.  The problem is, basic history is not taught in public schools.  Those kids get revised history.

In the American Revolution the "militia" was defined as meaning, or at least including, the citizens.

George Mason, one of the participants of the Constitutional Convention, and the man who demanded that the Bill of Rights be written before he was willing to support the new U.S. Constitution, spelled out who the militia is quite nicely:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788.

Noah Webster in his “An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States." 

The U.S. Code also recognizes the citizenry as being a part of the militia.

Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the State militias, National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.

United States Code: Title 10 – Armed Forces, Subtitle A – General Military Law

Chapter 13 – The Militia:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of

the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.  While I hope it will never need to be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.  If the Founding Fathers had written the U.S. Code definition regarding the unorganized militia, it would probably say, “All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting.”

#3 AR-15's are USELESS for hunting, home defense.  They are also the most EFFECTIVE KILLING MACHINES KNOWN TO MAN.

Talk about cognizant dissonance.

First of all, he has fallen for the propaganda.  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle from a military point of view no more than a butter knife is a sword.  While the platform of the AR-15 and true assault rifles like the M-16 are the same, there are key differences that eliminate the AR-15 from the "assault rifle" definition.  The M-16 is capable of being switched from single shot to semi-automatic to fully automatic.  The AR-15 (AR stands for Armorlite Rifle, not Assault Rifle) is only a semi-automatic, which simply means that another action is not required before firing it again.  Each pull of the trigger releases one round, and it can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.  The idea these people have that the AR-15 can spray bullets like a machine gun is completely false.

The AR-15 is great for hunting, but most hunters would not use it for hunting because it is not the most efficient firearm for hunting.  Personally, I like a .308 for big game, and a .22 for small game.  Any firearm is fine for hunting if you can get a merciful head shot.  Not only does the head shot kill the animal with little or no pain (because it's a quick death), but also it doesn't mess up the quality of the meat.  As for home defense, any firearm is good for home defense.  In my humble opinion, hollow point bullets are the best when it comes to stopping power.  The .22 is good because the low caliber allows the bullet to ricochet inside the body, tearing up the insides of the intruder.  In both cases they are also safer rounds because the bullet stays in the body.  Something that blows a hole through an intruder can continue along a path to strike someone else, as well.

As for the AR-15 being the most effective killing machine known to man, apparently this kid has never heard of rocket launchers, tanks, or the various assortment of bombs (all the way up to nukes) available for war.  Vehicles are effective killing machines for terrorists.  Should we ban cars and trucks, as well?  In truth, the most effective killing machine of kids the age of our sign-maker pictured above is the cell phone.  More kids die from car accidents as a result of texting than from firearms.  Should we, in response, put into place cell phone control, and ban the younger generation from having them?

Finally, the argument the kid is trying to use is the same argument the left has been using since I can remember.  "If the gun is scary, and can be used to kill people, it must be banned.  Only the military and the police should have weapons made for killing people."

Technically, that would, then, include all firearms - therefore, this bunk about them not wanting to confiscate all firearms is a lie.

The thing is, their "if it's a mean and scary gun it should be banned" argument misses the whole point of the 2nd Amendment.  The 2nd Amendment, frankly, was written for the purpose of the citizens being able to kill people - - - specifically evil people, or the stooges of a tyranny.  That goes back to the Webster quote up above.

#4 Governments NEVER become TYRANNICAL.

This one actually shows how disingenuous this kid really is.  He knows the reason behind the 2nd Amendment.  He understands it is for defending against our own government should it become tyrannical.  Then, with the next reason on his list, the cognizant dissonance kicks in, again.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say this kid really does believe that governments never become tyrannical.  Then, how does he explain Nazi Germany?  The Soviet Union?  Communist China?  North Korea?  Iran?  The Kmer Rouge?  The list goes on and on and on.

#5 Trump and the NRA are TYRANNICAL children hating right-wing bigots.

If, as #4 states, governments never become tyrannical, then how is it that the Trump White House is tyrannical?  And, if Trump is as bad as he thinks, if Trump is a fascist as I am sure he believes, why would he wish to disarm himself?

Calling the NRA tyrannical is even funnier.  It's an organization that supports the right to keep and bear arms.  It was originally created to help teach people to shoot better, and then later it became the organization defending the black population's right to keep and bear arms so that the black communities were capable of defending themselves against mobs of the KKK and Democrats who were trying to suppress the black vote.  In other words, the NRA was the first civil rights organization.

I'm willing to bet they aren't teaching that at this kid's school.

As for the "children-hating right-wing bigots," every mass shooting has occurred at "gun-free zones" (a left-wing idea), not a single shooter has been an NRA member, and every shooter has either been a registered Democrat, Muslim, or an adherent to left-wing principles.  As for the use of the term, "right-wing", he does know that the idea that ideologies like Nazism is right-wing is a bunch of crap, right?

When gun control is put into place, it takes away guns from law-abiding citizens, but the criminal element hangs on to their guns.  How does that make sense?

By the way, is the guy in this video a "children hating right-wing bigot"?


Gun Control is like taking the driver's licenses of law-abiding motorists away from them because of the drunk-driving epidemic, or banning big-scary SUVs that look militaristic as a way of curbing the drunk-driving problem.  It's moronic.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

97% Illogical Scientific Climate Change Argument

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

I believe in climate change . . . it is a naturally occurring phenomenon mostly caused by sunspot activity.  Yeah, I know it's a shock, the sun warms the planet. . .




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary