By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Sleep a soldier's an honored rest. Sleep, for your sacrifice was worthy, and inspirational. God Bless You, and the nation you died defending. Sleep, God's Grace is upon thee.
Memorial Day is about the defense of an idea called freedom, and remembering those that gave their lives to protect that idea.
Memorial Day is a day of remembrance, and appreciation for the sacrifices of the fallen.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Monday, May 29, 2017
Trump Era Memorial Day, The Fallen's Extinguished Fires
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
This morning I flipped on the television to see President Donald J. Trump at Arlington National Cemetery. It was nice to see a president with such a solemn look on his face, rather than the arrogance and disrespect by the previous occupant of the White House. A president who changed the day a young Navy SEAL died in Yemen during his watch.
Memorial Day is about those citizen soldiers who comprised the 3% of the colonists who were willing to stand against the greatest military power of the day to fight for the independence of a new nation because of a document dated July 4, 1776, and died while doing so.
Memorial Day is about those fighting men of the American Revolution who fought a well-armed professional military using basic weaponry and doing so with limited supplies. They pledged, despite the odds against them, their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for an idea, and gave their lives doing so. That idea being a new grand experiment based on the principles of liberty and self-governance.
Memorial Day is about a young military who, to protect our trade-routes and sea-going vessels, stormed the shores of Tripoli during the Barbary Wars.
Memorial Day is about the second revolution where, during the War of 1812, the young nation's new military once again faced off with the most powerful military in the world, against all odds, and out-gunned. Yet, those brave soldiers were willing to give up their lives for an idea called freedom - and they were victorious.
Memorial Day is about those brave soldiers who fought to support Americans during the westward movement, against fierce opposing forces, and incredible numbers during the Mexican-American war of liberation for those people suffering under Mexican President Santa Ana.
Memorial Day is about the more than 600,000 brothers who fought their own brothers and died on the battlefield in a bloody civil war between the States which defined America's resolve to truly reveal the meaning of the phrase: All Men Are Created Equal.
Memorial Day is about the rough riders who stormed San Juan Hill, and the brave Americans who did all and gave all that was necessary to protect America's interests in the war with Spain merely thirty years after the severe weakening of America's forces from the War Between The States.
Memorial Day is about the brave warriors in a war that America did not have to enter, but did to protect Europe against the war machines of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.
Memorial Day is about the greatest generation as they gave their lives in yet another defense of freedom in Europe, and this time also in the Pacific. They died on beaches and in strange and unknown lands. They fought and died on the soil and over the waters, and America lost many troops and sailors, against the tyranny of the Axis Powers.
Memorial Day is about the fallen Americans who served to stop the spread of communism in Korea and Vietnam, bravely putting their lives on the line when the politicians were unwilling to fight to win.
Memorial Day is about those Americans who gave their lives during the Cold War - a war that was often not cold, and a war that was won because of our resolve to remain strong in the face of the enemy.
Memorial Day is about those Americans who served and died on the battlefield in the Persian Gulf War at a time before we fully understood the evil of what we were up against.
Memorial Day is about those Americans who have died in the wars since September 11, 2001 for the purpose of defending this nation against an enemy that vows to bring us to collapse and destruction.
Memorial Day is about the gunfire in the village, and the explosions on the roadway. Memorial Day is about the heroes who, knowing the dangers and believing in the cause, gave their lives for the freedom of people they didn't even know.
Memorial Day is about our fallen. It is a day for prayers and reflection. It is about thanking those we can no longer thank in person. It is about visiting the cemeteries where they lie, dropping off flowers and American Flags at their graves. Kneeling in prayer, and dropping tears on their name plates as we remember their sacrifice. And, to honor them, serving America ourselves in whatever manner we are capable of.
My grandfather, World War II Veteran Thurman Douglas Clark, and my dear friend, Vietnam Veteran Paul Young, rest at Riverside National Cemetery in Southern California, surrounded by heroes - surrounded by our blessed fallen who gave their lives so that we may live in liberty. Of my stops today, that cemetery is one of them. Thank you for your service.
Memorial Day is about an idea called freedom, and remembering those that gave their lives to protect that idea. America, may God shed His Grace on Thee.
I have read, in my lifetime, story after story of those who did not make it home. They gave the ultimate price. As a military veteran, I must remind all of you, today is about them. How incredible is it that we have those who laid down their lives for a country full of people they had never met.
Memorial Day is about our fallen. It is about honoring those heroes who died while in service.
Memorial Day is about those citizen soldiers who comprised the 3% of the colonists who were willing to stand against the greatest military power of the day to fight for the independence of a new nation because of a document dated July 4, 1776, and died while doing so.
Memorial Day is about those fighting men of the American Revolution who fought a well-armed professional military using basic weaponry and doing so with limited supplies. They pledged, despite the odds against them, their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for an idea, and gave their lives doing so. That idea being a new grand experiment based on the principles of liberty and self-governance.
Memorial Day is about a young military who, to protect our trade-routes and sea-going vessels, stormed the shores of Tripoli during the Barbary Wars.
Memorial Day is about the second revolution where, during the War of 1812, the young nation's new military once again faced off with the most powerful military in the world, against all odds, and out-gunned. Yet, those brave soldiers were willing to give up their lives for an idea called freedom - and they were victorious.
Memorial Day is about those brave soldiers who fought to support Americans during the westward movement, against fierce opposing forces, and incredible numbers during the Mexican-American war of liberation for those people suffering under Mexican President Santa Ana.
Memorial Day is about the more than 600,000 brothers who fought their own brothers and died on the battlefield in a bloody civil war between the States which defined America's resolve to truly reveal the meaning of the phrase: All Men Are Created Equal.
Memorial Day is about the rough riders who stormed San Juan Hill, and the brave Americans who did all and gave all that was necessary to protect America's interests in the war with Spain merely thirty years after the severe weakening of America's forces from the War Between The States.
Memorial Day is about the brave warriors in a war that America did not have to enter, but did to protect Europe against the war machines of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.
Memorial Day is about the greatest generation as they gave their lives in yet another defense of freedom in Europe, and this time also in the Pacific. They died on beaches and in strange and unknown lands. They fought and died on the soil and over the waters, and America lost many troops and sailors, against the tyranny of the Axis Powers.
Memorial Day is about the fallen Americans who served to stop the spread of communism in Korea and Vietnam, bravely putting their lives on the line when the politicians were unwilling to fight to win.
Memorial Day is about those Americans who gave their lives during the Cold War - a war that was often not cold, and a war that was won because of our resolve to remain strong in the face of the enemy.
Memorial Day is about those Americans who served and died on the battlefield in the Persian Gulf War at a time before we fully understood the evil of what we were up against.
Memorial Day is about those Americans who have died in the wars since September 11, 2001 for the purpose of defending this nation against an enemy that vows to bring us to collapse and destruction.
Memorial Day is about the gunfire in the village, and the explosions on the roadway. Memorial Day is about the heroes who, knowing the dangers and believing in the cause, gave their lives for the freedom of people they didn't even know.
Memorial Day is about our fallen. It is a day for prayers and reflection. It is about thanking those we can no longer thank in person. It is about visiting the cemeteries where they lie, dropping off flowers and American Flags at their graves. Kneeling in prayer, and dropping tears on their name plates as we remember their sacrifice. And, to honor them, serving America ourselves in whatever manner we are capable of.
My grandfather, World War II Veteran Thurman Douglas Clark, and my dear friend, Vietnam Veteran Paul Young, rest at Riverside National Cemetery in Southern California, surrounded by heroes - surrounded by our blessed fallen who gave their lives so that we may live in liberty. Of my stops today, that cemetery is one of them. Thank you for your service.
Memorial Day is about an idea called freedom, and remembering those that gave their lives to protect that idea. America, may God shed His Grace on Thee.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Mississippi Shooting
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Eight dead, including a sheriff's deputy. The shooting in Mississippi spanned three homes in a rural area, and the suspect told The Clarion-Ledger "I ain't fit to live, not after what I done."
"My intentions was to have God kill me. I ran out of bullets," he said. "Suicide by cop was my intention.""
The suspects name is Willie Cory Godbolt, a 35-year old Mississippi resident.
Godbolt's criminal history is extensive:
■ Charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault in 2005 after he allegedly struck a man with a pistol and took his cash and jewelry;
■ In 2013, the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office charged him with simple assault;
■ Arrested in 2015 for disorderly conduct/breach of peace and failure to comply with a request from a sheriff;
■ Arrested in 2015 for speeding, driving with a suspended license, and no proof of liability insurance by the Mississippi Highway Patrol.
In 2016, Godbolt filed an appeal to a judgment against him in a simple assault and disorderly conduct case.
Stronger sentencing in the past would have saved the lives of eight people today.
Then, he made another incredible admission.
"My intentions was to have God kill me. I ran out of bullets," he said. "Suicide by cop was my intention.""
The suspects name is Willie Cory Godbolt, a 35-year old Mississippi resident.
Godbolt's criminal history is extensive:
■ Charged with armed robbery and aggravated assault in 2005 after he allegedly struck a man with a pistol and took his cash and jewelry;
■ In 2013, the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office charged him with simple assault;
■ Arrested in 2015 for disorderly conduct/breach of peace and failure to comply with a request from a sheriff;
■ Arrested in 2015 for speeding, driving with a suspended license, and no proof of liability insurance by the Mississippi Highway Patrol.
In 2016, Godbolt filed an appeal to a judgment against him in a simple assault and disorderly conduct case.
Stronger sentencing in the past would have saved the lives of eight people today.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs: The Communist Cloud of the Democrat Party
It's a Two Hour ride!
Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs on KMET 1490-AM at 1:00 pm Pacific (live). Catch the program online at KMET 1490-AM, or the podcast later on Sound Cloud.
Today's Guest: Sally Burke, Moms in Prayer International.
God has led her step by step, first as a group leader and then as area coordinator for her hometown, Temecula, California, where He raised up 60 new Moms in Prayer groups. She later became the regional coordinator for all of Riverside County and its 25 school districts with 700 schools and half a million students. Once again God showed Himself faithful, and every school district was eventually covered with the mentorship of an area coordinator and hundreds of students accepted the Lord.
In 2008, Sally “took on the world” for Moms in Prayer International as the Director of Field Ministry, providing spiritual and strategic direction to the ministry worldwide. During her tenure, God doubled the number of nations where Moms in Prayer groups can be found meeting and praying. Sally stands amazed at God’s mighty power through moms’ prayers and His miracles big and small that could never be counted.
In her early years, growing up in Cocoa Beach, Florida, Sally was fascinated with the space program, and eventually became a space shuttle engineer. It wasn’t until after her marriage and the birth of two children, that she and her husband came to faith in Christ, and God began changing her priorities.
Today, in her role as president of Moms in Prayer International, Sally is carrying on the legacy begun over thirty years ago. Her vision remains unchanged, that more children and schools and moms might experience God’s life-changing answers to prayer.
Here's the AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week:
4th Circuit Unconstitutionally Bans Trump's Travel Ban
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-new-round-of-travel-ban-battles.html
Zuckerberg: Universal Basic Income
4th Circuit Unconstitutionally Bans Trump's Travel Ban
http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2017/05/a-new-round-of-travel-ban-battles.html
Zuckerberg: Universal Basic Income
California: Universal Basic Socialized Medicine
False Reparations
Trump International
Saving Montana
Islam's Evil: Manchester and Beyond
Democrat Party Mafia
Facebook's Zuckerberg: We Need Universal Basic Income
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Social justice? What Mark Zuckerberg is calling for is the next step towards full Soviet-style communism (or something worse).
Leftism has failed every time it has been tried in history. It can't pay for itself, and it destroys human initiative, and individual drive.
Mark Zuckerberg's recommendation was voiced while he was giving a commencement speech at Harvard University.
"We should explore ideas like universal basic income."
It amazes me that a man who used capitalism to become among the richest people in the world now wants to destroy the very economic principles that put him into a position where folks are even willing to listen to what he has to say.
The problem is, like most leftists, he has "equality," and "equity" confused with each other.
Equity is being the same at the finish line. Equality is no government interference so that we are at the same place legally when it comes to opportunity at the starting line.
Besides, is it even possible to reach true "equality"? And, would we really want such a thing?
Our differences, uniqueness as individuals, make us unequal, and that creates innovation and inspiration. Without those differences, we would be nothing more than mindless subjects in a totalitarian society ruled over by a political elite. It is our inequality that makes us strive for more, and use our unique talents to get us there. Then, our individual successes make the community better, and inspires the next generation of innovation.
Zuckerberg disagrees, like any good Marxist.
"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract."
Zuckerberg recognizes that the U.S. Constitution is a social contract, and he is calling for a new one. In other words, he is calling for the overthrow of our system of government.
"We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful."
He's calling for a communal system, as did Karl Marx and Frederic Engels (and Lenin, and Stalin, and Hitler).
"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure everyone has a cushion to try new ideas."
New ideas do not happen in communism. New ideas, like his, comes through a free market system, and the incentive of profit, and yes, a long list of failures.
Zuckerberg is just another Marxist, calling for the treason of overthrowing our republic, and system of liberty; and the lemmings applauded, because they have been trained by the educational system to do so.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
A New Round of Travel Ban Battles
After an inferior federal court struck down his last "travel ban" executive order, Donald Trump wrote a new one. This time, his administration believed it to be bullet proof. The problem is, the leftist judges of the federal court system could care less about the rule of law. Their concern is the rule of man, and the narrative of their ideology, which at this moment, hates Trump, and everything he does. So, illegally and against all constitutional authorities, they have once again struck down Trump's executive order calling for a halt on the infiltration into our society by a Muslim jihadist enemy.
Rather than the immigration laws on the books, of which are listed in his executive orders, and are authorized by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution which gives the U.S. Congress the power to prohibit persons from migrating into the United States for any reason they desire (a power they transferred to the President through legislation should he deem it necessary in the name of National Security), the judges have shown us they are more interested in protecting their political whims and the leftist narrative, so they are ignoring the law and are instead supporting the lawlessness of the Democrat Party's wishes. President Trump has vowed to take this latest assault by the federal judges on his constitutional powers as head of the executive branch to the United States Supreme Court, where he now has a conservative majority, again, or at least he does as long as Justice Kennedy behaves and resists the lies of the liberal leftists.
The judges and the Democrats say that the travel ban is racist, and unkind. But, do those things override the law? Does the law stop mattering when someone says it is unjust? Rather than overturn the law with the whims of men in black judges, why not work to change the law through legislative protocols? If the Democrats hate the current laws on the books so bad, why not pass a law that says immigration will not depend upon common sense, or the concept of having borders, but on the idea that anyone and everyone should be able to come into this country, regardless of their desire to participate in our society, or to destroy our culture?
The judges and the Democrats say that the travel ban is racist, and unkind. But, do those things override the law? Does the law stop mattering when someone says it is unjust? Rather than overturn the law with the whims of men in black judges, why not work to change the law through legislative protocols? If the Democrats hate the current laws on the books so bad, why not pass a law that says immigration will not depend upon common sense, or the concept of having borders, but on the idea that anyone and everyone should be able to come into this country, regardless of their desire to participate in our society, or to destroy our culture?
The Democrats, and their allies on court benches, don't care about the rule of law, and they could care less about National Security. Their aim is all about power. Votes. Creating enough chaos that creates a situation where more government is needed to quell the madness, and enough voters to get them back into power to fuel that desire for more government.
In addition to being the Commander in Chief, which gives the President of the United States the authority to protect our union through national security measures, it is his job to execute the laws of the United States (Article II, Section 1 and Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution). His tool for that authority is the executive order. While he cannot legislate with his tool of executive orders as President Obama had a habit of doing (Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution grants all legislative authorities to Congress), he can use them to delegate instructions down to his executive branch's agencies to carry out the laws. That is what he is doing with his travel ban. Trump is simply using his constitutional authority to execute the laws.
All executive authorities belong to the President of the United States (Article II, Section 1). The judicial branch has no executive authorities, and no legislative authorities (separation of powers). Therefore, the judges have no constitutionally granted authority to strike down Trump's executive orders, nor to enforce their decision.
As President Andrew Jackson said after the Worcester v. Georgia case in 1832, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
As Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, it's "the president's duty to protect the country from terrorism."
So, in a nut shell, President Trump's executive orders banning persons from a list of Muslim-majority countries is perfectly constitutional, and the court's freezing of those executive orders are not. . . and the court has no enforcement power to back their unlawful activism. So, why is the Trump administration playing around with the courts as they are? This administration needs to take a page from the Constitution, and tell the judicial branch to stick it. Politics during a time of war, especially as the enemy is working to infiltrate our country, is irresponsible, and Trump needs to take action despite any Democrat Party protest, or judicial tyranny.
If the case works its way to the Supreme Court, it could be until next year before they take the case, and we could be in serious trouble by then. That's why the President is Commander in Chief; so that he can handle threats quickly without the delay that can be caused by politics in the Congress, or the courts.
The first ruling came from the 9th Circuit Court. This latest one came from the 4th Circuit, ruling 10-3 that the ban "likely" violates the Constitution.
Likely? The law says what it says. "Likely" is not a legal term, especially when it comes to the idea of contract law, and the U.S. Constitution. Either, the authority is there, or it is not. "Likely," or "religious test" has nothing to do with the law. There is no authority given to the courts to place a ban regarding law passed, or the president executing the law, because he "likely" meant to do it in line with what he said during he campaign season. The law is the law, and he has authority to execute it. End of story. Time for the courts to shut up and let the President of the United States do his job executing perfectly constitutional laws designed to provide for the common defense.
While the court's claim is that the ban is about "religion," and that makes it unconstitutional, the Trump administration has fallen for the trap argued by the 4th Circuit, which is claiming the countries were chosen because they are predominantly Muslim, not because they present terrorism risks.
According to the leftist judges, the President can't ban people for reason of religion.
Poppycock.
First, the executive order travel ban doesn't mention religion. But, even if it did, from a constitutional manner, that does not matter. The Freedom of Religion argument is based on the First Amendment, which disallows Congress from making laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It has nothing to do with non-citizens, or immigration. There is no constitutional provision disallowing the prohibition of immigrants (migrants, refugees) because of a religious test. Besides, at what point do we decide if Islam is a religion (because they say so), or a political system (because that is what it acts as) that wishes to overthrow our constitutional system of government?
In fact, if the President did not write the executive orders banning Muslims from coming into the country, then he really would be acting unconstitutionally, because through inaction he would be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, however, doesn't care about the law and has ignored it to support his leftist ideological Marxist beliefs. He wrote that the government's "asserted national security interest ... appears to be a post hoc, secondary justification for an executive action rooted in religious animus and intended to bar Muslims from this country."
The three dissenting judges, all appointed by Republican presidents, said the majority was wrong to look beyond the text of the order.
Sessions said the court's ruling blocks Trump's "efforts to strengthen this country's national security."
So, while the courts and democrats play politics, they are also trying to handcuff our President, and better enable an ideology that has declared war on the United States (do they not take the "Death to America" chants seriously?) to infiltrate and defeat our country. If anything, these judges and the Democrats should be arrested for treason (Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only of levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.")
The Democrats and Judges are aiding and comforting an ideology that has declared it is at war with us, and that they wish to overthrow our Constitution and replace it with sharia law, making the Democrat politicians and judges guilty of treason. The Trump administration should take actions to arrest these traitors to the union of States, and then do what needs to be done to protect this country against the invaders.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
President Trump the first sitting U.S. President to visit Western Wall
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
As Trump spends his time in Europe, did anyone notice his love for Israel, and God? He was the first sitting president to ever visit the Western Wall in Jerusalem.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/An-historic-day-at-the-Western-Wall-493588
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/trump-israel-western-wall-visit-first-us-president-netanyahu-a7750361.html
President Trump did not only visit the Western Wall. He prayed.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Muslims Slaughter Buses and Truck Full of Christians
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
According to Russia Today: Gunmen opened fire on two buses and a truck carrying Coptic Christians in Minya, Egypt on Friday, killing at least 26, including children. Some 26 people were also injured in the attack.
The group of between eight and 10 gunmen, reportedly dressed in military uniforms according to eyewitnesses, approached the convoy in three four-wheel-drive pickup trucks before opening fire, according to local media reports and the Egyptian Interior Ministry.
“They used automatic weapons,” Essam el-Bedaiwy, governor of Minya told state television as cited by AFP.
Security chiefs established a perimeter around the scene and launched a hunt for the attackers, setting up dozens of roadblocks in the area and sending out patrols to scour the desert road.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Conservative Voice Radio: Trump, Islam, Israel, and Soviet California
Douglas V. Gibbs hosts Conservative Voice Radio on KMET 1490-AM with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (Glenn, Jan and Diane)
Today's topics:
● Manchester Terrorism
● Trump in Saudi Arabia
● Trump in Israel
● California's Socialized Medicine plan
● Trump's Accomplishments
● Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit
● Seth Rich Investigation has Democrats Squirming
Friday, May 26, 2017
Boeing to make Space Travel and Launching Satellites Quick and Easy
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Space. The final frontier. President Obama wanted to abandon it and make it a collective effort to play "asteroids", prove the climate change hoax to be true, and help Islam with whatever they wanted to use it for. Trump's administration, however, has embraced the science of space for bigger and better things, and has encouraged the private market to "go for it" regarding the science, as well.
The agency heading an exiting new journey into space (sort of) is The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The organization is a government agency of the United States Department of Defense (DOD) and the agency is responsible for the development of emerging technologies, especially when it comes to military applications. Founded in 1958, the nearly three billion dollar annual budget of the organization is ready to go ahead with a very exciting project, with Boeing as a partner.
The new experimental aircraft project called the XS-1, a vehicle designed to make launching satellites a faster, less expensive endeavor, is moving full speed ahead. The partnership with Boeing who will build the low-level-space-capable hypersonic craft will enable the already begun design to be completed, and for the idea to take shape and become a reality in the years to come.
The XS-1 is supposed to be a kind of hybrid, a cross between the traditional airplanes that fly in our skies daily, and a conventional launch vehicle much like the ones used during the Space Shuttle program. However, the real kicker is that the project has the goal of lowering launch costs by a factor of ten and replacing today's frustratingly long wait time with launch on demand.
In the age of exploding technology, and information at our fingertips online, I would expect this to be the generation to turn spaceflight into a quicker, no waiting required, endeavor.
The XS-1 is not designed to go completely into outer-space like some of us are hoping to see in our lifetimes, but it is definitely a giant step in the right direction. For now, the job of this latest spacecraft will be to get as close to space as it can, without actually crossing the threshold. It will then launch a smaller rocket-like vehicle that can fly from the suborbital height the XS-1 is in, into the area of space where satellites orbit the Earth. The "secondary rocket" will take
its payload into orbit, release the satellite, and be done with it. In the meantime, the spaceplane can descend back to the ground, be loaded again, and take a second satellite up within hours of delivering the first.
The XS-1 is not designed to go completely into outer-space like some of us are hoping to see in our lifetimes, but it is definitely a giant step in the right direction. For now, the job of this latest spacecraft will be to get as close to space as it can, without actually crossing the threshold. It will then launch a smaller rocket-like vehicle that can fly from the suborbital height the XS-1 is in, into the area of space where satellites orbit the Earth. The "secondary rocket" will take
Whether or not this technology can help with more ambitious endeavors like returning to the moon or a trip to Mars may not be apparent, but it's nice to see technology reaching towards the stars, again.
That all said, the program still remains in its early phases, and we will likely not see an on-ground engine test for at least two years. But, the concept video from which the pictures on this page were taken (and is available for viewing below) looks pretty awesome. On paper, the concept is a winner. Now, it's just a matter of making that winning concept an actual reality.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Trump's First Economic Summit
 |
| G-7 Summit Member Countries and Representatives |
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
President Trump's journey into Europe, after his successful visits to Saudi Arabia and Israel, began with a visit to The Vatican. Pope Francis has not been a friend to Trump, or his policies. By the and of the Papal visit, however, Trump had the Pope at least listening, and talking cordially with him.
When in Saudi Arabia and Israel, Trump spoke mostly about the need to get a handle on Islamic terrorism, and the audiences listened to him, and agreed. European leaders have not been as enamored by Trump's rhetoric about terrorism as the Muslim and Jewish leaders were, and instead have focused on their leftwing belief that the greatest threat to mankind is instead man-made climate change. Newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron spent a lunch in Brussels with Trump trying to convince the American to not refuse to at least look at the 196-nation Paris Agreement on climate change.
Trump did not budge. He wasn't there to discuss man-made climate change hoax hysteria. He was there for the Group of Seven (G-7) conference to discuss economics, trade, and dealing with Russia, who is no longer a part of the club. The G-7 Summit used to be the G-8, but Russia has since departed. China was also not represented at this year's conference.
At the Vatican, Pope Francis had even handed Trump his 181-page encyclical, “Laudato Si” (“Praise Be”), that largely blames man for climate change.
While campaigning, Trump pledged to pull out of the climate change deal, which Trump criticized from the beginning. In fact, in a show that Trump remains out of the clouds of fantasy regarding the ridiculous notion of man-made climate change, President Donald Trump signed a sweeping executive order changing most of President Barack Obama’s climate change policies, on Tuesday. “My administration is putting an end to the war on coal,” Trump said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told supporters that she also plans to press the administration not to abandon the climate change accord.
Today's first day of a two-day G-7 Summit will bring together the leaders of the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan in the resort town of Taormina, Italy. Four of the seven leaders sitting at the G-7 table will be there for the first time, yet it seems to be first-timer President Donald Trump who is driving the agenda. It is also Trump upon whom the brightest spotlight will be shining, largely due to his refusal to conform with the "progressive" norm of the globalist leaders, largely revealed by his refusal to endorse leftist-globalist positions on a variety of issues.
The Group of Seven (G7) is an informal bloc of industrialized countries, making up nearly 50 percent of the world economy, and representing more than 60 percent of net global wealth.
"The G7 takes no mandatory decisions, and the meeting is billed as an opportunity to allow leaders to exchange ideas in key issues. A leaders' declaration at the end of summit is not binding in nature."
A broader club, the Group of 20, or G20, was set up in 1999 and includes other major global players, including China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, South Africa and Turkey.
Representatives of the European Union have been additional participants to summits since 1981. Russia was first invited as a guest observer in 1997 as a way to encourage then-President Boris Yeltsin's capitalist reforms, and formally joined a year later. However, Russia was kicked out in 2014 over the annexation of Crimea.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Republicans Hang On to Montana, Despite Body Slam
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
In the Presidential Election of 2016, Donald J. Trump won Montana with 55.6% of the Vote. Hillary Clinton achieved 35.4% of the vote.
In the Montana special election to fill the vacated seat of Ryan Zinke, who was appointed as U.S. Secretary of the Interior and sworn in last March 1, the gap was much narrower.
Republican Greg Gianforte, after man-handling a reporter from The Guardian, finished the election with 50.2% of the vote. He won the lone seat Montana has in the U.S. House of Representatives, but by a much more narrow margin than Trump had won the State last November.
Democrat Rob Quist (a music entertainer in his other life) achieved 44.1%, more than ten percentage points higher than Hillary Clinton achieved only six and a half months before.
The confrontation with a news reporter that led to a physical body-slam by Gianforte may have been a factor, but Trump derangement syndrome may have been, as well. The fact that Gianforte won despite the body-slam may also be a message that the Democrat Party's "resistance" strategy may not be working as well as they have hoped.
Then again, we are talking about rosy-red Montana.
The interesting twist concerns Gianforte's change in position regarding Donald J. Trump as President of the United States.
Prior to last year's Montana Republican Party Primary, then gubernatorial candidate Gianforte was not as big of a fan of Donald Trump as he seemed to be during his successful congressional run that was decided beyond a shadow of a doubt early this morning. In fact, last year, the then candidate for governor tried to distance himself from Trump.
This year, perhaps it is a matter of "hindsight is 20/20." When the doubts by Gianforte existed a year ago, Trump was labeled as an impossible candidate that not only could not beat Hillary, but if he was the candidate, it was considered that it would be Trump's fault the GOP lost its opportunity to return to the White House. In fact, at one point last year, Gianforte declined to attend Trump's one rally in Montana. In November, he said of Trump, "he says obnoxious things." After the dust settled, Gianforte was the only Republican running for a statewide election in Montana not to win last November, likely as a result of Trump's voters abandoning his drive for governor at the ballot box.
A year later, Donald Trump is the victor, and resides in the White House.
Gianforte's gubernatorial loss, and Trump's presidential win was enough to convince multimillionaire technology entrepreneur Gianforte to go all in on Trump, especially since it was time to seek a political office, again. And, it seems to have worked, despite his altercation with the Guardian reporter.
Gianforte, during his run for Congress, has even begun to sound like Trump, co-opting Trump's"drain the swamp" catchphrase, and pledging to advance Trump's agenda.
It seems that many in the Republican Party, who were content to stand against Trump a year ago, have followed the same path as Gianforte, and move into the "Trump is my president" camp. If Trump can survive the Trump derangement syndrome being portrayed by the Democrat Party and liberal left media, the new found support for Trump by a larger number of Republicans can be good for Trump, and good for a political party that has been roiled in civil war, and is desperate to eject the moderate establishment so that the GOP may follow its more conservative platform.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The confrontation with a news reporter that led to a physical body-slam by Gianforte may have been a factor, but Trump derangement syndrome may have been, as well. The fact that Gianforte won despite the body-slam may also be a message that the Democrat Party's "resistance" strategy may not be working as well as they have hoped.
Then again, we are talking about rosy-red Montana.
The interesting twist concerns Gianforte's change in position regarding Donald J. Trump as President of the United States.
Prior to last year's Montana Republican Party Primary, then gubernatorial candidate Gianforte was not as big of a fan of Donald Trump as he seemed to be during his successful congressional run that was decided beyond a shadow of a doubt early this morning. In fact, last year, the then candidate for governor tried to distance himself from Trump.
This year, perhaps it is a matter of "hindsight is 20/20." When the doubts by Gianforte existed a year ago, Trump was labeled as an impossible candidate that not only could not beat Hillary, but if he was the candidate, it was considered that it would be Trump's fault the GOP lost its opportunity to return to the White House. In fact, at one point last year, Gianforte declined to attend Trump's one rally in Montana. In November, he said of Trump, "he says obnoxious things." After the dust settled, Gianforte was the only Republican running for a statewide election in Montana not to win last November, likely as a result of Trump's voters abandoning his drive for governor at the ballot box.
A year later, Donald Trump is the victor, and resides in the White House.
Gianforte's gubernatorial loss, and Trump's presidential win was enough to convince multimillionaire technology entrepreneur Gianforte to go all in on Trump, especially since it was time to seek a political office, again. And, it seems to have worked, despite his altercation with the Guardian reporter.
Gianforte, during his run for Congress, has even begun to sound like Trump, co-opting Trump's"drain the swamp" catchphrase, and pledging to advance Trump's agenda.
It seems that many in the Republican Party, who were content to stand against Trump a year ago, have followed the same path as Gianforte, and move into the "Trump is my president" camp. If Trump can survive the Trump derangement syndrome being portrayed by the Democrat Party and liberal left media, the new found support for Trump by a larger number of Republicans can be good for Trump, and good for a political party that has been roiled in civil war, and is desperate to eject the moderate establishment so that the GOP may follow its more conservative platform.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thursday, May 25, 2017
Quebec police tear down anti-sharia election posters
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Temecula Constitution Class: Establishing the Executive Branch
Temecula Constitution Class, Thursday Night at 6:30 pm at Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road
|
Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 5: Establishing the Executive Branch
Article II, Section 1, Executive Power Established
Article II establishes the Executive Branch. The Founding Fathers were anxious regarding the creation of the office of the executive because they feared that a leader with too much power had the potential of being tyrannical. Many of the founders even argued that there should not be one executive, but many, so that they may serve as checks against each other. Their concerns were well placed, if one considers that their frame of reference was the authoritarian king of the British Empire.
Despite their fears, they knew that the authorities of the president under the Articles of Confederation were too few, leaving the office of the president much too weak to adequately serve the union. The founders were looking for a strong leader that also recognized the limitations on the authorities of the federal government as granted by the States through the articles of the Constitution. The best model for the presidency was a simple choice. Article II was written, some believe, with George Washington in mind.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states that the powers of the executive are "vested." This word, as we learned when we went over Article I, Section 1, carries a meaning similar to that of the word "granted." Vested means "legally transferred." The President's authorities are powers given to him through a legal transfer of authorities. The powers vested to the Executive Branch were granted by the States.
The founders understood that whenever there is a "leader," there is a struggle for power. America has been no different. The office of the president has increased its powers over the years, mostly through unconstitutional means. The Founding Fathers sought to limit the powers to the executive. Among those limitations of powers is also a term-limit. The executive is limited to a term of four years, as is the Vice President.
Election
The election of the President and Vice President is not accomplished by direct election. Appointed electors vote for the President and Vice President. The electors were originally appointed by the States during the early elections of American History. The formula for determining the number of electors is determined by taking the number of Representatives and Senators the State is entitled in Congress, and combining those two numbers. This method of indirect election is also known as The Electoral College, which was designed in this manner specifically to protect the United States against the excesses of democracy.
After the 2000 election, where the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency because he did not win the fight for electors, questions regarding the Electoral College arose. It was only the fourth time in history such an event occurred. To find precedents resembling the 2000 election one has to go back to the 19th century, to the elections of 1888, 1876, and 1824. Those were the only elections in American history prior to the election in 2000 where a winner in the popular vote was denied the presidency through the Electoral College system.
Recently, there has been a number of officials promising to introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College, claiming that it no longer serves a good purpose in modern politics. The reasoning of these folks that oppose the Electoral College suggests that the United States should simply allow the popular vote of the American people be followed every four years when we elect our president.
A number of Americans have voiced their agreement with this opinion, arguing that the individual running for President receiving the most votes should win. An indirect election such as the Electoral College, argue these folks, is simply unfair and undemocratic. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
The Founding Fathers purposely did not make this country a democracy. The United States is a Republic, equipped with checks and balances at all levels of government, including the voting process. Democracies were proven, according to the founders, to be failures.
John Adams was quoted to say, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
Thomas Jefferson said, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
The founders are not the only historical figures to recognize that a democracy opposes liberty.
Karl Marx once said, "Democracy is the road to socialism."
Karl Marx, the father of communism, understood that the implementation of a democracy is a necessary step in the process of destroying our Constitutional Republic. Once the people are fooled to believe that they can receive gifts from the treasury rather than achieve for their livelihood, they will continually vote in the people who ensure the entitlements continue to flow. Eventually, this mindset becomes the majority. This group then changes over time from an involved and informed electorate to a populace that lacks the understanding of the principles of liberty and can easily be manipulated into believing that sacrificing individual liberty in exchange for social justice and security is a price that we must be willing to pay. A group that is dependent upon the government in such a manner, then, is prime to vote into power a tyranny. Eliminating the Electoral College would make it easier for these members of our society to vote into office those that promise more entitlements.
Once the majority of the voters in a Democracy become the recipients of benefits from the Federal Government, the government achieves unchecked power, and may then violate the property rights of the productive members of society in order to provide benefits to the non-productive members of society. This is best characterized in the "tax the rich," or "redistribution of wealth," scheme we are now seeing emerge as the rally cry by the current administration. The founders called this method a "scheme of leveling."
The founders were aware of this danger, which is why they established our system of government, and the electoral college, in the manner they did. A true democracy becomes "mob rule," and the principles of liberty become a target for elimination.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson
In order to preserve our Constitutional Republic it was imperative for the vote of the people to be indirect, except when it came to voting for their representatives in the House of Representatives. The Founding Fathers divided power as much as possible, including the power of the vote.
Originally, the State Legislatures appointed the electors that cast their votes in the Presidential Election. That changed in 1824 when all but six states decided the electors should to vote in line with the popular vote.
U.S. Senators were initially appointed by the State Legislatures, which ensured the voice of the States was present in the federal government. That changed in 1913 with the 17th Amendment, which transferred the vote for the U.S. Senators to the popular vote. The 17th Amendment took away from the States their representation in the federal government.
The Founding Fathers divided the voting power as they did partially because if the power to vote for president, the House, and the Senate all fell to the people, and if the people were fooled by some political ideology that wished to destroy the republic by fundamentally changing the American System, a tyranny could be easily voted into control of all parts of the government without any checks present whatsoever. When the majority of voters are uninformed in such a manner, and are given the full voting power, tyranny is inevitable.
Winston Churchill understood the dangers of trusting an uninformed electorate with the capacity to govern. He was quoted as saying, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."
The elimination of the Electoral College would take away the voice of the smaller states, give the election of the President to the seven largest metropolitan centers in the United States, and lead America even closer to becoming a democracy.
Democracy is a transitional governmental system that ultimately leads to tyranny. This was true in the days of the French Revolution no less than it is true today.
While democracy lasts it becomes more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy...Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. -- John Adams
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" -- James Bovard
Our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic. The indirect election of the President through the Electoral College reflects that truth, and the Electoral College is one of the last vestiges of the system of checks and balances as they apply to the voters.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 indicates that the Congress may determine the time and day the electors are chosen, and give their votes. The day they vote for President and Vice President, according to this clause, will be the same day nationally. The rules for the popular election, if you will remember from Article I, are to be established by the State legislatures.
Eligibility
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that the eligibility for President includes the requirement that the individual be a natural born Citizen.
Notice that the Constitution says a natural born citizen, "or" a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. This was to ensure that anyone alive at the time of the adoption of the Constitution who was a citizen was eligible, and anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a natural born citizen to be eligible. The word "or" gives us a clue that there is a difference between "natural born citizen," and "citizen."
Some people will use the Fourteenth Amendment as an argument regarding the definition of natural born citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The Fourteenth Amendment, in this clause, as it states, only addresses "citizenship" - not the concept of being a natural born citizen. Therefore, it does not apply when discussing the concept of natural born citizenship. The clause was written as it was to protect the citizenship of the children of the emancipated slaves. The word "jurisdiction" was placed in that clause to mean "full allegiance." There was a fear during that time, as there had been during the founding of this nation, of divided allegiance, or divided loyalties.
Natural Born Citizen is not defined in the Constitution primarily because it was common knowledge. People understood what the term "Natural Born Citizen" meant.
Today we have a number of terms that are understood without needing to be defined. One of those terms is "fast food." Without needing a definition provided, most people know what "fast food" is. That does not mean the term will be readily understood by some historian of the future. He may ask himself, when he comes across that term in our literature, "Why is it their food was fast? Did it run quickly away from them?" To understand what "fast food" meant to us, he may have to refer to a number of writings before he finally comes across the definition.
One of the sources the Founding Fathers used when it came to establishing the definition of "Natural Born Citizen" was Vatell's "Law of Nations."
Vatell's Law of Nations is mentioned once in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, and it is capitalized - which suggests the mention of the Law of Nations to be a proper noun, thus supporting the argument that it is a direct reference to Vatell's writings.
Recently, it was discovered that George Washington failed to return a couple library books to the New York City Public Library. One of those books was Vatell's Law of Nations. Washington checked the book out in 1789, shortly after the Constitutional Convention, probably because of the heavy influence the definitions in Vatell's Law of Nations played on the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
Benjamin Franklin owned three copies of the Law of Nations - two for the convention, and one for his personal use. He received those copies from the editor, Dumas, in 1775.
Vatell's Law of Nations Section 212 indicates that to be a Natural Born Citizen both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child. As with the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a fear of divided allegiance.
Vetell's Law of Nations required also that the child be born on American Soil, but if you read further down the section addresses other possibilities. The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 confirmed the definition not requiring the child to be born on American soil, but still requiring that both parents be American citizens at the time of the child's birth. The section in the Naturalization Act of 1790 I am referring to specifically reads: "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
Note that the fifth word, citizens, is in the plural, which means it requires both parents to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a "Natural Born Citizen."
Article II also establishes that in order to be eligible for the presidency the candidate must be at least the age of 35. This requirement, reasoned the founders, would ensure that the immaturities of youth had passed away. Along with a relatively mature age, the Constitution indicates that the president must also have been a resident of the United States for the last fourteen years. This, once again, was a guard against divided loyalties.
The Vice President must also meet all eligibility requirements. In the 18th century the Vice President was the second place winner in the election, and therefore had to be eligible because he was originally running for President. Now, the Vice President is elected as a part of the presidential ticket. However, to ensure it was clear that the Vice President also had to be eligible for the presidency, especially since he was next in line for the presidency should the Office of President be vacated, the 12th Amendment ends with a sentence that demands the Vice President is eligible for the presidency.
In Case of Death
Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 was changed by the Twelfth Amendment. This clause established the rules in case of the death of the President while in office. The clause gave the Office of the President to the Vice President in the case of death. The ambiguity of the clause, however, created confusion. In the case of President Benjamin Harrison who died after only 30 days in office, it created a constitutional crisis. The officials of that time did not know what to do. When old Tippecanoe died, he was succeeded by his Vice-President John Tyler, but since no President had died in office before, no one was quite sure how Presidential succession worked. The Constitution stipulated that the Vice-President should become the new President, but it was not clear if the Vice-President should be considered a "real" President, or if he only "acted" as President. The Tyler administration made it clear that Vice-Presidents who became President after the death of the elected President should be treated as legitimate Presidents.
The Twelfth Amendment later addressed the problem with more specified rules. Later, succession was resolved once and for all with the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
Compensation
Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 allows for the President to be compensated for his service as President of the United States. This salary is not to be increased or diminished while the President serves. The President, according to this clause, is also not allowed to receive any other governmental salary from the federal government during his term as President. In George Washington's First Inaugural Address, he announced that he would accept no salary as President.
Oath or Affirmation
In the final Clause of Article II, Section 1, the Oath or Affirmation for the Office of President was established.
The reason for the clause indicating Oath "or" Affirmation was because an Oath is to God, and an Affirmation is not. The founders understood that not all Americans believe in God, therefore an option needed to be available for non-believers. Affirmation was also included as an option because there were some Christians that believed swearing to God to be a sin. Offering the opportunity to "affirm" gave these Christians an opportunity to take the affirmation of office without compromising their religious beliefs.
Note that the President is expected, according to the text of the oath or affirmation, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
You will also note that placing one's hand on a Bible is not in this Article. The placement of a hand on a Bible while reciting the Oath or Affirmation was something that George Washington chose to do, and it has been a tradition ever since.
Terms:
Democracy: A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Such a system includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.
Electoral College: A body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the President and Vice President of the U.S.
Executive Branch: The branch of government responsible for executing, or carrying out, the laws. An executive in government can be a president, or a governor.
Leveling: Moving money from one group of people to another by raising and lower taxes accordingly in an effort to achieve economic equity in society.
Republic: Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why didn't the Founding Fathers make the President a king?
2. How does the Electoral College ensure fairness for the minority States?
3. What is the difference between a democracy and a republic?
4. Why did the Founding Fathers divide the voting power?
5. How is "citizen," and "natural born citizen," different?
6. Why were the Founding Fathers concerned about divided loyalty?
7. How does the eligibility requirements ensure that the President, especially as Commander in Chief, holds full allegiance for the United States?
8. How was the way the Vice President was chosen in the 18th century different from how the Vice President is chosen today?
Resources:
Alexander Hamilton, The Law of Nations and the U.S. Constitution, http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id4.html
Associated Press, "Hillary Clinton Calls for End to Electoral College," CBS News (2009) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/11/10/politics/main248645.shtml
George Washington, The First Inaugural Address of George Washington, The Avalon Project - Yale University (1789/2008) http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/wash1.asp
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
Marjorie Kehe, "How George Washington racked up a $300,000 fine for overdue library books," Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2010/0419/How-George-Washington-racked-up-a-300-000-fine-for-overdue-library-books
Mountain Publius Goat, "Law of Nations, 1758 law book defines Natural Born Citizen," Kerchner (2008) http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/goatsledge/20081212%20Law%20of%20Nations.pdf
Naturalization Act of 1790, Harvard University: http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/viewtext/5596748?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no
Ron Paul, "Hands Off The Electoral College," Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul226.html
Ron Paul, "The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule," Lew Rockwell (2004) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Sean Rooney, "The Death of President William Henry Harrison," Associated Content (2008) http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/518591/the_death_of_president_william_henry.html?cat=37
Vatell's Law of Nations: http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)