Constitution Radio, Winter Blues

Host Douglas V. Gibbs, Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM

1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon

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

CARSTAR/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:
Scales over their Eyes

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/scales-over-their-eyes-collapse-from.html

Violence in Europe

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/french-riot.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/french-violence-over-climate-change.html

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/violent-riots-break-out-in-greece.html

China Blinks

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/china-blinks.html

Invasion from the South

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/disease-at-border.html

Invasion from Within

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/islams-political-infiltration.html

Conservative Voice Radio: Revolution

As Europe Burns, and Caravans slam against the southern border, Trump is under attack as usual.

Conservative Voice Radio makes sense of it all.

Tune in to KMET 1490-AM at 8:00 am, Saturday, December 8 for the Tea Party take on it all.

The show is sponsored by the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party, and the hosts are all Tea Party Patriots.

Violent Riots Break Out in Greece

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
While France burns, Greece has decided to go into riot-mode, as well.  However, Greece is not protesting environmental tyranny.  Their violence in the street erupted so as to mark the tenth anniversary of a 'police brutality' killing of a 15 year old kid who was gunned down by officers in 2008.

Athens was ablaze as riot police and rioters faced off in the streets.  The police had batons and tear gas flying when protesters decided the best way to show their anger about violence was to begin throwing petrol bombs and fireworks.

Other clashes broke out during demonstrations in the northern city of Thessaloniki, with police firing tear gas and stun grenades at protesters after being pelted with stones and petrol bombs.

In France they are calling for revolution.  In Greece they are calling for peace and safety from the cops.  In both cases, the way they decided was best to achieve peace was through violence.

Yeah, makes sense.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Day of Infamy, 77 Years Later: Pearl Harbor

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

December 7, 1941 changed America. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called it, "A date which will live in infamy." Americans were stunned that an enemy would dare attack America's shores. The horror of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii that would bring the United States into World War II served as a uniting event, bringing Americans together for a single cause: To defeat the monsters that attacked America.

The Japanese Empire killed over 2,400 Americans in and around Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 1,177 of those deaths were those who died aboard the USS Arizona battleship. That was 77 years ago, and though many people in today's society know nothing about the attack, or couldn't even tell you the significance of December 7th if asked, the memory of that day lives on in those that were alive when America was attacked.

For many who lived through World War II, everyday during the war, in their heart, was December 8th. Most veterans I have talked to who served in World War II said it was the attack on Pearl Harbor that sent them to the military recruiting offices to join the war, and fight for America.

Women joined the factories to work as builders of aircraft and other war machines. They planted "Victory Gardens" to grow their own vegetables, as many items were in short supply partly due to the war effort, and partly due to the Great Depression.

It became a moment in history that united a country after over a decade of pain as America worked to get beyond the crippling economic depression that had waged its own war against America since 1929.

Pearl Harbor survivors, and World War II veterans, are nearly all gone. Only a handful remain.

As with the terror attacks on 9/11, no one should forget the stunning attack on American soil at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Though the memories are fading, and the importance of that day is being forgotten by some, for many it still remains a date which will live in infamy. It is our duty to never forget.

Forget History, and it will repeat itself.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

French Violence over Climate Change Deception

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

In France, the riots continue.  The arrested seem to be primarily members of the younger generation.  Some wonder if this is some kind of new French Revolution.  A coup?   The violence has forced the closure of the Eiffel Tower and over 89,000 security forces have been deployed.  Some of the French Police have removed their helmets, and are joining the protesters.  The thing is, this is not a leftist protest.  This is not a bunch of Muslims causing havoc for their Islamization of Europe cause.  This is a backlash against the leftist establishment that even has some of the protesters chanting Trump's name!  President Macron's approval rating is in the basement, and he has all but disappeared.

The protests began over the cost of fuel, which is basically rising due to a carbon tax.  Remember that Paris accord that Trump pulled out of?  The consequences of the environmentalist policy is not so popular now that it is eating into everyone's pockets.

As a result, Macron's administration has surrendered.  The French government, under the pressure of the violence, has suspended the wildly unpopular fuel tax, for six months at least.

The leftists in Europe have egg on their face over this.  They've been lobbying for every climate change tax they can muster.  The French, in fact, have a delegation doing exactly that right now, advocating for every tax, mandate and control the UN can think up, at COP 24, the UN climate conference in Poland.

The thing is, the liberal left policies are economy-killers, and the citizens, once it reaches their pocket books, don't like it.  

Poland, where the current climate conference is being held, is heavily dependent upon coal.  Over three quarters of Polish electricity is generated using Poland’s ample supplies of Europe’s best quality coal.  Coal has one of the highest energy densities of any fuel in common use, matching or surpassing gasoline, diesel and natural gas, and blowing away ethanol.

For Poland, coal means a way of life, and freedom. The realistic alternative to coal for Poland is not variable wind and solar, but dependence on Russian natural gas. Going back under Russia’s thumb is the last thing any Pole with a sense of recent history will tolerate.

It's a surprise, knowing Poland's coal dependency and desire to keep their liberty away from the iron fist of Russia, that the environmentalist wackos even considered having their UN climate change conference in Poland in the first place.

Take away their coal, and Poland might become a matchstick on the verge of violence, as well.

Environmentalism not only kills economies, it kills people.  The fierce wildfires in California, where the death toll continues to rise as hundreds of people remain missing and likely dead from the Camp Fire that wiped the entire town of Paradise off the map, are largely due to environmentalism and the man-made climate change lie.  Laws like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, according to Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.”

 
These laws, and others like them, have drastically reduced the amount of forest thinning and controlled burns that used to effectively keep wildland from becoming a danger to people and property. 

“One problem for landowners is disposing of deadwood. Dozens of biomass facilities that burn tree parts that can’t be used for lumber have closed due to emissions regulations and competition from subsidized renewables and cheap natural gas,” wrote The Wall Street Journal.

Also in California, Ron Stein provides a cogent example with his excellent piece on California’s high speed rail project which now is headed to cost upwards of forty billion dollars! All for a rail line no one really wants to ride because the environmentalists want to get everyone out of their cars and into trains.

The consequences of environmentalism and the false doctrine of man-made climate change are slamming harsh realities in the faces of people everywhere.  The problem is, people don't realize how destructive those policies are until the destruction begins slamming into place.

Climate Change is a natural phenomena.  All of the allegations regarding man-made global warming and cooling is a bunch of phooey.  25 NASA Scientists have proclaimed so.  And a recent climate change report is so wildly out of proportion, you can't help but notice what the Climate Change con-artists are doing is basically using the Hitlerian strategy right out of Mein Kampf of "a big lie."  If the lie is crazy enough, and large enough, people will believe it because they can't imagine anyone willing to tell such a huge whopper.

Despite how massive it is, the whole thing is a great big lie.  It's all a scheme for wealth and power.  But, until we suffer from the ill effects of the progressive madness being forced upon us, it seems nobody is willing to admit the lie is going on or that it is destructive in the long run.  Then, people die, economies die, and then rioters appear screaming, "hey, this is all a big lie."

Isn't that what conservatives have been saying all along?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Islam's Political Infiltration

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

We are at war and we don't seem to realize it.  The Axis Powers in this war, however, are troops without uniforms, and ideologues without insignia.  Globalists, Progressives and Islam are hammering us from all sides, fueling illegal alien invasions, and tapping away at our political infrastructure bit by bit.  In wars past we accepted the responsibilities of moral and political leadership which demanded plainly that we fight against those who mean to destroy us, and against those who seek global domination.  We fought against Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (Islamic Caliphate) in World War I.  We fought against Nazi Germany, the fascists of Italy, and the imperialists of Japan in World War II.  We fought against communism in Korea, Vietnam, and The Cold War.  We recognized the enemy, and we fought against them (and eventually defeated them in all cases, though the political aspect of The Cold War made it seem unwinnable until the Berlin Wall fell).

Now, we face similar enemies, and in fact, deadlier enemies, and seem to not recognize that the enemy is there.  The enemy tells us "death to America," and the enemy has attacked us countless times, and yet we find it hard to believe that they are serious in their desire to defeat us.  In World War II the Nazis infiltrated us.  They were swarming through Hollywood and our political ranks.  In The Cold War the communists were even more successful in their infiltration, and despite the end of the war, the infiltration remains.  They have simply changed their names to Progressives, and Globalists.

The third enemy in our current war are also infiltrating us, and somehow, we don't seem to be concerned.  Worse of all, they are doing it openly, and instead of recognizing it for the attack against us that it is, we shy away from saying anything, and in fact are welcoming the enemy in our midst.

According to The Washington Standard, Muslims won four federal seats (three congressional, one attorney general), thirteen State seats, eight county seats, nineteen municipal seats, and six judicial seats in the 2018 Mid-Term Elections.  In short, followers of Islam, the political ideology that masks as a religion and continuously calls for the death of America, is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution, demand the death of all Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel, and seek world domination under a totalitarian Islamic caliphate won a total of 50 political offices in the United States.  Let me rephrase that.  Fifty Muslims took an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, even though their belief system is completely opposed to everything our Constitution offers, and the principles our Constitution was founded upon.

For a full breakdown of the seats won by Muslims . . .

Could you imagine if Nazis were winning seats in our country during World War II?

Could you imagine if openly communist candidates were running, and winning, in the United States in such numbers during The Cold War?

Islam makes more babies than we do, so they intend to eventually kill us off through demographics.  But, they also vote in greater numbers than we do . . . because they have an agenda.  They have a war tactic to follow through with, and they are nearly all participating.

95% of Muslim voters participated in this year’s midterm election.
• 78% of Muslim voters primarily voted for the Democratic Party candidates and 17% for Republican Party candidates.
• 46% of Muslim voters consider themselves liberal on social issues, while 35% consider themselves conservative.
• 43% of Muslim voters consider themselves fiscally conservative, while 40% consider themselves liberal.
• 26% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic candidates perceived themselves as being conservative on social issues. Moreover, 36% perceived themselves as being fiscally conservative.
• 68% of Muslim voters thought Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. increased while 17% thought it decreased in the past year.
• 78% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Democratic Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year. Conversely, only 33% of Muslim voters who primarily voted for Republican Party candidates thought Islamophobia increased in the past year.

• 53% of Muslim voters became more interested in politics since the 2016 presidential election, while 34% maintained the same level of interest in politics and 13% became less interested in politics.

• 55% of Muslim voters have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since the 2016 presidential election, while 45% have not.
• Out of those Muslim voters who have become more actively involved in politics and/or civically engaged since 2016 presidential election:
• 20% have primarily donated money to a political or social campaign.
• 25% have primarily donated their time by volunteering with a local charity or civic-minded or religious organization.
• 18% have primarily donated their expertise by using their skills and/or network to advance social/political engagement.
• 37% have primarily been involved in another way.

The agenda is in place.  The invasion is in full swing.  Infiltration into our political system is moving along the way they want.  And Americans are too worried of offending the people who say "death to America" that we are letting them do it, and we are actually cheering them on as they solidify their iron fist upon our culture.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Disease at the Border

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

In 2014 when reporters asked me why I was participating in the protests against the busloads of illegal aliens being brought into Murrieta, California, which eventually we turned the buses around, my response was that my granddaughter had come down with hand-foot-and-mouth disease, and when the doctor said he didn't understand why there was a sudden spike in the disease in the area, I knew immediately what was going on.  After being interviewed by a number of news networks, Al Jazeera America told me there was no known correlation, essentially telling me it was all in my head.  They, then, essentially accused me of being a racist by asking me if I was "against immigration, or against Hispanics?"

"Neither," I replied.  "My wife was born in Mexico, immigrated here legally, naturalized in 2007, and is more conservative on this issue than I am."

In other words, she was talking about building a wall long before Donald Trump was, except hers would have gun turrets, a mote, and alligators.

Here we are, four and a half years later, and the illegal alien issue has become violent, deadly, and an invasion in the form of a caravan slamming against America's southern border.

Every country in the world has a duty to guard their borders for the same reason we check who is at the door before we open it when someone knocks.  We lock the doors of our houses, and we carefully vet who we allow in our houses not because we hate everyone that comes to our porch, or lives outside our homes, but because we love everyone on the inside and we wish to protect them from the potential dangers that lurk beyond our front porch.  The reality is, there are bad people out there, and it doesn't matter what the percentage of bad people there are out there, the very fact that they are out there gives us a good enough reason to put locks on our doors.

The sovereignty of my home demands that I take the proper actions to ensure my home is safe from outside invasion.

Our country is our home.  The border is our front door.

Statistically, the influx of illegal aliens challenge our sovereignty, hurts our economy with lowering wages and higher public assistance dollars being spent out of our tax dollars, and on top of all of that, many of those claiming they have a right to raid our country are arriving with diseases we have eradicated for the most part on this side of the border.  According to The New American, when sifting through the caravan of Central Americans pounding on the border at Tijuana, "at least 30 percent of them are sick with communicable diseases they might spread to Americans in schools, hospitals, welfare and employment offices, and other public places."

We are talking serious disease.

"A third of the 6,000 or so in Tijuana [are] coughing and breaking out in blisters...That’s because the diseases many of the migrants carry are deadly — or can be."

"Out of 6,000 migrants currently residing in the city, over a third of them (2,267) are being treated for health-related issues," Fox News reported.

Officials have confirmed that among those diseases are tuberculosis, AIDS, and chickenpox.

They are also crawling with bugs.  At least 101, Fox reported, carry lice and “skin infections” like "scabies."

And that can lead to a typhus epidemic.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the body louse is the vector for the typhus bacterium, Rickettsia prowazekii.

“Epidemic typhus is spread to people through contact with infected body lice,” CDC says. It noted the disease is uncommon these days, although “epidemic typhus was responsible for millions of deaths in previous centuries.” But cases continue to occur, in areas where extreme overcrowding is common and body lice can travel from one person to another.”

The Benito Juarez Sports Complex, where the migrants are housed, is one such overcrowded area: 6,000 are packed into an area meant for 1,000.

Another disease is chagas, which is spread by blood-sucking triatomine bugs:

"These blood-sucking bugs get infected by biting an infected animal or person. Once infected, the bugs pass T. cruzi parasites in their feces. The bugs are found in houses made from materials such as mud, adobe, straw, and palm thatch. During the day, the bugs hide in crevices in the walls and roofs. During the night, when the inhabitants are sleeping, the bugs emerge. Because they tend to feed on people’s faces, triatomine bugs are also known as 'kissing bugs.'"

Some eight million people in Mexico, Central America, and South America have it, and most don’t know it.

Officials also worry about a hepatitis outbreak because of the filth in the Benito Juarez Sports Complex. “The location also has only 35 portable bathrooms,” Fox reported. “A sign reading ‘No Spitting’ was put up, as coughing and spitting by migrants are rampant in the shelter.”

When it comes to tuberculosis, many of the migrants carry a particularly virulent form of TB that is resistant to multiple antibiotics.

Last year it was reported that 37,684 immigrants with TB entered the United States between 2005 and 2009. The most, 24.1 percent, or 9,098, came from Mexico. Another 1,154, or 3.1 percent, came from Guatemala, while 853, or 2.3 percent, came from Honduras, where the migrant invasion began.

482 of those cases were the multi-drug resistant cases.

MDR TB is a pressing concern, CDC reports, because “it is resistant to ... the two most potent TB drugs ... used to treat all persons with TB.”

Another 2,000 migrants are headed for Tijuana, making quarters tighter, and body to body contact more common at the sports complex where they are gathering.  If the 33-percent figure for sick migrants in Tijuana now holds true for those on the way, the town will be faced with another 660 very sick people.

And that's just talking communicable diseases.

What about the criminals.  Murderers.  Rapists.  Gang members.  Jihadists.

We saw the violent rock throwing at the border, and the complete disregard for the law.

When Candidate Donald Trump said that these kinds of people were among the illegal alien population in 2016, he was called a racist, and "anti-immigrant."

The thing is, Trump was right.

U.S. Federal agents arrested a convicted murderer who was attempting to enter the U.S. illegally while a member of the caravan. The Daily Caller reports:

U.S. authorities arrested a Honduran national who illegally entered the United States after joining the migrant caravan and who is a convicted murderer, DHS announced Friday. 

“Border Patrol agents arrested a convicted murderer from Honduras Saturday night after he illegally entered the United States with other members of the migrant caravan,” DHS said, adding that the man was arrested along with three others while trying to illegally enter the United States.

DHS continued: 

“Agents discovered documents indicating one of the men, 46 year-old Miguel Angel Ramirez, was recently released from prison in Honduras. Ramirez later admitted he was arrested and convicted for murder in Honduras and was released just four months ago … The San Diego Sector Border Patrol’s Foreign Operations Branch corroborated the man’s admission with the Honduran Consulate in Los Angeles and discovered that Ramirez served 16 years in a Honduran prison for his crime.”

We need to put up the wall, and vet who comes in.  There is nothing wrong with turning away people who want to come into the country who are not good for the country.  I get it.  If I lived somewhere else I would want to be here, too.  But, our system can only handle so many coming in, and if they don't add to the melting pot, and instead take away from our society without contributing through government assistance because they are low skilled, or have no interest in assimilating into our culture, we can't admit them.

You wouldn't let them into your house, so why should we let them into our country?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

MTRA Christmas Event

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight: Intro to the Bill of Rights

Tonight, 6:00 pm, Wednesday, December 5, 2018 Temecula Constitution Class Riverside County GOP HQ 28120 Jefferson Ave. Temecula, CA Constitution Class Handout Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs   www.politicalpistachio.com www.douglasvgibbs.com www.constitutionassociation.com     Lesson 12 Bill of Rights: Introduction to, and Incorporation of   Introduction to the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights does not guarantee your rights, nor was it designed to allow the federal government to protect your rights. The language used in the first ten amendments is clear. The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..." The 2nd Amendment ends with the words, "...shall not be infringed." The 3rd Amendment begins, "No Soldier shall..." The key phrase in the 4th Amendment is "shall not be violated." The entire Bill of Rights was designed to confirm what the first seven articles had already established. The federal government was granted only certain authorities, and for the purpose of clarity, the Bill of Rights was written to reinforce the concept that the federal government has no business infringing upon the rights of the people. The federal government is not charged with protecting those rights, or guaranteeing those rights, anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were written to tell the federal government, "Hands off, do not touch, thou shalt not."   The concept that the federal government exists to guarantee our rights, or protect our rights, emerged after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Civil War Amendment tasked the federal government with ensuring the newly emancipated slaves were treated fairly, and that their rights were protected - even at the State level. In an effort to capitalize on that idea, the courts got involved to ensure that the former slave States behaved. The southern States, the North was convinced, could not be trusted, and often the South confirmed the lack of confidence the Union States harbored with laws designed to get around the new restrictions placed upon them.   After the American Civil War, the three amendments proposed and ratified to protect the emancipated slaves were specifically designed for the purpose of ensuring the newly freed slaves were treated equally in the eyes of the law. Statism, however, seized upon the ideas planted by Congressman John Bingham, and through the courts worked to weave an intricate tapestry that would change the culture of the United States from a union of voluntary members, to a nation of states joined in an unbreakable union. The country no longer resembled the union of sovereign states it had once been, and instead became a nation held together by the statist consequences of the ravages of war.   The federal government telling States what they can and can't do regarding our rights opens a Pandora's Box the framers of the Constitution never intended to be breached. By allowing the federal government to dictate to the States what they can and can't do regarding rights, even with the best of intentions, the precedent is established allowing federal control. A federal government that can force a State to behave in an acceptable manner can later dictate to a State to follow a federal mandate designed to reduce your access to your rights.   As President Gerald Ford once wisely said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."   A significant segment of the Founding Fathers believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary. The first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution were written in such a way that the concerns of the Anti-Federalists had been addressed, but they still feared that the federal government would compromise the natural rights of the citizens if a Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution.   The Constitution was written in a manner that allowed the new federal government only the authorities granted to it by the Law of the Land. Regarding arms, for example, the possession of guns was never an issue granted to the federal government in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the federal government had no authority to restrict guns in any way, shape, or form. The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe the federal government would abide by the limitation of authorities placed on the United States Government, and demanded that a Bill of Rights be written. Failure to provide a Bill of Rights, indicated the Anti-Federalists, would result in a failure of those States dominated by Anti-Federalists to ratify the new Constitution.   The Framers of the Constitution, understanding that without the critical approval of the Anti-Federalists, the new Constitution would never be ratified, agreed to include a Bill of Rights. James Madison was asked to gather the amendments to be proposed and potentially ratified by the States, and use them to write a Bill of Rights.   Originally, there were a large number of amendments proposed, but the final proposal that went to the States for ratification was narrowed down to twelve amendments. Only ten were ratified. Of the remaining two, one regarding apportionment remains unratified, and the other became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992.   The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny. These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution. With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens. Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.   One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected. It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined, nor quantified. Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution. As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that rights not enumerated would also be protected.   Another argument against the Bill of Rights is that the ten amendments muddy the waters of the Constitution, because the first seven articles were designed to grant authorities to the federal government, and if an authority is not granted, the federal government does not have that power. The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it cannot do. This enables those who oppose the Constitution to claim that the Constitution does not only grant express powers. By focusing on the Bill of Rights, the opposition responds to constitutional challenges with the question, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?" Considering the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, this provides unnecessary ammunition to those that oppose the Constitution. Terms: Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.   Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.   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.   Common Law - The part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes, able to be changed by the whims of the governed, or their representatives.   Enumerated - Counted or told, number by number; reckoned or mentioned by distinct particulars.   Questions for Discussion: Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations? 2.   Why did some of the Founding Fathers consider the Bill of Rights unnecessary? 3.   What did the Anti-Federalists think of the creation of the federal government? Why? 4. Why were the Founding Fathers willing to add the Bill of Rights even though they believed the       amendments to be unnecessary? Resources: Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).   Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution - Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)   The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights, National Archives and Records Administration: http://archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html   Incorporation of the Bill of Rights The Bill of Rights was originally intended to be applied only to the federal government. Even the most ardent opponent to the originalist view of the Constitution concedes that it is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States whatsoever. The text of the U.S. Constitution does not necessarily clearly exhibit that the Bill of Rights was only intended to apply to the federal government, but a deep study of the text of the first ten amendments, and the various writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic, reveals without a doubt that the Bill of Rights was indeed originally intended to only apply to the federal government.   Though even the most ardent opponent of the United States Constitution will admit that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government, the rule of inapplicability to the States was abandoned by statists after 1868, when it became argued that the 14th Amendment changed this rule, and served to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the States.   The section of the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to the States comes from the second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:   "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   Through a series of court rulings, the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the States. The process over the time period since the ratification of the 14th Amendment which works to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through court rulings and written opinions is called "The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights."   The Bill of Rights was originally not meant to be a guarantee of individual freedoms at all, but a limitation of federal authority against our God given rights. In other words, the Bill of Rights was not written for the people, but for the federal government as a means of telling the federal government what it cannot do in regards to our unalienable rights.   Why not apply these amendments to the States as well?   The States already had a Bill of Rights in their own State Constitutions (and those that did not have a constitution yet, did include a Bill of Rights later). The Founding Fathers were confident that the people of the States could control their own State officials, and would be involved in their local governments. The people did not fear their local governments acting in a tyrannical manner similar to the potential of a centralized government system. Their fears were of the new and distant central government.   Originally, parts of the first amendments proposed by James Madison did in fact address the States, seeking to limit the State governments with provisions such as, "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." The parts of the Bill of Rights that sought to be applied to the powers of the States, however, were not approved by Congress, and therefore were not a part of the proposed amendments to the States.   The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government. Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States by the courts as based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and was never intended to be fully applied to the States. The argument used, despite original intent, that the Bill of Rights must also apply to the States is based more on philosophy, than historical evidence. One of the philosophical standpoints used is that if the specific rights given in the Bill of Rights are based on the more general rights to life, liberty, and property which in turn are considered to be God-given and unalienable, then State governments do not have the authority to infringe on those rights any more than can the federal government.   The argument, however, simply suggests that the Bill of Rights ought to apply at the State level, not that it originally did.   If the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and over time has changed to be something that was applicable on the State level through court decisions, the reality is that the Constitution itself has never allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States. The change was done by judicial means, meaning that the Constitution has been changed by judicial activism. The problem, however, is that according to the Constitution, the only way to change the Constitution is through an amendment process. Therefore, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States occurred unconstitutionally.   This returns us to the argument that the 14th Amendment is the source and authority of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States. The Supreme Court's first ruling regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment, and if the amendment enables the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States, was rendered in the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause to be the authority they needed to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States. Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation. During the early twentieth century a number of court cases, using the arguments referencing the 14th Amendment, began selectively incorporating some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights while rejecting the incorporation of others.   The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent. As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.   Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio was the primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, and it was his personal intention the Bill of Rights be applied to the States as well. His argument was that it was necessary in order to secure the civil rights of the newly appointed slaves. However, most of the representatives during the five months of debate on the floor of Congress argued against incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States, and so when the amendment was agreed upon for proposal, the majority of those involved intended for the 14th Amendment to not influence how the Bill of Rights was applied. In the beginning, the courts ruled that the Amendment did not extend the Bill of Rights to the States. It was after the realization that Black Codes were emerging in the South that the courts decided for the purpose of protecting the civil rights of the emancipated slaves, they would begin to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the States. Terms: Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.   Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.   Judicial Activism - When judges violate the Separation of Powers through their rulings; when a judge rules legislatively by modifying or striking down a law using the unconstitutional authority of judicial review.   Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.   Originalist view of the Constitution - View that the Constitution as written should be interpreted in a manner consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and    ratified it.   Questions for Discussion:   1.   Why is the originalist view of the Constitution so important?   2.   How have Statists changed the Constitution through the courts over the last two hundred years?   3.   What is the only legal way to change the Constitution?   4.   Why is the Bill of Rights not a guarantee of individual freedoms?   5.   From where do our rights come from?   6.   How did the Black Codes play a part in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?   Resources:   14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), Our Documents dot gov: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=43   Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights (argument supporting incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States), Constitution dot org (2000): http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm   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 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)   Richard L. Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment (1993): http://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm   The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation, The Tenth Amendment Center (2010): http://newyork.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/the-14th-amendment-and-incorporation/   To Whom Does The Bill Of Rights Apply?, Lew Rockwell dot com (2005): http://www.lewrockwell.com/browne/browne27.html   What is the Bill of Rights?, About dot com Civil Liberties (argument supporting incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States: http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/f/what_is_bill.htm Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

No Class in Corona Tonight

I am in San Diego right now for a medical procedure, so there will be no class in Corona tonight.

For those of you locally in Southern California who attend my Constitution Class, will see you next Tuesday night in Corona at AllStar Collision's upstairs classroom.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

China Blinks

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

China has realized they can't beat the Great Negotiator . . .

BLINK: 90-day halt to new tariffs...
Trade Gap Widens Most Since 2015; Record Deficit With China...
Trump's on-off dance with complicated acquaintances...
Tense G20...

That does not mean that China is harmless.  They are still a dangerous geopolitical enemy.  But, Trump has them on the ropes for the moment.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

French Riot

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

Europe is dying.  What once was will never be.  We are just not sure how history will record it.  Will it be death by debauchery?  Death by socialism?  Or death by Islamic jihad?

The cost of living, due to the leftist policies of the French Government, coupled with the high cost of fuel and taxes, has convinced the protesters that it is time to get violent.  With cars aflame, riot police and the revolutionaries clashed.  At one point a rifle was taken by the protesters from law enforcement.  

Clouds of tear gas blanketed Paris streets as smoky billows from the flames rose above the city.  Over 5,000 protesters have been raging for two weeks, reminiscent of the 1960s when France nearly plunged into civil war.  It began with the Yellow Vest fuel price demonstrators, but as all moments of violent insurrection always has, others have joined in, be it people who just want to loot, or those who do indeed believe in the cause.  There have been hundreds of arrests, over a hundred injured, and nearly two dozen law enforcement personnel hurt.

As the madness raged, looters broke into businesses. Riot police sprayed tear gas, fired water cannon and stun grenades and pulled out their batons to fight back against 'Yellow Vest' protesters who occupied the city as the looters looted, and famous architecture was sprayed with graffiti. 

The rallies have not been confined to Paris.  Protests have emerged around the country, spreading to Marseille, Biarritz and Antibes on the Mediterranean coast and even into the Netherlands.  The rioting is being viewed as a direct challenge to Emmanuel Macron's presidency.  The violence has gotten so bad that law enforcement is asking for Macron to call in the military.  The spreading of the news of a beating of one particular lone protester by law enforcement has only encouraged more defiance, more rioting, and more anti-government chaos.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Scales Over Their Eyes, Collapse From Within

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

We live in a world where a college student has to stand up against the insanity of gender confusion, and defend what she believes against angry mobs.  In Canada, Christian learning institutions are under fire and being threatened by government forces for daring to maintain their Christian views on gender and marriage.  In the State of Oregon a construction company has been sued for daring to have Bible studies.  A Canadian man, who said he believes he's a woman, entered a female cyclist competition, won, and then called all of his detractors "bigots."  Oprah Winfrey has cried out that abortion is somehow a voice of love, and ChelseaClinton says wanting to repeal Roe v. Wade is unChristian. A pro-gay church is building a brewery, and plans to donate the profits to Planned Parenthood.

Every year a local church, Harvest Christian Fellowship, out of Riverside, has a massive event at Angels Stadium where tens of thousands attend for Christian music, a message of Christ's love and sacrifice, and where many people come forward at the end of the evening to accept the Salvation of Jesus Christ. The message of good news, however, is a threatening message to those who have decided to reject Christ's message of hope, and live in deep disobedience to God's assurances and instructions.

At Fashion Valley Mall the billboard for Harvest's annual event was taken down as a result of complaints and threats against the owners of the billboard space.

In California, the California Wholesome Youth Act forces children to attend pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, and pro-transgender sex education lessons.  The government imposed teaching materials include a K-to-5th grade study guide for I am Jazz, a pro-transgender book written by a boy who calls himself a girl.  The "sexual health tool kit" is another approved part of the program. In addition to recommending Planned Parenthood, the offensive "tool kit" offers explicit instructions on how to commit sins against nature – INCLUDING the use of sex toys and worse.  Furthermore, the pro-transgender law mandates: "Instruction and materials shall teach pupils about gender, gender expression, gender identity, and explore the harm of negative gender stereotypes." (Section 51933)  The State of California is committing child abuse, and yet the voters in November gave the Democrats full control of the State, not only with uber-radical Gavin Newsom in the governor's seat, but a super-majority in the legislature.  According to the American College of Pediatricians it is a form of child abuse to force young children to accept transgenderism.  However, parents are not allowed to opt out.  In other words, California is forcing children to accept transgenderism, parents are being bullied to give up their God-given rights, and sin and sinful behavior is being promoted by the State government as normal under legal mandate.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are doing what they can to silence any opposition by attacking free speech.  The Supreme Court had to get involved when Minnesota passed a strict law regarding political apparel at polling places.  Net neutrality was an attempt to use government control over the internet.  Net neutrality was a claim that only government could force the internet to be free.  Fortunately, the tyrannical grip on the internet came to an end.

Voter fraud has been another way the left has been seeking to silence all opposition.  In California, the Democrats actually made "ballot harvesting" legal, and ballot harvesting was likely one of their primary tools in increasing their power in the Golden State.  Meanwhile, California Governor Jerry Brown pardoned a State Senator, Roderick Wright, who was convicted of multiple voter fraud charges.  In Los Angeles, Skid Row was used to commit voter fraud.  In an attempt to combat voter fraud, the Supreme Court supported Ohio's law aimed at cleaning up their voter rolls.

Every election the Democrats out-fund the GOP, using union money and socialist wealthy money (such as George Soros), while screaming against Citizens United.

They have no tolerance for free speech because freedom challenges their ungodly agenda.  They are working to stop free speech on school campuses.  The film Safe Spaces took a look at the problem, with cameras rolling.

However, the left will speak as freely as they wish, from Martin Short's refusal to even acknowledge President Trump, to Chelsea Clinton's repeated attacks against the Donald Trump.  Actor Robert De Niro revealed where he stands politically without any hesitation, and with f-bombs flying.   In the public square, a Home Depot employee openly wore a "America was Never Great" hat on the job.  While the owner of Home Depot is conservative (so the Home Depot story came as a surprise to me), I wonder if in most workplaces a pro-Trump hat would have been equally allowed.

On the illegal alien front, media member Joe Scarborough went so far as to compare ICE to Nazis.

Benjamin Franklin — "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

George Washington — "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

Great societies of the past, Rome, Greece, Mesopotamia all crumbled from within before they were invaded from the outside.  If we are not a godly society, we are not capable of our own Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Association Christmas Event, TONIGHT

Constitution Radio: The Times They Are A-Changin'

Host Douglas V. Gibbs today will bring to you Constitution Radio on KMET 1490-AM

If you somehow missed the live version from 1-3 pm on Saturday Afternoon, listen to the archived podcast at https://soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio

As we enter the Christmas Season, and take a look at the Mid-Term Elections in the rearview mirror, what we are sure of is that the times they are a-changin'.

CARSTAR/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:

Death of George H.W. Bush

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/11/passing-of-george-h-w-bush.html

Chinese Shadow over Europe

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/11/chinese-shadow-hovers-over-europe.html

Mississippi Special Election Goes to GOP

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/11/mississippi-special-election-republican.html

Path of the Caravan

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/12/path-of-caravan.html

Federal Supremacy

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/11/temecula-constitution-class-federal.html

End of Russia, Russia, Russia?

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-end-is-near.html

A Gathering of Globalists

http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2018/11/trump-arrives-at-g-20.html

Corona Tea Party: Looking to 2019

Douglas V. Gibbs

The Corona/Norco/Eastvale Tea Party has requested that I speak to them about what's ahead in 2019.

Join us ...

9:00 am

Marie Callender's, 190 Rincon St., Corona, CA

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio, Looking Ahead

Conservative Voice Radio, the voice of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party
Saturday Mornings at 8:00 am Pacific ... KMET 1490-AMTopics:- China, Ukraine, and Russia- Social Media Bans Deepen- Mission and Vision for 2020- Riverside County, last GOP Stronghold in CA- Absentee Ballot Harvesting- Taxpayers Nudged for Payment of Wildfires- Santa Barbara's Social Engineering- Caravan Horde Clashes in Mexico- Chief Justice Roberts v. President Trump- Bad Brexit

Path of the Caravan

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

As we continue to watch the antics of the violent caravan in Tijuana, I wonder if the California clash was truly necessary.  After all, wasn't there a shorter trip to America?  On the image the red line is a route they could have taken, and the blue line is the path they actually took.

Why take the longer route?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary