DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Constitution Radio: Trump's Next Win

Constitution Radio
Produced and Hosted by
Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Co-hosts:

Alex Ferguson: Conservative Cannonade
Dennis Jackson: Executive Producer of 
Enemies Within MOVIE

Saturday, 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Pacific

KMET 1490-AM
Listen Online at:
www.kmet1490am.com

Call into the program live at 
951-922-3532

Podcast available later at: soundcloud.com/kmet-1490-am/sets/constitution-radio



CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week - January 20, 2018:
  • Nationalist Fallacy
  • Human Rights are Natural Rights

  • Mythical Government Shutdown


  • The Mysterious Memo
  • James O'Keefe: Twitter's Shadow Banning
  • Debating the Constitution and President Trump


  • March for Life ... and President Donald Trump
  • Trump's Health
  • China, and America's Debt
  • Opting Out of California's Sanctuary Status

Conservative Voice Radio: Potty Mouth


Conservative Voice Radio

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party www.bbcvteaparty.net Glenn, Jan and Diane.

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

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

Today's topics:

- Trump's Rat-Hole Comment

- Democrat Freakshow

- Trump's Year 1: Winning

- Feed the homeless, get arrested

- Hawaii's false missile alarm

- Poverty and Crime Rates

- DACA and threat of a government shutdown

- Indictment in Uranium One Case

Friday, January 19, 2018

5 Republicans Join Democrats to Cause Mythical Shutdown

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

The Democrats are demanding more and more non-budget things on a budget bill, and they think all of their games have paid off.  Among their demands is DACA.  But, why is an immigration bill mixed into a budget bill?  It has nothing to do with the budget.

The Democrats did it to cause the shutdown, because history shows that when Republicans shutdown the government, it's the GOP's fault.  If the Democrats cause a shutdown, thanks to the media, it's still the GOP's fault.

Therefore, the Democrats made sure the government shutdown happened, and as of midnight the funding of the government has ended.

Or has it?

While the House-passed stopgap bill died in the Senate, does it really mean that the government has been shut down?

The vote was interesting. Five Democrats supported it, so it should have had no problem, but then five Republicans voted against it.

What?

The failed proposal would have funded the government through February 16.

Negotiations will continue.  Offers, side offers, counter offers and other political nonsense will go on so that you think the government is trying to work for you.

As funding the federal government looked like it would lapse at midnight, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders released a scathing statement blaming Democrats for the shutdown.

"We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands. This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators. When Democrats start paying our armed forces and first responders we will reopen negotiations on immigration reform," she said.

The thing is, vital functions will continue.  Military paychecks will be printed.  Social Security checks will still be mailed out.  Navy vessels will continue to sail and Veteran Affairs offices will continue to service our military veterans.

The question is, first of all, is the government supposed to be intruding into internal issues in the first place?  How many functions will be shut down over this that shouldn't be among the authorities of the federal government in the first place?

The founding fathers gave the purse strings to the House of Representatives so that the people's representatives could shut things down by defunding it, if the federal government wasn't listening to them, or was acting unconstitutionally.  In other words, government defunding was created as a tool for the people to grab the reins of the federal government.  Now, they treat it as if it is some kind of bureaucratic nightmare.

Personally, I am sick of the theatrics.  Pass the blame, act like it is a horrible crisis, try to clean up the mess, and position yourselves for the election.  That's the reason for all of this.  It's politics as usual, and preparation for the mid-term elections.

Count me out.

Either, the Democrats are obstructionists, or the Republicans are gutless.  It might be both.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Memo that has Democrats Worried

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
Those who have seen the memo in question claim it is earth-shattering.  Republicans say that there are people who should lose their jobs over it.  The memo is only four-pages long, and as it circulates Congress, it is revealing a reality the Democrats are voting against being made available for public scrutiny.  The details are being described by Congress-critters as being “shocking,” “troubling” and “alarming,” with one congressman likening the details to KGB activity in Russia.

Does the memo expose the true tyranny and criminal activities being committed by the Democrat Party as they cry "wolf" against President Donald Trump?

After being viewed by the House Intelligence Committee, the Republicans were calling for it to be immediately made public.

“It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan said.

“It's troubling. It is shocking,” North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. “Part of me wishes that I didn't read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.”

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said he believed people could lose their jobs after the memo is released.

“I believe the consequence of its release will be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice,” he said, referencing DOJ officials Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr.

“You think about, ‘is this happening in America or is this the KGB?’ That's how alarming it is,” Pennsylvania Rep. Scott Perry said.

The Democrats have been unanimously voting against the memo's release - of which Republican Steve King of Iowa says is worse than Watergate.

The memo is said to expose a number of abuses of FISA by the Obama administration and Democrats who swarm through the deep state in the FBI and Justice Department.  The memo has been made available to all House members - but even that vote was along party lines, with Democrats voting against making it available for all members.

What are the Democrats hiding?  Why are they so intent on disallowing a transparent view into their activities?

This memo may be just a small piece of what House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was indicating last December when he said investigators have uncovered evidence of abuse in the U.S. government's surveillance practices.

One wonders if it is connected to other Democrat Party sins.

Will it influence Judicial Watch's lawsuit calling for records regarding Obama's unmasking of members of the Trump Campaign?

Will it bring to light Hillary Clinton's 33,000 missing emails?

Maybe it will make people look into how the Clintons stole billions of dollars from the Haiti relief effort.

I am hoping that Democrat Party heads will roll.  Wouldn't it be nice to see Wasserman-Schultz, Schumer, Obama, and Hillary Clinton (to name a few) in orange jump shoots as a result of their criminal, and treasonous, activities during their mad dash to try to keep their political power in the 2016 Election Season?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Unconstitutional President?

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

I was in a recent meeting with a local church leader.  The pastor and I have ideas on how to reach the black community, and so we met so that we could figure out how we can work together to spread the message of constitutional literacy.  As a member of the black community, his programs are extensive, and incredibly successful.  Politically, for the most part, we see eye to eye, but I am not sure his wife is in our camp, as well.

One of the programs my friend is working on focuses on human rights.  His book for the seminars he's working on lists the human rights put forth by the United Nations.  However, like me, he understands that it is not the job of any governmental body or organization to necessarily define, guarantee or enforce their version of what they think human rights are.  Human Rights, like Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights, are not really what they seem, as provided by the academic and political world.  In the long run, they are all Natural Rights, given by God, and they are a responsibility of the individuals of a community, and the body of Christ, to defend, protect, and promote - they are not the job of government to guarantee as currently defined.

While in discussion with my friend, and as I was throwing out constitutional bits and pieces, with my pastor friend grinning with each word, his wife blurted out, "Well, we have a President who doesn't understand the Constitution."

Out of respect, I decided not to get into a political discussion with my friend's wife as he and I were sitting there talking about the business of spreading constitutional literacy, but later on I asked a liberal leftist Democrat voting friend of mine what she meant, and he was more than happy to give me a list of Trump's alleged unconstitutional activities - of which I shot down rather easily.

Here they are:

1. With his travel ban he was acting without Congress.

Answer: The duty of the President, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution is to "execute the laws of the United States."  Among the laws he was carrying out was 8 U.S Code § 1182 under 

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

2. With his travel ban the President has targeted Muslims, and the Constitution is clear that there shall be no religious tests.

Answer: The only place the term "religious test" appears in the U.S. Constitution is in Article VI., where it disallows religious tests regarding holding a political office.  While Trump has not violated the religious test clause in the Constitution, the Democrats did when they challenged Trump's judicial nominations due to their adherence to their Christian Faith.  The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment is often used in this argument, but the clause is being misrepresented.  It's intent was to disallow the federal government from establishing a state church, not to disallow members of any particular group who may be considered dangerous to this country from entering as immigrants or refugees.  That said, if "Islam" was the target religion for the purpose of banning a particular religion, all 55 (or is it 57?) Islamic majority countries in the world would be on the ban list, and North Korea wouldn't be.

3. Trump's immigration policies violates the 4th Amendment, which disallows unreasonable search and seizure.

Answer: First of all, the 4th Amendment applies to those who are under the full jurisdiction of the United States.  While illegal aliens fall under basic jurisdiction because they are inside our borders, because they have not gained permission to be in this country in the first place, breaking federal law when they crossed the border illegally (making them federal fugitives) they have not achieved the necessary requirements to fall under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.  The fact that they broke constitutional immigration law (authorized by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution), the primary focus must be for them to be apprehended for the crimes they have already committed.  Search and seizure, and requesting what their immigration status is, are constitutional because a law was broken, and federal agencies have been given the authority to enforce those federal immigration laws.

4. The Constitution requires that the government provide due process to individuals in deportation proceedings.

Answer: Due process by the federal government applies to those who are under the full jurisdiction of the United States.  The word "citizen" is used carefully in Article IV. and the 14th Amendment when referring to privileges and immunities.  The 5th Amendment, however, states "No person," in reference to due process.  In the case of invasion, of which illegal entry into the United States may be considered as (unwanted/illegal encroachment), according to Article I, Section 8 Congress has the authority to call forth the militia to repel invasions, and in Article IV., Section 4 the federal government is required to protect the States from invasion (which also supports securing the border, even with a wall, if necessary).  That said, despite that due process is not necessarily required when dealing with non-citizen invaders, the opportunity for due process is actually being applied to those people apprehended for illegal entry into the United States.  There are deportation hearings based on the evidence that the person entered the country illegally, with a judge presiding. Therefore, while not absolutely necessary, the Trump administration is providing due process for these persons.  

5. Trump's surveillance of Americans in the name of stopping Islamic Terrorism violates the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

Answer: Were those people opposed to such surveillance not bothered by it while the Obama administration carried out similar strategies?  In the case of the Democrats time in power, they also surveilled who they deemed to be political enemies in the Republican Party and Tea Party, as well.  There is a fine line between our individual liberties regarding privacy, and national security.  However, much of what is involved in federal surveillance largely involves using algorithms to scan public information available because the persons made it available to the public.  In other words, you cannot scream the government is invading your privacy when they gained the information by scanning what you put out of Facebook, or through the use of a public utility.  While there are some methods being used in the name of National Security that border on unacceptable, for the most part the systems in place do not invade our personal "persons, houses, papers, and effects."

6. Targeting Muslims, such as sending more federal officers into Muslim neighborhoods to search for alleged terrorist activity, is religious profiling and violates the 1st Amendment which states the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Answer: First of all, Islam is a political ideology that masks itself as a religion.  That said, breaking the law in the name of religion, or acting as a national security threat in the name of a religion still makes that group one that breaks the law or is a national security threat.  If a religion emerged that claimed human sacrifice of virgin girls was a part of their religion, should the government say, "well, can't stop them from murdering people if it is a part of their religion"?  Of course not.  The rule of law is the rule of law.  If 99% of the world's terrorism is currently being committed by persons claiming to be Muslim, then it is in our best interest to be aware of that fact, and to take the appropriate steps to ensure that terrorism in that community does not become a threat to the public safety of the American People - regardless of the fact that they claim their jihadist activities are a part of their religion.

7. Trump's position on Torture violates the 1st, 5th, and 8th Amendments.

Answer: Article I, Section 8 places the decision regarding methods of information retrieval the hard left calls "torture" in the hands of Congress: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations ... make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water."  The 1st and 5th Amendments do not apply to non-citizen prisoner captures in the theater of war.  The 8th Amendment also does not apply, but in truth, the "cruel and unusual punishment" line establishes that torture is not torture if it is the norm regarding a particular situation.  The question is, when it comes to if something is excessive, it is excessive if it goes beyond what is considered to be the norm.  Personally, I don't categorize things like water boarding "torture," and if the information retrieval method saves countless American lives because of the information obtained by that method, isn't it worth it?

8. Trump wants to use libel laws to interfere with the Freedom of the Press.

Answer: Freedom of the Press is important, but only if done so in a legal manner. If laws are being broken be it through dishonest reporting or unlawful exposure of classified information, then it is not Freedom of the Press, it is libel, or worse, and should be prosecuted.

Feel free to send more, if you wish, and I will be glad to defend them, as well.

While I do not believe Trump understands the Constitution as well as Ronald Reagan or Calvin Coolidge did, the idea that he is blatantly against the Constitution, especially when compared to the two Democrats to hold office since Reagan, is absolute poppycock.

Overall, Trump has interestingly stayed largely on the right side of the Constitution.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump Coraopolis, Pennsylvania Speech May Be His Best Yet

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

In the 2016, the red lean of Pennsylvania surprised the heck out of the Democrat Party pollsters. President Trump visited that State nearly a year after his inauguration to tout the resurgence of the American economy, along with the GOP tax cuts, and the speech was a roaring success in blue collar America.

Trump was there to give support to a Republican Candidate for Congress in a special election, Rick Saccone, but by the time his three minutes were up, Trump had the roaring crowd convinced that this was his best speech as President of the United States, yet.

In the background was the H&K Equipment factory in Coraopolis.  Employees of the factory have already felt the benefit of Trump's economy, having received bonuses and a cut in taxes due to the GOP tax cuts passed late last year.

Trump brought a factory worker on stage, noting that the man will save $2,200 in income taxes each year.

When the worker got the chance to speak, he said into the microphone, “It is not just me. It is everybody as a whole. This company is a great company. We work with a bunch of people. Everybody pulled together and pulled this off. It was a sight to see. Something to always remember here. So I thank everybody. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Thank you.”

The room roared in response.

America should be roaring, as well.  By the mid-term election, just about everyone's wallet should be a little fatter thanks to the Trump economy.  Hopefully, voters will remember that as they pull their levers in the voting booth.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump's Historical Pro-Life Decision

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

Life is a huge issue with me, which is why one of my books is about the evil abortion industry.  When, as Candidate Trump, the President proclaimed his support for the pro-life movement, I cheered.  Not everyone, however, believed him.  To this day I know never-trump conservatives who claim he's a liar, he's actually a Democrat, and they are still waiting for the wolf to pull off his sheep outfit.

Well, Trump keeps proving these knuckleheads wrong.

For the first time in history, a sitting President will address the March For Life.

The annual event, held since 1974 in Washington, protests the "Roe v. Wade" decision dismissing many restrictions on abortion across the U.S.

President Trump will address the marchers live on Friday via satellite feed from the White House.

Bush Jr. sent a letter, and Reagan sent a recorded message.  Trump is the first President to participate live in giving his support to this annual pro-life march.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump's Health

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

After his official physical and mental health examination, President Donald Trump is not only healthy, but on many of the items looked at, he is above average.

The liberal left refuses to accept that, because it does not fit their warped narrative that he's "demented" and in the case of CNN's opinion, on the verge of a heart attack.

Dr. Ronny Jackson was the physician who looked at Trump and he reported that Trump performed “exceedingly well” in a cognitive test.

Jackson added that the mental acuity test wasn’t even required, but amidst all of the claims that he somehow had some kind of mental impairment, Trump insisted upon taking it before achieving a perfect score.

CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted, “Here’s how the next few hours will go. Trump supporters will say “Concerns about Trump’s mental health were always absurd. Case closed now.” The obvious response: “The Q’s about fitness for office are serious. Someone could be sharp as a tack, but still unfit.”

Remember, these are the same media knuckleheads who dismissed as “conspiracy theories” any questions about Hillary Clinton’s health.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class: Fun with Guns (or The 2nd Amendment)


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


Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
douglasvgibbs@reagan.com
 
 
 
 
Lesson 14
 
Militias and Standing Armies
 
2nd Amendment: Keep and Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment does not protect you against the government from taking away your guns.  Your rights are given to you by God, and protecting your rights is your responsibility.  Like anything else you own, if you give away your rights, or allow someone to take them, they may still belong to you as an unalienable, God-given right, but you have given up all access to them, and can no longer exercise those rights.
 
In the Washington, D.C. v. Heller case in 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the right to bear arms is an individual right, as opposed to a collective right which would only allow the bearing of arms for the purpose of participating in government approved groups, such as law enforcement agencies.
 
During the early years of the United States under the United States Constitution, the Anti-Federalists feared the creation of a central government because they feared the federal government would become tyrannical, and take away people's rights.  Therefore, even though the Constitution in the first seven articles did not grant to the federal government any authority over gun rights, along with the rest of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, those skeptical over the creation of a central government wanted an amendment that clarified the federal government had no authority to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
The States have Original Authority, meaning that all powers belonged to the States prior to the writing of the Constitution.  The first seven articles of the document did not give to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms, therefore, any legislative power over gun rights is a State power.  The 2nd Amendment simply confirms that.  The argument then becomes about the potential tyranny of the States.  If the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, what keeps the States from infringing on gun rights?
The State constitutions, and the people, hold the responsibility of restraining the States from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  The Founding Fathers were not concerned with a tyranny of the States because the State governments are closer to the people, and therefore the people have fewer legal and political obstacles when acting to ensure the State governments do not infringe on individual rights.
 
Complacency, then, becomes our greatest enemy.
 
With freedom comes responsibility.
 
Understanding that the Framers expected their posterity to be informed problem-solvers, while recognizing that basic human nature would invite complacency and the rise of a tyrannical government, it becomes clear why the Founding Fathers put so much importance on gun rights.
 
In early American society the need to be armed was necessary for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, protecting one's property, facilitating a natural right of self-defense, participating in law enforcement, enabling people to participate in an organized militia system, deterring a tyrannical government, repelling invasion, suppressing insurrection, and hunting.
 
The right to keep and bear arms is not merely about protecting your home, or hunting, though those are important, too.  The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against all enemies, foreign and domestic, which could include a potentially oppressive central government.
 
Noah Webster in his "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," in 1787 articulated the necessity for keeping and bearing arms clearly: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
 
Some will argue the 2nd Amendment does not apply to our current society because the militia is a thing of the past.
 
The National Guard now serves as the organized militia envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but an unorganized militia also exists.
 
Title 10 of the United States Code provides for both "organized" and "unorganized" civilian militias. While the organized militia is made up of members of the National Guard and Naval Militia, the unorganized militia is composed entirely of private individuals.
 
United States Code: Title 10 - Armed Forces, Subtitle A - General Military Law
Chapter 13 - The Militia:
 
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
 
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
 
(b) The classes of the militia are -
 
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
Other than age, health, gender, or citizenship, there are no additional provisions for exemption from membership in the unorganized militia.  While it is doubtful that it will ever be called to duty, the United States civilian militia does legally exist.  The Founding Fathers would have likely included in the definition of unorganized militia, "All able-bodied citizens capable of fighting."
 
McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) challenged the City of Chicago's ban on hand guns, bringing to the surface the debate over whether or not the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government.
 
The 5-4 Decision of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case by the U.S. Supreme Court holds the 2nd Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in all cities and States.  The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that originally the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal government, but it is in the opinion of the court that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, therefore applying those amendments, and more specifically the 2nd Amendment, to the States.
 
The decision by the Supreme Court, in this case, makes all State laws on fire arms null and void.  Applying the 2nd Amendment to the States means the 2nd Amendment is supreme over any and all State laws on firearms, and according to the 2nd Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  If "shall not be infringed" applies to both the federal government and the States governments, then all persons are allowed to possess a firearm.  The words, "shall not be infringed" carries no exceptions.
 
The reason the 2nd Amendment is absolute in its language is because it was intended to only apply to the federal government.  The federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in any way, but the States retain the authority to regulate guns as necessary based on the needs and allowances of the local electorate.
 
The U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government except where specifically noted otherwise.
 
In reference to McDonald v. Chicago, I am uneasy anytime the federal government tells a city or state what they have to do, even if on the surface it is for a good cause.
 
If we give the federal government the right to tell cities they have to allow gun ownership, what stops them from doing the opposite later?  This case created a precedent of allowing the federal government to dictate to the States and cities what they have to do, and that kind of federal intrusion constitutes great danger to State Sovereignty.
 
Breaking down the language used in the 2nd Amendment assists in clarifying what the original intent was.
 
The 2nd Amendment begins, "A well regulated Militia."  The immediate understanding of that phrase by the average American in today's culture recognizes it as meaning, "A militia under the control of the government," or "regulated by government agencies," or "managed by federal law."
 
All of the above definitions are wrong.
 
As discussed regarding the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8, the word "regulated" does not mean "controlled or restricted by government."  The definition used by the Framers, and the one that fits best with the context of the period, and the principles of the Constitution, can be found in the 1828 Webster Dictionary.  Webster defined regulated as: "To put in good order."  Some historians state that the word "regulate" in the 18th Century meant "To make regular."  The word "restrict" was not used in the 1828 definition until the third and final definition of "regulated," revealing that today's most common definition was the "least used" definition during the time of the writing of the United States Constitution.
 
Since "regulate" did not mean "to control and restrict," but instead meant "to put in good order," that means a well regulated militia is one that is in good order.
 
The need to have a militia in good order makes sense when one considers that during the Revolutionary War the militia was not in good order.  The muskets were all different sizes, often the clothing of some members of the militia was tattered, and many didn't even have shoes.
 
To put the militia in good order, Congress was required to create standards for the militia to follow.  The authority to Congress regarding this power is revealed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, where the Constitution says, "The Congress shall have Power. . . To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
 
The next part of the 2nd Amendment reveals that a well regulated militia is "necessary to the security of a free State."
 
The word State, in that instance, means "individual, autonomous, sovereign State."  In other words, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free Massachusetts, a free Pennsylvania, a free Virginia, a free New York, a free Ohio, a free California, and so on.
 
"Necessary to the security of a free State."  A militia is necessary, not just recommended, to the security of a free State.  Security against whom?  A foreign invader?  Isn't that what the standing army was supposed to be for?  Why would States need militias, capable of being called up by the governor of the State, for their "security," and to ensure that security is for them to remain a "free State?"
 
Foreign enemies were a concern, but not as much of a concern as a tyrannical central government.  Thomas Jefferson so distrusted a central government that he suggested there would be a bloody revolution every twenty years.
 
"... can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted?  I say nothing of it's motives.  They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness.  God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.  The people can not be all, and always, well informed.  The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.  If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.  We have had 13 states independant 11 years.  There has been one rebellion.  That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state.  What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?  And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms.  The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is it's natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787
 
The Declaration of Independence also states that the people have the right to stand up against their government should it become tyrannical.  In the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence it reads:
 
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
The right to alter or abolish a tyrannical government walks hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms.  How could it ever be logical that the right to keep and bear arms could ever be influenced or restricted by the very government that that right exists to protect the people against in the first place?
 
Terms:
Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.
 
Collective Right - Rights held by a group, rather than its members separately.
 
Declaration of Independence - The unanimous formal Declaration of the thirteen united States of America declaring their freedom from Great Britain, dated July 4, 1776.
 
Individual Right - Rights held by individuals within a particular group.
 
Organized Militia - A well trained militia that is in good order that operates under the authority of Congress, able to be called into actual service by the executive authority of a State, or by the Congress of the United States; National Guard, Naval Militia, State Militias.
 
Original Authority - Principal agent holding legal authority; initial power to make or enforce laws; the root authority in government.
 
Regulated - To make regular; to put in good order.
 
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
 
Unorganized Militia - Able-bodied citizens of the United States, or those who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, who are members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  In your opinion, what are the most important reasons for the right to bear arms?
 
2.  If the courts, or the federal government, were to redefine gun rights as being a collective right, how would that affect our individual right to keep and bear arms?
 
3.  Is a militia necessary in today's society?  Why?
 
4.  Why did the Founding Fathers see it as necessary to prohibit the federal government from any authority to prohibit the right to keep and bear arms, but felt it necessary to allow the States full authority over gun regulations?
 
5.  In McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to cities and States.  How does that open up the opportunity for the federal government to further regulate firearms?
 
 
Resources:
 
10 USC § 311 - Militia: Composition and Classes, Cornell University
Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
 
McDonald v. City of Chicago, United States Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
 
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution (Philadelphia 1787), The Federalist Papers: http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/noah-webster/noah-webster-an-examination-of-the-leading-principles-of-the-federal-constitution-philadelphia-1787
 
The Tree of Liberty Quotation, Monticello - TH: Jefferson Encyclopedia:
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation)
 
Washington, D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court of the United States Blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3rd Amendment: Quartering
 
The Founding Fathers feared a centralized government with a powerful military.  One of the final straws that began the road to the American Revolution was the Quartering Act of 1765 where the colonists became required to house and feed the British troops they despised.  The Quartering Act enabled the British Empire to exercise greater control over the populace.  It was also known as one of the Intolerable Acts.
 
The Quartering Act served as a major reason for the writing of the 3rd Amendment, which reads: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
 
Tyrannical governmental systems use unwarranted influence through military means.  To guard against the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, the Framer's concerns about standing armies became evident in the 3rd Amendment.
 
To help the populace protect themselves, and be able to enforce the 3rd Amendment, in case the federal government violated the clause, the Founding Fathers also gave us the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
The concept of a Militia that is not a federal army is the realization that the United States will not be one where there is a standing army that can be used against its citizens.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives the Congress the power to raise and support armies, but limits them to no more than two years funding.
 
When a military arm of a tyrannical government can compel the citizenry to house the military machinery of defense, a police state is present and liberty is at risk.  Such was the reasoning behind the 3rd Amendment.
 
Until the Revolutionary War, the American States had no military, and the militias were populated by the colonists.  The Constitution gave the U.S. Government the authority to build a military for the defense of the union.  A military establishment, in the minds of the Founders, was a potentially dangerous thing.  The Founding Fathers desired to protect the union, but did not desire that the American military become an authoritarian tool of a potentially tyrannical federal government.
 
Terms:
Intolerable Acts - A series of laws passed by the British Parliament against the American Colonies in March of 1774.  The British Parliament referred to these laws as the Coercive Acts.  The acts were primarily designed to punish the colony of Massachusetts for defying British policies, and more specifically, for the Boston Tea Party.  The Intolerable Acts caused outrage among the Americans, which led to the calling of the First Continental Congress in September of 1774.  Among the actions taken by this united Congress was a boycott of British goods.  The Intolerable Acts were called "impolitic, unjust, and cruel," and included the Boston Port Act, the Massachusetts Government Act, the Quartering Act, the Quebec Act, and the Administration of Justice Act.
 
Police State - A system where the government exercises rigid and repressive controls through strong law enforcement or military control.
 
Quartering Act of 1765 - Act passed by the British Parliament in 1765 that stated that British troops in America would be housed in barracks and in public houses unless and until the number of troops overwhelmed the facilities, at which time, the troops could be housed in private commercial property, such as inns and stable, and in uninhabited homes and barns.  The quartering would be without compensation and, in fact, owners would be required to provide soldiers with certain necessities such as food, liquor, salt, and bedding, also without compensation.
 
Standing Army - A professional permanent army composed of full-time career soldiers who are not disbanded during times of peace.
 
 
Questions for Discussion:
 
1.  Why did the British pass the Quartering Act of 1765?
 
2.  How did the Americans respond to the Intolerable Acts?
 
3.  Why did the Founding Fathers have concerns regarding standing armies?
 
4.  How does militias protect against the formation of a police state?
 
 
Resources:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
 
Madison's Notes Constitutional Convention, Avalon Project, Yale
University: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
 
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
 
Quartering Act, U.S. Constitution Online:
http://www.usconstitution.net/quarteringact.html
 
The Declaration of Rights and Grievances, U.S. Constitution Online:
http://www.usconstitution.net/intol.html
 
 
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Immigration Showdown: DACA and Sanctuary Shutdown

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

Immigrants and Illegal Aliens (Undocumented Aliens) are not the same.  An immigrant is a person who has followed the immigration procedures for the purpose of residing in the United States legally. Illegal Aliens, or Undocumented Aliens are not immigrants. They have not followed the immigration procedures for the purpose of residing in the United States legally.  So, when the words "immigration" or "immigrant" are used in articles or broadcasts as identifiers of illegal aliens or undocumented aliens, the words are being used in error, or by design for the purpose of confusing the reader or viewer about the definitions.

With the current DACA showdown in Congress, the immigration issue (and in reality we should call it the illegal alien issue) has been placed front and center with a lot of erroneous information being provided.  So, first, just so that we understand the legal terminology, let's review what the words, and the law, really means and says (some punctuation, and all bold or italicization was added for emphasis or clarity).
Official Immigration Terms and Definitions Involving Aliens, per U.S. Government and the IRS
A general summary of U.S. immigration terminology follows. Any references below to USCIS refer to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. 
Alien: An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national. 
U.S. National: An individual who owes his sole allegiance to the United States, including all U.S. citizens, and including some individuals who are not U.S. citizens. For tax purposes the term "U.S. national" refers to individuals who were born in American Samoa or were born in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who have chosen to be U.S. nationals instead of U.S. citizens. 
U.S. Citizen: An individual born in the United States.
An individual whose parent is a U.S. citizen. (NOTE: There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, refer to the USCIS Citizenship Through Parents.
A former alien who has been naturalized as a U.S. citizen
An individual born in Puerto Rico
An individual born in Guam
An individual born in the U.S. Virgin Islands 
Compacts of Free Association: The following countries are independent republics, which were once part of the Trust Territory of the Pacific administered by the United States on behalf of the United Nations; Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau. 
Each of the above nations signed a Compact of Free Association (CFA) with the United States. As stipulated by each CFA, citizens of the above-named republics may freely enter the United States without a visa, remain in the U.S. for an indefinite period, and be employed in the U.S. without restriction. A citizen of one of the above republics who enters the U.S. should be issued a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Form I-94 Arrival-Departure Record bearing one of the following stamps: 
CFA/FSM for the Federated States of Micronesia
CFA/MIS for the Republic of Marshall Islands
CFA/PAL for the Republic of Palau 
However, even without an I-94 as noted above, a citizen of one of the republics named above may still enter the U.S. without a visa, remain in the United States for an indefinite period, and be employed in the U.S. without restriction. 
ImmigrantAn alien who has been granted the right by the USCIS to reside permanently in the United States and to work without restrictions in the United States. Such an individual is also known known as a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR). All immigrants are eventually issued a "green card" (USCIS Form I-551), which is the evidence of the alien’s LPR status. LPR’s who are awaiting the issuance of their green cards may bear an I-551 stamp in their foreign passports. 
Immigrant visas are available for aliens (and their spouses and children) who seek to immigrate based on their job skills. An alien who has the right combination of skills, education, and/or work experience, and is otherwise eligible, may be able to live permanently in the United States. Per USCIS, there are five employment-based immigrant visa preferences (categories): EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, EB-4 and EB-5. Refer to the USCIS Permanent Worker web site for more details.
Nonimmigrant: An alien who has been granted the right to reside temporarily in the United States. Each nonimmigrant is admitted into the U.S. in the nonimmigrant status which corresponds to the type of visa issued. 
Aliens in some nonimmigrant statuses are permitted to be employed in the United States, and others are not. Some nonimmigrant statuses have strict time limits for the alien’s stay in the U.S., while others do not. 
Each nonimmigrant status has rules and guidelines. A nonimmigrant who violates one of these rules or guidelines will fall "out of status." A nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 180 days is deportable and if deported will be unable to re-enter the United States for 3 years. A nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 365 days is deportable and if deported will be unable to re-enter the United States for 10 years. 
Each nonimmigrant status has rules and guidelines, which must be followed in order for the nonimmigrant to remain "in status." A nonimmigrant who violates one of these rules or guidelines will fall "out of status." An nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 180 days is deportable and will be unable to re-enter the United States for 3 years. A nonimmigrant who remains "out of status" for at least 365 days is deportable and will be unable to re-enter the United States for 10 years. 
See Taxation of Aliens by Visa Type and Immigration Status for a summary of visa types. 
Details on the types of nonimmigrant visas may be found on the refer to the Department of State’s Travel web page. A list of nonimmigrant visa types, along with the corresponding employment authorization provisions, may be viewed at the Social Security Administration’s Employment Authorization for Non-immigrants web site. 
Undocumented AlienAn alien who entered the United States illegally without the proper authorization and documents, or who entered the United States legally and has since violated the terms of his or her visa or overstayed the time limit. An undocumented alien is deportable if apprehended
Visa Waiver Program (VWP): The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) enables citizens of participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for up to 90 days without obtaining a United States visa. The VWP is administered by the Department of Homeland Security in consultation with the Department of State. For a list of participating countries and for further information on the VWP, please visit the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Visa Waiver Program.
Currently, two "immigration issue" fronts are being fought.  In Congress, there is a threat of a government shutdown if the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order is not made into law, and provided for in the new budget.  DACA was illegally enacted by President Barack Obama (for the purposes of being a part of his dismantling of American Immigration Laws procedures), and conservatives have long believed the action shouldn't even be up for discussion.  It violates federal law, and was created by the President when Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution clearly states that all legislative powers belong to Congress.  Nonetheless, President Trump, rather than kill DACA, decided to hand it over to Congress and let them legislatively deal with it.  The move of delaying the expiration of DACA to March and asking Congress to come up with a legislative fix, rather than just killing it, should have thrilled leftist voters since Trump literally gave them an opportunity to work with it over at least six months.  

Ultimately, the Democrats only want amnesty, and that is a part of what DACA is all about.

The other battlefront is regarding Sanctuary Cities and States, and the willingness of the Trump administration to take legal action, if necessary, against the officials who are openly defying federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution.

In Congress, the open-border Democrats say they are willing to shutdown the government if they don't get what they want regarding DACA, and other immigration issues.  The Republicans, however, hold the majority in both Houses, so to achieve the ultimate prize of their shutdown goals, the Democrats will need to convince members of the GOP to join them in the House.  The Senate poses a whole different challenge for Republicans, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Reality is, the Democrats have turned their back on other groups they claim to champion, like the black community ... illegal aliens are now more important to the Democrats because they possess a new political power that the Democrats are lusting after. If enacted, the plans the Democrats are pushing would legalize over 10 MILLION Illegal Aliens with almost No Enforcement and Security right out the gate - and that's not considering the massive flood that would follow.  How many jobs and housing in their communities do you think the black community will lose as a result?

House Speaker Paul Ryan says he's not worried.  The Republicans will at least be able to pass a stopgap government-wide funding bill, despite attacks from the liberal left.

Even if the bigger budget bill, or a stopgap measure, passes the House of Representatives, it still has to work its way through the Senate, where the GOP majority is hair-thin. Republicans hold a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate and most legislation, including spending bills or an immigration deal, will require 60 votes for passage due to the current cloture rules.  If, and only if, it gets past the Senate, President Donald Trump still needs to sign it.  Trump's signature has become a question in some circles because he's not thrilled about the short-term inclusion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and a called-for extension of the program for six years.  The President Tweeted, “CHIP should be part of a long term solution, not a 30 Day, or short term, extension!”

On Wednesday, The White House budget office clarified the stance of the administration, sending Congress a letter expressing support for the overall bill and expressly wrote, “The Administration supports the bill’s multiyear funding extension of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).”

Federal financing for the program that serves nearly 9 million children expired in October and several States are close to exhausting their money, and Congress has passed several short-term patches to keep their programs afloat.  Technically, federal funding for the program is unconstitutional, and should be permanently provided by the States, if they choose to even carry the program.  That said, politics is the game of the possible, and currently, removing federal tentacles from several unconstitutional intrusions is just not entirely possible, right now.

House Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows has indicated that establishment GOP leaders have rejected demands by conservatives to add military funding to the four-week stopgap spending bill. 

“They still don’t have the votes here,” Meadows said.

Then, there's the demand for a "bipartisan" DACA solution.

Democrats are demanding a deal on legislation to offer protection from deportation to persons who fall under the requirements of DACA, claiming that the "younger immigrants" who were brought to the country as children and now are here illegally are not here as a fault of their own, and deportation would be "mean" and "Un-American."  Statistics don't necessarily support the definitions provided by the Democrats, however.

If it comes to the point of a government shutdown, Republicans seem pretty confident that for once, the Democrats would get the blame.  McConnell said that any filibuster by Senate Democrats would pin the blame for a possible shutdown on them. And, if any Democrats cast nay ballots, Republicans plan to also try to turn that decision against vulnerable lawmakers in the midterm elections.

“My friends on the other side of the aisle do not oppose a single thing in this bill,” said McConnell, R-Ky. “They know they can’t possibly explain to our warfighters and veterans, to our seniors, to our opioid treatment centers, to the millions of vulnerable children and their families who depend on S-CHIP for coverage, or to all the Americans who rely on the federal government for critical services like food inspections and Social Security checks.”

The truth is, in the event of a shutdown, food inspections and other vital services would continue, as would Social Security and other federal benefit programs.

The task of dealing with Sanctuary States and Cities is a little messier. For example, when the Oakland, California, City Council voted unanimously to end any cooperation with agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Mayor Libby Schaaf said she would go to jail if needed in her opposition to ICE raids.

Based on some of the language coming out of the White House, according to the Democrats, it is believed that ICE is planning to launch a series of Bay Area raids — with the goal of arresting as many as 1,500 illegal aliens — because California has become a Sanctuary State and several communities have adopted Sanctuary City policies.

The alleged sweep is believed to be retaliation against California's statewide sanctuary law that Governor Jerry Brown signed last October.  Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan slammed Brown for signing SB54, which he said undermined public safety.  

Homan said at the time that the federal government would not allow California to be “a sanctuary state for illegal aliens,” and would have no choice but to “conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests, instead of focusing on arrests at jails and prisons where transfers are safer for ICE officers and the community.”  These words were taken as a sign that a sweep was inevitable.

Homan told Fox News that “California better hold on tight.” He said that if local politicians “don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will.”

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is accusing the Trump administration of planning to carry out these sweeps for political purposes, not for the security of the country.  The supporters of Trump carrying out immigration law as it currently stands on the books beg to differ.

An ICE spokesman in San Francisco, James Schwab, said in an email that the agency “doesn’t comment on future or current operations.”  This tells us that at the moment, all of the fears and accusations of the coming sweeps are likely at best hyperbole.

As for the need for such a move by the federal government, time and time again we are reminded that among the illegal alien population exists criminals and violent offenders of the law who, if proper border security and immigration provisions were being addressed, would likely not be in the country in the first place. A recent California suspect who stabbed a person in a diner has been deported previously seven times.  Why was he still walking the streets?

Americans in all communities who are currently at the lower wage level in the work force should be angry because a sanctuary status means that even more illegal aliens will be available to take their jobs, and send more Americans into a deeper level of poverty as a result of leftist policies.

The reality is, the liberal left Democrat Party does not truly care for these people.  They are simply another way for them to add to their power.  The fact is, uninformed people are quick to head into the Democrat Party tent because the promises made by Democrats sound good on the surface, even if they are not sustainable.  Therefore, a majority of illegal aliens support leftist politicians (despite the conservative nature of the culture), and while the Trump administration has erroneously abandoned their investigation into voter fraud, the truth is that illegal aliens not only directly affect the vote, but when it comes to the census, when they are counted they actually change the balance of power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

When push comes to shove, it really all comes down to the rule of law.  Are we a nation of laws?

The funny thing is, at one time Democrats like California's Senator Feinstein, Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer were big time proponents of immigration law and deporting illegal aliens ... then they discovered those people may help them in their power, and they shifted against the best interests of America, and into a position that best interests the power-grab their political party is trying to accomplish.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary