Sunday, May 20, 2018

Unraveling the Conspirators of the FBI Leads to Cambridge Professor

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

The Democrats began their witch hunt against President Donald J. Trump the way they do everything else . . . without a speck of evidence, but they've always believed that if the accusations are big enough, it will always destroy their opposition.  With your average, run-of-the-mill establishment Republicans, such schemes work quite effectively.  However, Trump is not your usual politician.  In fact, he's not a politician at all.  So, the strategy of investigating him without a crime, with the only evidence a false dossier paid for by Hillary Clinton as their guide in search of Russian collusion, is back-firing.  Not only have they found nothing to incriminate Trump with, the whole thing keeps exposing how corrupt the liberal left Democrats are.  The deep state is now a common topic in political conversations, and the reality that the Democrats were criminally using our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies to spy on Trump and his Republican counterparts is becoming clearer and clearer each and every day.

In the latest revelation to come out of the whole thing is the story of a Cambridge professor with deep ties to American and British intelligence who has been outed as an agent who snooped on the Trump presidential campaign for the FBI.

Donald Trump, early on, had been saying that the Democrats were spying on his campaign, but nobody realized the mafia-like activities of the Democrats went so deep.

Recent reports include admissions by FBI sources that agents were sent in to snoop on the Trump camp.  The reality that this was truly going on has heightened suspicions that the FBI was seeking to entrap Trump campaign aides. Papodopoulous has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, while Lisa Page (who recently resigned from the FBI, by the way) was the subject of a federal surveillance warrant. Page, if you'll remember, was the FBI lawyer trading text messages with Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, out of which all kinds of new realizations about the panic mode the Democrats were in regarding Trump has been revealed.

“If the FBI or DOJ was infiltrating a campaign for the benefit of another campaign, that is a really big deal,” President Trump tweeted, calling for the FBI to release additional documents to Congress.

The Halper revelation also shows the Obama administration’s FBI began prying into the opposing party’s presidential nominee earlier than it previously admitted.

You mean they lied?  How cow! What a shocker!

Stefan Halper, a Cambridge professor, who has a long history of working with the CIA, was given the job of heading up the operation regarding keeping tabs on Trump’s election campaign.  He began his communications over all of this with Page all the way back in July of 2016, undermining fired FBI Director James Comey’s previous claim that the bureau’s investigation into the Trump campaign began at the end of that month.

Yes, that's right, more evidence that James Comey is a liar.

The professor then worked to become a mole inside the Trump campaign, meeting with the Trump campaign's co-chair Sam Clovis in late August, offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser.  The Washington Post reported on this without naming the academic.
Clovis did not see the conversation as suspicious, his attorney told the paper — but is now “unsettled” that “the professor” never mentioned he’d struck up a relationship with Page.

Days later, Halper contacted Papadopoulos by e-mail. The professor offered the young and inexperienced campaign aide $3,000 and an all-expenses-paid trip to London, ostensibly to write a paper about energy in the eastern Mediterranean region.

“George, you know about hacking the e-mails from Russia, right?” the professor pressed Papadopoulos when they met, according to reports — a reference to Trump’s campaign-trail riffs about Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server.

Sources close to Papadopoulos told NBC News that he now believes Halper was working for an intelligence agency.

Another layer has been peeled back.  Indictments are at the ready.  The next few months are going to get very interesting.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Secession - Constitution Study Television

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Trump's Round-Table

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturday 1-3 pm Pacific LIVE on KMET 1490-AM. Listen on your radio, online, or with your KMET phone app. Call in 951-922-3532

First Hour: Crystal Ruiz, Mayor of San Jacinto, Mayor Ruiz met with President Trump last Wednesday at a round-table meeting at the White House over California's rebellion of cities who are opting out of S.B. 54 (Sanctuary State)

We will hear Crystal's amazing first hand story at the top of the first hour of the program.  Then, we will discuss the ...

Second Hour: Forensic Accountant Alan Meyers - Let's talk about money and the Federal Reserve, and the real danger we are in because of our monetary system

CarStar/AllStar Collision 
Big Stories of the Week, 
May 19, 2018:

⬝ Constitution Study Television: Elizabeth Powel

⬝ Constitution Study Television: Influences on the Founding Fathers

⬝ It's Official . . . The U.S. Embassy is now in Jerusalem

⬝ California Chases Communism

Corona Opts Out of Sanctuary State Minus one Council Member

⬝ Blue Wave?

Cold War over Two Constitutions

Inland Empire Primary Election Voter's Guide, 2018

Presented by Douglas V. Gibbs

Download as a pdf file to print as a booklet HERE.

Riverside County and San Bernardino County Voter Guide for California's Primary Election, June 5, 2018.  The following is a non-partisan voter guide based on Constitutional Scores.  Offices included in this guide includes:  U.S. Senator, U.S. House of Representatives, State Offices and County Offices (County Supervisor positions are not listed in this guide.  Due to the non-partisan nature of the office, political stances on nearly every category were not available).  For this page's purposes, based on conversations with the candidates, the following are our recommendations relating to county supervisor seats up for election:

District 2: Karen Spiegel
District 4: Jan Harnik
District 5: Russ Bogh and Jeff Hewitt (score even)

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Conservative Voice Radio: Sovereignty

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

Conservative Voice Radio is hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (Glenn, Jan and Diane) on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 8:00 am Pacific Time.

Podcast available at

Today's topics:
- Israel's Sovereignty: U.S. Embassy Opens in Jerusalem

- America's Sovereignty: Immigration, S.B. 54, and the Amnesty Discharge Petition

- Travis Allen's Border Rally

- Cities Opting Out of S.B. 54 Growing Rapidly

- Communism in California

- Local Elections

- A Mole in the FBI

- Freedom of Speech

  • Senator Ted Cruz v. Silicon Valley
  • Sweden Fines Islamophobic Speech
  • Collapse of the Blue Wave
- Hawaii's Big Island's Lava Flow

Friday, May 18, 2018

Influences on the Founding Fathers - Constitution Study TV

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Corona's Sanctuary Opt Out Deserter, Eugene Montanez

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

The good news is that on Wednesday Night the City of Corona opted out of S.B. 54, California's Sanctuary State law, with a 4-0 vote in favor of a well crafted resolution.  The fascinating part of it was that one of the council members was missing.  The evening began with five council members on the dais, but then it dropped to four.  How did that happen?

I spoke to Glenn Stull, President of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party about it, and he said that Vice Mayor Eugene Montanez called the city council members "sheep" and told them that they were simply following the other cities that have opted out.

What is interesting to me is that Montanez acted exactly the way liberal Democrats tend to.  If they don't get their way they walk out of the room or begin rioting.  In San Dimas, when that city chose not to opt out of Sanctuary State, the vote was 2-3 . . . but the two who supported opting out didn't walk out . . . even after being shouted down in a threatening manner by opponents of opting out of S.B. 54 in the audience.

San Dimas had the chance to be the first city in Los Angeles County to opt out of S.B. 54, but decided to instead be accessories to Sacramento's illegal activities.  L.A. County, however, is not completely lost.  Santa Clarita later on became the first city in Los Angeles County to opt out of the unconstitutional Sanctuary State law.

In the end, the reality is that those who support S.B. 54 are like packs of wild animals, brave, obnoxious and potentially violent when in groups, but when outnumbered they are nothing more than cowards.

It has always been that way, and Eugene Montanez, by walking out, reminded us how spineless the liberal left Democrats truly are.

Their lack of testicular fortitude, however, may be the result of the fact that they, deep down, realize they are wrong, and that in the end they understand that politically truly have no leg to stand on.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, May 17, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class - Amendment 14, Section 2: Punishing the Confederacy

Temecula Constitution Class, Tonight, 6:30
Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Rd., Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 18
The Civil War Amendments 13, 14, and 15
The End of Slavery

Prior to the Civil War, any federal legislation related to slavery dealt with the importation of slaves. Aspects of slavery inside State lines were considered a State issue.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 abolished the Atlantic slave trade, and the United States Government intervened militarily to ensure the law prohibiting the importation of slaves was enforced. The Framers of the Constitution believed that in order to ensure the southern States did their part in ratifying the Constitution, while remaining consistent with the concept of the federal government only having authority over external issues, and disputes between the States, they could not abolish slavery nationally through the articles presented by the Constitution. A large number of delegates at the federal convention in 1787 desired the immediate abolition of slavery, but the fear was that the southern States would not only refuse to ratify the Constitution, but that they would refuse to remain a part of the union, eventually succumbing to attacks from Florida and absorbed into the Spanish Empire.
A proposed amendment to abolish slavery during the American Civil War finally passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, but the House did not approve it.
When the proposed amendment was reintroduced by Representative Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role in working for its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. Lincoln's efforts, combined with the result of the War Between the States, ensured the House passed the bill on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.
The 13th Amendment was ratified into law on December 6, 1865.
Atlantic Slave Trade - Started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, the Atlantic Slave Trade was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic Ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century.
War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America. The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States. The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States. The war found its origin in the concept of State's Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed. After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why wasn't slavery abolished at the founding of this nation?
2. Why did the House of Representatives not originally approve this amendment?
3. How has the abolition of slavery affected this nation since the ratification of the 13th Amendment?
Congressional Proposals and Senate Passage Harper Weekly. The
Creation of the 13th Amendment. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007
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).
Citizenship, Civil Rights, and Apportionment
            Citizenship Clause
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution failed in 1866 after the southern States rejected the proposed amendment. After a second attempt to ratify the amendment, it was adopted on July 9, 1868. The ratification of the 14th Amendment occurred after the federal government began to govern the South through a system of military districts. Some historians question the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment because it is believed by these historians that the southern States ratified the amendment under duress, and pressure applied by the northern governorships in each of the southern States during the early part of the Reconstruction Period.
The first clause of the 14th Amendment is known as "The Citizenship Clause." The clause was intended to ensure the children of the emancipated slaves, as well as the newly freed slaves, would be considered citizens without any room for argument. The clause reads:
"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."
This clause has been misinterpreted to mean all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens, which is not the case. The defining term in this clause that enables the reader to recognize that citizenship needs more than just being born on American soil reads: "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof."
To understand the term jurisdiction, one may go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment. In those debates, and in articles of that time period written to explain the intent of the language of the amendment, one finds that "full jurisdiction" was meant to mean "full allegiance to America." The intention was to protect the nation against persons with divided loyalties.
The writers of the 14th Amendment wished to follow the importance of "full loyalty" as portrayed by the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided allegiances. They expected citizens to be fully American.
Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States legally, and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem. Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring, but not having any allegiances to any foreign government.
Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
Senator Howard's responses to questions regarding the language he used in the Citizenship Clause were recorded in The Congressional Globe, which are the recorded transcripts of the debates over the 14th Amendment by the 139th Congress:
Mr. HOWARD: "I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127."
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"The 1st Amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Senator Howard even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.
Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.
The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
The full quote by Senator Trumbull:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.
The courts have interpreted the Citizenship Clause to mean other things, but we must remember that the Constitution cannot be changed by the courts. Changes to the Constitution can only be made by amendment (Article V.).
It was through the progressive actions of the Lincoln administration in the American Civil War, and the actions of the courts to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, that America ceased to be "The United States Are," and became a more nationalistic "The United States Is."
            Privileges and Immunities Clause
The next clause, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," was expected to protect the newly emancipated slaves from local legislation that may treat them differently. This clause was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed in the States that were designed to limit the former slaves from obtaining all of the freedoms they thought they had been guaranteed.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of the proper due process of law. The right to a fair trial was to be extended to all persons, including the emancipated slaves.
            Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
The Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection clause, have been the subject of debate since the language written by Congressman John Bingham, the principal author of the later part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, was first penned. Bingham believed the federal government should use all national tools available to ensure the southern States behaved as instructed. Bingham repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the States, but the majority of the members of Congress present did not concur with his muddled and inconsistent argument.
Author Raoul Berger, in his book Government by Judiciary, discussed whether the 14th Amendment should be construed to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Relying on the analysis of Professor Charles Fairman in his published article, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, Berger concluded that Bingham was a "muddled" thinker whose views should be discounted. Berger agreed with Fairman that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend it to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Berger rejected even selective incorporation, arguing that the Amendment's framers did not intend that any of the first eight amendments should be made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment
Antislavery activists largely supported Bingham's conclusion that that Bill of Rights must be applied to the States, and such application must be enforced by the federal government. Though the Bill of Rights was originally intended by the Founding Fathers not to apply to the States, and with less than a centuryt since the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution behind them, Bingham's supporters contended that local jurisdiction over cases regarding an individual's rights could no longer be allowed because the southern States could not be trusted to be fair to the newly emancipated slaves.
Bingham's call for an incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States established the concept that all people's rights are supposed to be protected by the federal government. The Founding Fathers did not apply the Bill of Rights to the States from the beginning because giving that kind of power to a potentially tyrannical federal government carries with it many pitfalls. As the quote by Gerald Ford goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Nonetheless, despite the dangers of a central government dictating to the States regarding their laws regarding individual rights, because of the mistreatment of the former slaves by the Southern States, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, have been commonly interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States.
Since the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not take hold as a result of the 14th Amendment, as the statists that supported Bingham's position had desired, the federal courts stepped in and took pursuit. Pursuing a nationalist agenda, the courts disregarded the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, as well as the conclusions of the Congress regarding the 14th Amendment, and began to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the authority to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States. Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent. As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
The attitude of the southern States, and their refusal to treat the former slaves fairly led to a perceived need for clarification and enforcement by the federal government, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and eventually to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
A separate but equal doctrine existed for more than fifty years, despite numerous attempts to ensure blacks enjoyed full rights and privileges of citizenship.
In modern politics, laws continue to test the limits of the Equal Protection Clause. While the clause was intended to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, politicians supporting the Affordable Care Act have handed out exemptions to members of Congress, and some individuals or corporations, allowing those that receive the exemptions to be treated differently under the law.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment altered the rules for the apportioning of Representatives in the Congress to the States. The enumeration was changed to include all residents, while also calling for a reduction of a State's apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote.
For fear that the former slaves would support the Republicans, southern Democrats worked feverishly to dissuade blacks from voting. Section 2 addressed this problem by offering to the southern States the opportunity to enfranchise black voters, or lose congressional representation.
            Consequences of Insurrection
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. A two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress could override this limitation. The interest was to ban the service of any members of the Confederacy that refused to renounce their participation in the Confederacy.
            Public Debt as a Result of the War
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by Congress. The clause also indicated that neither the United States nor any State would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. This clause was to ensure that all States recognized the validity of the debt appropriated by Congress as a result of the war, while bonds secured by the Confederacy in order to help finance the South's part of the war "went beyond congressional power."
Political battles over the debt ceiling in 2011 and 2013 encouraged some politicians to argue that the "validity of the public debt" clause outlawed a debt ceiling, because placing a limit on federal spending interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (such as Social Security). The clause in the 14th Amendment addressing the validity of the public debt, however, was never intended to be a general clause to be used by future administrations, but a specific clause only addressing the debt accrued as a result of the American Civil War.
The final clause of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Federal intrusion upon the States, however, has been a long-time fear by those that support the concept of State Sovereignty. The question regarding enforcement was addressed in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, where the opinion of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to mean that "the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation".
In a more recent case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's enforcement power according to the last clause of the 14th Amendment is limited to only enacting legislation as a response to a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's 14th Amendment rights and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.
Court interpretation of the Constitution can be a dangerous practice, and we must remember that any interpretation of the Constitution offered by the courts in a ruling are merely opinions. The final authority regarding the definitions of Constitutional law resides with the people, through their States. Any allowance of the courts to fully define the Constitution at the whims of the judges opens up the opportunity for the courts to change definitions for ideological purposes, resulting in a judicial oligarchy, rather than a constitutional republic driven by the consent of the governed, and the self-evident standards of Natural Law.
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
Constitutional Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of the principles of a constitution. A representative government that operates under the rule of law.
Equal Protection Under the Law - Laws must treat an individual resident or citizen in the same manner.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
Jurisdiction - Full loyalty, a condition in which all foreign allegiances have been released; not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Military Districts - Districts created in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union), headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials.
Nationalist - An advocate of Nationalism.
Natural Law - Unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct; observable law relating to natural existence; birthright law.
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
Public Debt - National debt; the financial obligations of a national government resulting from deficit spending.
Reconstruction Period - Period following the American Civil War during which the United States government began to rebuild the States that had seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy, lasting from 1865-1877. During Reconstruction, the federal government proposed a number of plans and committed large amount of resources, to the readmittance to the union, and the rebuilding, of the defeated Confederate States.
Separate But Equal - Various laws designed to undermine the 14th Amendment requirement that former slaves be treated equally under the law, contending that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate. The result of these laws was a generally accepted doctrine of segregation throughout The South.
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.
United States are - These States that are united; a group of sovereign member States in America voluntarily united into a republic.
United States is - Nation of the United States containing a number of States similar to provinces ruled over by a centralized federal government.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How might have the governors of the military districts influenced the ratification of the 14th Amendment?
2. Does the Citizenship Clause have anything to do with Natural Born Citizenship? Why?
3. Why was Congress concerned with the threat of divided allegiance?
4. Did the 14th Amendment eliminate laws like the Black Codes, as intended?
5. How is it that despite the original intent of those that voted for the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights not be applied to the States most of the first ten amendments have been applied to the States anyway?
6. What pieces of legislation since the ratification of this amendment have been passed in order to ensure that the Equal Protection Clause is properly enforced?
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890: Senator Jacob
Howard States the Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866.
Civil Rights Act, The - April 9, 1866,
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Frank J. Williams, Judging Lincoln; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (2002)
John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order; New York:
Vintage Civil War Library (1993)
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).
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)
William S. NcFeely, Grant; New York: W.W. Norton & Company
Voting Rights
The 15th Amendment was designed to protect the voting rights of all citizens, regardless of race, color, or if the voter had previously been a slave or indentured servant. As stated in the amendment, this article applies to both the federal government, and the States.
As the third reconstruction amendment, the 15th Amendment faced another challenge that was unexpected. In some States the requirements were that all voters and candidates must be Christians. As originally written, the amendment would require these States to change their rules regarding the manner of elections. Realizing the ratification of the amendment may depend on the support of the States with Christianity requirements regarding elections, the amendment was revised in a conference committee to remove any reference to holding office or religion and only prohibited discrimination based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Democrat Party created militias, like the Ku Klux Klan, continued to try and intimidate black voters and white Republicans. The federal government promised support, assuring that black and Republican voters could both vote, and serve, in confidence. When an all-white mob in the Battle of Liberty Place attempted to take over the interracial government of New Orleans, President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to restore the elected mayor.
President Rutherford B. Hayes narrowly won the election in 1876. To appease the South after his close election, in the hopes of gaining their support and soothing angry Democrats, President Hayes agreed to withdraw the federal troops who had been occupying the South since the end of the Civil War. The hope was that the southern States were ready to handle their own affairs without a need for any interference from the North.
In the process, President Hayes also overlooked rampant fraud and electoral violence in the Deep South, despite several attempts by Republicans to pass laws protecting the rights of black voters and to punish intimidation. Without the restrictions, voting place violence against blacks and Republicans increased, including instances of murder.
By the 1890s many of the southern States had enacted voter eligibility laws that included literacy tests and poll taxes. Since the black population was normally steeped in poverty, the inability to afford the poll tax kept them from voting in elections.
It took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to finally take hold. The ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated poll taxes, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, served to ensure that blacks in the South were able to freely register to vote, and vote without any obstacles.
Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for         voting.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why was the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment changed to not include discrimination based on religion?
2. Why do you think the Democrat Party played a part in forming the Ku Klux Klan?
3. Why did President Hayes withdraw federal protections against racial discrimination in the South?
4. How did poll taxes enable the Southern Democrats from keeping Blacks from being able to vote without violating the Constitution?
5. Why do you think it took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to be realized?
Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess (1869) pg. 1318
Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished
Revolution, 1863-1877; New York: Harper Perennial Modern
Classics (2002)
Gillette, William, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the
Fifteenth Amendment; Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (1969)
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Blue Wave? No.

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

The Democrat Party's constant unsound maniacal call for impeachment of President Donald J. Trump, if they gain control of the House of Representatives, may be a large part of the reason they won't be able to gain control of the U.S. House of Representatives, or of the U.S. Senate, for that matter.  According to a recent poll, voters largely view the Mueller probe as a partisan witch hunt.  Despite the accusations flying around about the President being a liar, a womanizer, misogynist, racist or Nazi, the opposite in each of those categories is turning out to be true (capped, might I say, by Trump fulfilling his campaign promise of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in Israel).  A firm hand when it comes to national security has the world moving in a direction towards peace, and fiscally conservative policies have the United States entering a period of financial prosperity not seen in this country in more than a lifetime (creating comparisons of Trump to Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge).  Through it all, President Trump's approval rating is steadily rising, and the Democrats are out of their minds trying to figure out why.  Democrats have gotten to the point that they realize there is no guarantee they will win back a majority in Congress, admitting the political landscape has shifted.

“I think anyone who was proclaiming victory a couple of months ago was premature,” said Michigan Representative Daniel Kildee of Michigan, a member of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee leadership team.   The President's standing will impact heavily what happens in November largely because the Democrat Party's entire platform in this year's mid-term elections is "we are anti-Trump" and "we plan to impeach Trump."

The Democrats have overplayed their hand with not only their anti-Trump narrative, but in California and with their more radical members in the U.S. Congress, where the real nature of who Democrats are is being revealed.  Voters are responding.  The calls for impeachment has the conservative voters bound and determined to use their voting power to stop such ridiculousness.  The "hate Trump" narrative of the Democrat Party leadership has non-GOP voters sick and tired of the insanity, and planning on staying home on Election Day.

The liberal left Democrats have been revealing their Marxist nature.  Americans are beginning to realize the truth, and as a result the liberal lefties are losing grip on their power, their money, and their authoritarian anti-American schemes.  The plantation is being dismantled.  Their Marxism is out in the open.  The success of GOP policies, and the Trump administration, has the Democrats and their minions nervous that the game might finally be up.  Exposure can be devastating.  The attempts to cover-up the truth are simply bringing more attention to their lies and corruption.  The Democrat Crime Machine is no longer a well-oiled mechanism.  They have run out of lies to cover up their lies.  Too many tidbits of truth are making their way to the surface.  The reality is, everything the Democrat leadership claims about their opposition are projections.  In other words, everything the Democrats claim their enemy is, as it turns out, is actually a sin of the Democrat Party.

As a result, even the media is realizing that the Blue Wave may not happen, after all.  In fact, not only are the Democrats in trouble, so is the mainstream media. CNN is currently experiencing a ratings plunge of incredible significance, at 20%.

The radicals are doing all they can to appease our enemies and take away liberties, while indoctrinating the younger generation with their hard left philosophies.  One school has dedicated a couple pages to praising Islam, and Allah.  A Democrat member of the U.S. Congress has crossed a line normally not crossed by members of the Party of the Jackass, calling for confiscation of guns from any resisters against his desired ban of all semi-automatic firearms (which would include most revolvers, as well).  The violence is also out of control, even occurring at unlikely public places such as restaurants.  One of the latest instances happened at a Cheesecake Factory, where employees attacked a black patron who was wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat.

As if the indoctrination of the younger generation isn't enough, media outlets targeting our children are also in on the brainwashing schemes.  Teen Vogue had a recent article about Karl Marx, sanitizing the message for their own purposes the story about the Father of Communism.

California Democrats seek to outlaw the Bible with Assembly Bill 2943.

Leftists have attacked Israel for defending her border during the ceremony opening the U.S. Embassy in Israel - including personal attacks against Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump.

And with all of the attacks against President Trump, it amazes me how ridiculous the double standard is.

Sweden is in freefall because of progressive policies outlawing any speech critical of Islam, and their immigration policies.  Stateside, Antifa is doing what they can to kill free speech critical of Islam in America.

The reality is, what the liberal left Democrats are doing is a hostile takeover of America.  A coup.  That is why they hate Trump so badly.  He interrupted their treason.

Americans have noticed.  Even Black America is realizing what is going on, and are beginning to support President Trump.

Therefore, the Blue Wave the Democrats are promising in November is not going to happen.

It is cancelled.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Four Million

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Since the birth of Political Pistachio, over 4 Million folks have paid us a visit.  Thank you for your readership.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Association Annual Dinner Meeting: Tickets On Sale Now!

Purchase tickets HERE

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Corona Passes Resolution to Opt Out of S.B. 54 (Sanctuary State)

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

Mayor Karen Spiegel was confident the City of Corona would vote to opt out of California's Sanctuary State law, S.B. 54.  I spoke to her on Monday Night about the fact that she was the one who put the item on the agenda for Wednesday Night's city council meeting.  She told me she believed the measure would pass without any problem.  From her point of view, it is more than a rule of law issue.  It is also about public safety.  Sanctuary State status places our communities, and our law enforcement, at risk.

The city council chambers was packed with folks from both sides of the issue, and it wasn't until well into the night that the vote finally went down.  The resolution was approved 4-0.

Corona is now a part of the counter-revolution against Sacramento.  The liberal left Democrats of Sacramento have been in a radical rebellion against the rule of law, and the United States Constitution, while doing what they can to protect criminal aliens.

The vote followed a meeting in Washington D.C. that President Trump had with over a dozen officials from California over the law.  Crystal Ruiz of San Jacinto proclaimed, "We desperately need your help."

It looks like President Trump is ready to respond.

A lawsuit is already in play, and with today's meeting at the White House, it tells us that the President is taking the issue very seriously.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Trump's Sanctuary State Roundtable

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

Last week the mayor of San Jacinto, Crystal Ruiz, who is a longtime friend of mine, called me and asked for help.  Her city had recently opted out of S.B. 54's Sanctuary Status.  I had consulted with her when the issue came up on the agenda for the city, guiding her when it came to constitutional, legal, and public safety talking points regarding the importance of cities opting out of the law.  I had also been in contact with Andrew Kotyuk separately, and I was pretty confident San Jacinto would join the growing list of cities opting out of the iron-fisted law.  After I talked to Crystal, I wrote up a document full of all of the information I felt she would need.  Afterwards, I turned the document into an article, "S.B. 54 Sanctuary State Opt Out Reasoning," which is simply the information I sent to her regarding the need to opt out of S.B. 54.  So, when she called me last week, I was surprised she needed more help because as far as I understood, the opt-out battle in San Jacinto was over.

This week Murrieta had a bunch of patriots in the audience trying to get that city to consider doing the same, but the spineless members of that City Council continue to run and hide from the issue.  Corona's mayor Karen Spiegel, also a friend of mine (well, in her case, she's closer to my parents), placed opting out on the agenda for tonight, and I am also knee deep in that one, but I will write about it later.

I was one of the early voices in opting out, having written an ordinance for cities way back on January 9, 2018.  I visited a number of cities, and I got the ordinance in the hands of officials in Beaumont, San Jacinto, Hemet, Murrieta, Los Alamitos, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Aliso Viejo, and Escondido at the time.  I revisited those cities, and more cities, in March, in my hopes they would get the tidal wave of opting out in gear.  Now, over 35 cities have opted out of S.B. 54, all but two of them in Southern California.  I feel like a proud parent, in a way, watching all of this unfold.

While on the phone with the Mayor of San Jacinto, last week, when I asked about if her call was regarding San Jacinto's opt-out decision, Crystal said, "No, this is bigger.  I've been invited to the White House to be a part of a round-table discussion with 15 mayors, and President Donald Trump.  I won't be able to take anything with me into the room, so I need help making sure I've got all of this information down in my memory."

We met Saturday Night, after she consulted with my wife regarding the right jacket to wear with her Ivanka Trump dress, and we hammered it all out as her children and husband watched.  We went over constitutional authority, case law, statistics, and general talking points.  In the end, however, I told her that it needed to be her stance, her story, and her way of delivering all of this.

Today, the meeting with President Trump took place, and to be honest, I am very proud of Crystal.  Funny thing, though, as I watched it, I recognized two other people I consider friends in the room with President Trump; Melissa Melendez, my State Assembly Representative, and the Mayor of San Juan Capistrano (or, at least she "was" mayor), Pam Patterson (we first met at my first annual Constitution Association annual dinner meeting a couple years ago).  I've known Crystal and Melissa for many years, and in fact, Melissa was my first endorsement when I ran for Murrieta City Council back in 2010.

After the thing was over, I sent texts to Melissa and Crystal, congratulating them and thanking them for their work.  Pam's getting an email.

Crystal's story is an amazing one.  As she stated in her delivery in the above video, she was once homeless.  Through God's Grace she survived, pulled herself out of it, and now is the Mayor of the City of San Jacinto.  She is the epitome of the American Spirit, and the reality that this is the land of opportunity if you play by the rules, work hard, and have the self-determination to succeed.

President Trump was all ears for each and every one of the people at that table, and commented on all of them.  He's not arrogant like Obama was.  He truly cares about the problem, and recognized the need for them to be heard.  He's also a quick study, and I think today's round-table discussion helped him build upon his already strong resolve regarding this issue.

He understands the problem, and is passionate about this issue.  Everyone had a voice, and he was sure to make sure they felt like they were being heard.  Some of the folks talked about the amicus brief they attached to Jeff Sessions' lawsuit against California.  Some opted out using resolutions, or letters.  Los Alamitos, the first city to start all of this, is a charter city, and wrote an ordinance.

Each and every one of the mayors, sheriff's, county supervisors, and other local officials at the table echoed each other on one thing.  They are all with President Trump, and they desperately need help with dealing with the tyranny coming out of Sacramento.

California cities are desperate, not only because they disagree with the coddling of illegal aliens, and the protection of criminal aliens, but because the law creates a situation that places our communities at great risk.

One of the main complaints about 9/11 was that various agencies were unable to communicate with each other.  They were silos, disallowed from sharing information that, in hindsight, would have helped in the prevention of the terrorist attack against the United States back in 2001.  Public safety is being compromised.  Our communities are at great risk.  Local law enforcement, and even business owners, according to S.B. 54, cannot, by law, coordinate in any way with federal agencies.  In fact, at one point Sacramento threatened to arrest the Sheriff of Orange County we he refused to abide by S.B. 54, and communicated directly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). His claim?  The U.S. Constitution, in the case of immigration, supersedes State law.

And, he was right.

S.B. 54 not only places our communities at risk by letting criminal aliens back on the street, but severs important lines of communication that places our State in a position of high risk in terms of National Security.  After all, mixed into the population of illegal aliens are persons who have connections to Islamic terrorist groups, drug cartels, violent gangs, and organizations calling for the overthrow of American  jurisdiction over the southwest.  Therefore, not only is S.B. 54 illegal (unconstitutional), but it gives aid and comfort to enemies of the United States, making the supporters of the law traitor guilty of treason against these United States.

The leaders of the various cities in California not only have the obligation to opt out of S.B. 54, they have the duty to.  If they do not, they become accessories to the treason.

As for the cities who have not opted out, yet, most of the stories I hear is that they are fearful that California will sue them, and they are worried about a loss of municipal funds as a result.  In other words, money is more important than principle.  Have they considered all of the federal money they will lose if they don't opt out?  A lawsuit is in place, and constitutionally, there is no doubt in my mind that the Trump administration will defeat California in the court system (and it will, no doubt, work its way all the way up to the United States Supreme Court).

Besides, when the city council members take their oath, it is first to the U.S. Constitution, is it not?  Their allegiance to the State Constitution is secondary.

In short, California is in open rebellion against the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, and the federal government.  They are practically the Fort Sumpter of this latest civil war.  Funny thing is, the reasoning by the Democrats is the same now regarding the cheap labor of illegals as it was with the cheap labor of slaves.  In both cases they were willing to whatever it takes to protect their money and power, and their desire to keep into place an oppressive system of controlling and maintaining a population of a cheap and underpaid labor force.

As always, the Democrats are using political power to enslave uninformed groups, promising that they have the best of intentions, when in the end it simply adds up to power, money, and using certain groups of people as useful idiots.

The Democrats have not changed.  They are still the same slave-holding, racist, manipulative, deceptive tyrants they were over a hundred and fifty years ago.

And that's why they hate Trump so much.  He's working on dismantling their machine of corruption and power.

Our local gals, Crystal Ruiz, Mayor of San Jacinto, Melissa Melendez, Assemblymember of the 67th District,
and Natasha Johnson, Mayor of Lake Elsinore.

Crystal's allies in Washington D.C. - Proud of all of you.

Crystal Ruiz ready to get to work with President Trump

Crystal Ruiz in the White House

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary