Friday, October 05, 2018

Satanic Democratic Verses?

By Douglas V. Gibbs


Democrats are anti-Christian (remember, they voted God off their platform at one point, and then booed when God was returned to their platform), sacrifice the blood of babies with abortion, and find themselves on the evil side of issues every time we turn around.  They have shown their ugly side with Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh.  They have a lot in common with you-know-who.  That doesn't make them Devil Worshipers, too, does it?

I am not making any statements or accusations.  I am simply providing some evidence.

The “Arch of Baal” was erected in Washington D.C. on the exact same week that Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are testifying before Congress.  It's quite odd that this ancient pagan symbol has been put up at this precise moment in time.

Is this the first time the liberal left has done such a thing?

In Arkansas, in protest of the grounds having the Ten Commandments, a Satanic Temple wheeled its giant statue of the goat-like figure Baphomet onto the lawn of the Arkansas State Capitol.

We've seen the display of Satanism at the Grammy Awards.

Hillary Clinton's contacts have shown their willingness to dabble in Satanic witchcraft.

One wonders.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Sleaze

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-slimed/

https://www.voteinfo.net/elections/20181106/docs/20181106_Candidates.pdf





-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrat Kavanaugh Strategy Backfiring

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

With any other nominee, and any other President, the Democrats would have worn down the Republicans, and either the nominee, or the President, would have given up and withdrawn.  Donald J. Trump is not just any President, and it is apparent that Kavanaugh is not just another nominee.  Both the President, and Judge Kavanaugh, have spines that the Democrats did not expect.  As the process proceeded, they kept telling themselves, "just a little bit more, just a little bit longer, and they'll give in."

Trump and Kavanaugh never gave in.  Senator Susan Collins, Republican from Maine, and Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, have indicated they will vote for Kavanaugh during tomorrow's confirmation vote.  That likely ensures Kavanaugh's confirmation.

The hateful liberal left Democrats have lost this battle, and they will get worse.  Their rage seeks destruction, and they will not stop until they can stop Trump's dismantling of the progressive machine's century-long work to fundamentally change America into something the Framers of the Constitution never intended.

The madness being portrayed by the liberal left Democrats, the liberal media, and all of the left's allies in leftwing groups and protest marches has not only fallen short in stopping the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as the next addition to the United States Supreme Court, they may have also cost themselves the midterm election.

Midterm elections are normally about energy.  In fact, all elections are about energy.  Folks like myself who votes in every election is not the norm.  Most people need a reason to interrupt their busy day to go out and vote.  They need to be energized.  Convinced.  Compelled to get out there and vote when they could be at a soccer practice, or watching their favorite show, or going out to dinner.

In 2008 and 2012 Democrats were motivated by history.  They wanted to vote for the first black president.  Especially black voters.  The percentage of black voters for Obama reached above 95%.

After eight years of Barack Obama, and the potential nightmare being proposed by Hillary Clinton, coupled with the fact that Donald J. Trump came across as a breath of fresh air, conservatives were energized, and they got out to vote.  Democrats, not so much.  For them, Hillary was not a good candidate.

How can anyone get excited about a candidate when their essential campaign message is, "It's my turn to be president, especially because I have lady-parts"?

Historically, after a new President takes the White House, the opposing party bodes better in the midterm election that follows.  The excitement over the new president is normally spent.  There's nothing left.  But, the opposition is energized because they lost the previous election, and they feel like they need to do well in the midterm election to mitigate the damage to their cause being created by the new President.

Had the Democrats been more accepting of Trump, and not running around in circles with blood squirting out of their eyes, they would have probably achieved the blue wave in November of 2018 that they have been expecting.  However, they have energized the Trump voters.  They have gone so out of their minds with their #resist movement, especially when it came to Kavanaugh, they have literally lit fires under the butts of Republican voters, and now it is all but set in stone that the Democrats will lose seats in the Senate, and they may even lose some ground in the House of Representatives.

Nobody believes the polls.  Nobody trusts the Democrats.  GOP voters are definitely not going to allow the Democrats to be close enough in votes to go through the Kavanaugh thing all over again should another Supreme Court seat open up. Republicans are going to be voting in droves, and former Democrats like those associated with the #walkaway movement will be out there in force, as well.

In short, this is all going to backfire on the Democrats.  It's going to get worse for them.  And their response, thank goodness, will be to go even further into the realm of insanity.  The more insane they are, the more votes they give the GOP.

People complain that the Republicans are not great when it comes to messaging.

With crazy people in the other party like we are seeing now, we don't have to have great messaging.  As long as we stick to our values and principles, and the Democrats continue to act like screaming banshees, we'll remain in good shape.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Kavanaugh, No Evidence, No Problem, Left Pushes Forward

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

The Democrats are angry they couldn't stop Kavanaugh.  Never mind the rule of law or due process, they want everyone to buy into their new guilty by accusation standard (unless the table is turned.

White House Finds No Evidence Against Kavanaugh...
Republican swing votes express satisfaction with FBI report...
WEEKEND: Final vote...
Two scenarios...
MAG: Delay HELPED...
Republican enthusiasm surges...
Hundreds of 'Stop' vigils...
YALE roommate: He lied...
Dem staffer arrested for doxxing...
Saga re-uniting right?


BATTLE FOR BRETT REACHES CLIMAX
POLICE BOOST SECURITY AT CAPITOL
DEMS CLAIM COVER UP

The thing is, this won't stop.  If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, the liberal left will continue to try to dislodge him.  They will continue to work towards impeachment even if no impeachable offense exists.  This is not about Kavanaugh, or even Donald Trump.  This is about them hanging on to the coup that began long ago, and a left turn towards socialism they thought they had in their hands forever during the Obama administration.  This is about preserving their ability to kill babies in the womb, and kill the liberty secured by the United States Constitution.  Their rage is about resisting, but what they don't get is that as long as their rage rages on in this manner, they will continue to give conservative voters the encouragement to stand strong, remain steady, and go to the voting booth.

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

Constitution Association Monthly Meeting: Screening a Short Film


Temecula Constitution Class Cancelled Tonight

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

I will be attending a meeting in Corona tonight regarding the membership of the Constitution Association in the Unite Inland Empire Patriot Coalition.  The Temecula Class will return the following Wednesday Night.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

My Original Constitutional Inspirations

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

People often ask what got me started with what I do regarding the U.S. Constitution.

It all began with Schoolhouse Rock when I was a young man in the 1970s...










And then after I began my first radio program in 2007, and my Constitution Classes in Temecula in 2008, this video reminded me about what I was teaching, and that I was on the right track. . .




-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sinister Evil Democrat Party Orchestrated Madness Against Kavanaugh

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

When President Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States, the Democrat Party and her minions reacted with a violent rage.  The seeds of division had already been planted and watered during the Obama presidency, and now the fruits of the liberal left's endeavors have been blooming into a fiery flash of indignation that launched a #resist movement not seen in America during anyone's lifetime.

The Democrats have blamed Trump for the division we are witnessing in the United States.  They have called out President Trump as the person who has brought rage and hate into the public square.

Trump did not cause the madness of the Democrat Party.  He revealed it.

The Democrat Party has always been capable of, and willing to carry out, violence against any who dares to stand against them.  From the Trail of Tears perpetrated by the father of the Democrat Party, Andrew Jackson, to the violent lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan (the militant arm of the Democrat Party after the War Between the States), to Woodrow Wilson's progressive Sedition Act, to the willingness of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to have his cabinet read Mussolini's Manifesto (because he admired fascism before he decided to fight a war against it), to the violent threats against Ronald Reagan, and the rioting hordes who have plagued Trump and conservatives during this latest round of madness.  Violence and rage fueled by a seething hate for anyone who dares to try and dismantle their leftist programs and socialist agenda is a hallmark response by the Democrats and their allies throughout American history.

The real disturbing part of it all is they do what they can to disguise their anger as if it is some kind of grassroots groundswell.  They try to touch your emotions.  They cry crocodile tears in the hopes of convincing those around them of their sincere sadness when it reality it is a well orchestrated, well oiled machine designed to do one thing . . . stop the opposition so that they can continue to march America toward a utopian collectivist tyranny.

They think all of us are like Senator Jeff Flake, willing to bow our heads and give in if screamed at in the right way.

Senator Flake was confronted in an elevator by an activist who claimed to be a concerned citizen.  She accused him of being a horrible man, and she cried, and she screamed, and she asked him why he would want a man who assaulted a young woman to be on the Supreme Court (referencing the allegation that Brett Kavanaugh, when he was 17, sexually assaulted 15 year old Christine Blasey Ford ... of which the former says he was a virgin and didn't do it, and that the latter says she could not remember at first if it was him and all of her witnesses have either refuted her claim or have refused to corroborate it).

The attack on Senator Flake in the elevator was relentless, and in the end the gullible politician cried uncle.  The performance launched against him had been an emotional rollercoaster that, if you didn't know the truth, would be convincing enough to change anyone's mind.  An Oscar-worthy performance if ever I've seen one:
"What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit in the Supreme Court," the attacker said tearfully. "This is horrible. You have children in your family. Think about them! I have two children and cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the Supreme Court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?" 
Another woman chimes in. 
"I was sexually assaulted and no one believed me!" a voice from behind the camera screamed. "I didn't tell anyone and you're telling all women that they don't matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them, you're going to ignore them. That's what happened to me and that's what you're telling all women in America, that they don't matter, that they should just keep it to themselves because if they had told the truth you're just going to help that man to power anyway. That's what you're telling all of these women. That's what you're telling me right now."
For the Democrats, the rule of law means nothing.  Due process is a farce to them.  All they want is for Republicans to cave because Kavanaugh must be guilty by accusation, without evidence, because the woman's story is so emotionally stirring.  Never mind that the hypocrites have dismissed the case against one of their own, Keith Ellison, because of a lack of evidence (of which there was, but it conveniently vanished).

And who were the women confronting Senator Flake in the elevator?  Were they victims of sexual assault as proclaimed, and emotionally distraught over the thought that Kavanaugh, already guilty without evidence, and never mind any presumption of innocence, as a sexual assaulter would be placed on the U.S. Supreme Court if the female gender (even though there is no gender) hating Republicans had their way?

As for the protesters in the elevator, it turns out they were purposely confronting Senator Jeff Flake because the two women, Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher, were from a progressive group, Center for Popular Democracy, the organization that’s the point of the lance in the nix Kavanaugh crusade. One of the women involved in the confrontation, Ana Maria Archila, is the group’s executive director. She’s been busy in the trenches fighting for the Left—and right now; her group is nicely funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros (via NY Post).

The Center for Popular Democracy is at the heart of the effort to stop Kavanaugh.

The protestors interrupting the Kavanaugh hearings, trying to slow it down and show the Judiciary Committee how much they/we care, were also planted activists from the Women’s March and the Center for Popular Democracy and other groups.

As for the woman screaming at Senator Flake, she has another role beyond her duties as co–executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy.  She is also a member of the national committee of the New York-based Working Families Party. The WFP was founded in 1998 by the leaders of ACORN, the now-disbanded and disgraced group of community organizers who were hailed by and in the pocket of Barack Obama.

We aren't seeing spontaneous confrontations by concerned grassroots citizens with GOP politicians.  This is not some heartfelt groundswell of citizens who are concerned because Kavanaugh might be a sexual predator because one of their own said he is.  The angry mob is not a body of concerned citizens populated by passionate protesters who have never dabbled in politics before and the emotions of the moment have gotten them to get involved (as we saw with the Tea Party a decade ago).  What we are seeing is an orchestrated professional political ambush executed by Soros-funded operatives.

We are witnessing a planned attack by people who relish murdering babies in the womb, are among those screaming for the dismantling of the traditional family unit and of traditional moral values, have been screaming about toxic masculinity and white privilege, and are at the heart of the effort to destroy America and fundamentally transform this country into something that, as we've seen over and over in history, kills, starves and places a population into bondage under the iron fist of an authoritarian socialist government system.

What we are witnessing is a devastating coordinated assault against America by groups like The Center for Popular Democracy, which is a New York-based liberal activist group that receives the bulk of its funding from liberal billionaire George Soros and is leading a massive $80 million anti-Trump network.  They are who is behind the elevator confrontation that pushed Senator Jeff Flake to call for an FBI investigation into the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and they are a part of a larger network of leftist groups that have been orchestrating the rage behind the #resist movement so that they can work to overthrow the Trump administration, dislodging him and all Republicans from power, and then take over by force through their sinister evil tactics.

In short, the coup that was begun by Barack Obama continues, and the front line on the battlefield is getting very violent indeed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, October 02, 2018

Corona Constitution Class: Establishing the Presidency


Corona Constitution Class
Tuesday Nights 6:00 pm
AllStar/CARSTAR Collision
522 Railroad Street
Corona, CA

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


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




Copyright Douglas V. Gibbs 2015




USMCA and the Great Negotiator

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

It's the end of NAFTA, and the birth of a new trade deal that proves President Donald J. Trump is the Great Negotiator.

One of the best tools a negotiator can use is the willingness to walk away when he's not making gains during a heated encounter with his potential fellow deal-makers.  You know what I am talking about.  When you are on a used car lot, if the car dealer is unwilling to work with you, the best move you've got is to be willing to walk away.  More often than not the salesman will chase you down and catch up to you at the curb as you approach your escape vehicle, and then they will at least cave to a part of what you expect in the deal.

When dealing with Kim Jong Un our president had the North Korean Leader nervous he could be bombed, yet yearning for a relationship with Trump and the United States.  Then, when the dictator tried to play hardball and began to try to flex a few muscles, Trump said "fine", and walked away.  The result?  Kim Jong Un called Trump back, and now things are going swimmingly.

Brilliant.

President Trump did the same thing with Canada in the USMCA negotiations.  The media criticized him when President Trump told Canada to stick it, and then continued to deal with Mexico without Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau involved.  However, the move proved to be brilliant when later Canada begged to be involved after all.  The result?  A ground-breaking agreement with all three North American countries involved that reforms what NAFTA claimed it originally aimed at.

The new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and provides for aiding farmers by curbing Canada’s high tariffs and low quotas on U.S. dairy products, it provides a platform for reinvigorating U.S. car manufacturing, and it eases the burden on sick Americans who fund drug development by paying full price for patented drugs. Both Canada and Mexico have agreed to respect drug patents on biologic drugs—the most promising field of new cures—for a period of 10 years, which means Americans won’t be the only ones from whom drug companies can recover expenses.

The victory for the Trump administration comes on the heels of a long list of successes during the first half of his presidency, but this one is even more so a non-partisan win, when you consider how unpopular NAFTA has been when it comes to surveys which show that a plurality of Americans agree that we should leave the old NAFTA agreement.  Only one in three saw NAFTA as being beneficial to U.S. interests.

In short, Trump took a deal that gave all of the advantages to our trade partners, and had originally hurt our side of the bargain, and he restructured it to be more fair and more durable.  And, it all began with Trump's threat of tariffs, of which the opposition whined would only create trade wars.

In other words, the tariffs were simply negotiation tools used by the Great Negotiator to set up the environment that would lead to the USMCA.

A key aspect of the new deal that I am very happy about is how the USMCA establishes a model for other trade agreements with other countries while also protecting U.S. digital services and intellectual property in ways that no prior agreement had been able to.  In particular, this is important when it comes to any future agreements we may create with Europe, and with China.  We are already making headway, by the way, for a new deal with Japan, as well.

The tools for Making America Great Again must extend beyond our borders.  As Trump reminded us in his U.N. speech a week ago, we are a part of a global community and cooperating with our neighbors is important, but not to the detriment of our sovereignty and individual needs as a country.  President Trump has shown his prowess in protecting American interests, and ensuring that he can not only defend American interests, but that he realizes we are a part of a community of countries.

The great thing about this deal is that it is good for all Americans.  All of us will benefit when it comes to the influence on prices, and the availability of products.

The stage is also set for other trade battlefields on the horizon, be they with China, Europe, or Japan.  The USMCA deal, and the recent agreements with South Korea, have created a standard that should make the other trade deals fall into place beautifully which will likely also help when it comes to our long-running trade deficit.

To borrow from Obama's negative attacks, it looks like Trump's economic magic wand has struck again.

As for the liberal left socialists of the Democrat Party, to the nervous wheelers and dealers in the Wall Street Casino or the “free trade” experts in Washington, I have to ask one simple question in answer to their unwillingness to accept reality, or give Trump credit for his great breakthroughs in the world of economics and trade.  What part of the booming economy do you disagree with?  With these deals he's negotiating, the booming economy will rise higher, and last longer, thanks to the Great Negotiator's ability to get the players of the world to play fair.  In the end, it can only be good for America.

And that's why there will be no Blue Wave this November, and Donald J. Trump will win reelection in 2020 by a massive landslide rivaled only by George Washington's and Ronald Reagan's second term electoral win numbers.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Movie Guide founder joins MTRA


Monday, October 01, 2018

Governor Brown Vetoed SB 320 (College Abortion Pill Bill)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 1, 2018

**MEDIA ADVISORY**
STATEMENT FROM AMERICANS 
UNITED FOR LIFE

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill Sunday that would have required public universities in California to offer abortion pills on campus.

“American United for Life is pleased and grateful that California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed SB 320, a dangerous bill that would have required college health clinics across the state to stock and distribute chemical abortion drugs to young women,” said AUL President and CEO Catherine Glenn Foster

She adds, “Governor Brown recognized that in a state where Medicaid already pays for elective abortions, there is no issue of access, since, as he said yesterday, ‘the average distance to abortion providers in campus communities varies from 5 to 7 miles, not an unreasonable distance.’ Moreover, college health clinics are not equipped to handle the very serious risks of chemical abortion drugs, which, as AUL testimony against the bill pointed out, the FDA warns can cause life-threatening hemorrhaging of blood and bacterial infection. By vetoing SB 320, Governor Brown has made California safer for women and colleges campuses safer for their unborn children.”

AUL, the nation’s premier pro-life legal team, works through the law and legislative process to one end: achieving comprehensive legal protection for human life from conception to natural death.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Questions regarding the Character of Judge Kavanaugh

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

I hear from many people the argument that when it comes to Kavanaugh his innocence doesn't seem to matter as long as the women are heard.  If you defend Kavanaugh, that automatically means you support a sexual predator.

What happened to due process?  The Presumption of Innocence?

The Democrats are screaming that the women need to be heard, and Kavanaugh is not worthy of the U.S. Supreme Court because of something he may have done when he was a 17 year old young man.

How dare the Republicans consider putting such a monster into a position of leadership.

Remember, there is no evidence, no corroboration of witnesses, and Kavanaugh has been defended over and over because as an adult he has developed an impeccable character.

Character is something that is developed over time.  You can't determine someone's character based on his actions as a young man . . . unless he still acts the same way now.  Bill Clinton comes to mind.

Why are we not asking the obvious questions?

Are you the same person now as you were when you were a horny teenager? Is your character the same now as it was when you were a young teenager?  Or, have you become a different person over the years as you've added life experience and the gathering of wisdom as notches in your belt?

I was listening to a panel talking about Kavanaugh and a woman kept saying that this whole thing about Kavanaugh was a matter of determining his character.  How can they say that something that happened more than forty years ago when Kavanaugh was a young man can determine who he is today?



-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Resurrection of American Sea Power

Yes, that's me, on my second sea-going vessel.
I missed out on west-pac when I was on the Chandler,
But with the Peoria, the world was my oyster.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

As a veteran of the United States Navy, I have been frustrated by the accidents we heard about over the last few years where naval vessels have gone aground, or been rammed by other ships.  I have been even more frustrated by the massive reduction in size of our fleet we experienced under the Obama regime.  Fortunately, President Donald J. Trump recognizes the importance of a strong fleet with numerous modernized vessels.

Not only has the fleet been adding ships under Trump's watch, but the historic second fleet is being reactivated after being canned by the previous administration.

The Obama administration disestablished the second fleet in 2011 as a way of reducing military spending.  Now, the second fleet is back, and will be operating out of Norfolk, Virginia as before.  In the past, the fleet supported many important operations including the Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

It also provided humanitarian and disaster relief to Hurricane Katrina and Haiti earthquake victims.

As our military strengthens, and our Commander in Chief, President Trump, continues to stand firm in resolve, and continues to have the willingness to engage the enemy, even Iran has begun to behave and their harassment of naval vessels has interestingly stopped.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary