DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Friday, March 16, 2018

Democrats Using Alex Jones to Kill Freedom Of Speech

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
I like Alex Jones.  He's entertaining.  Usually, his news is spot on.  I, however, am not in the same mindset as he is on a number of issues people would consider conspiracy issues, but overall, he's an ally in the fight for liberty.

One thing the liberal left hates is a right-wing loudmouth who gets a lot of attention . . . and Alex Jones does . . . so he's been targeted to be shut down - and if the Democrats and the establishment liberal left succeed in shutting down Alex Jones with a current lawsuit, it could create judicial case law enabling the leftists to kill the First Amendment.

The Democrats and the leftists are simply following the teachings of their big government heroes:

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." - Karl Marx 

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Murrieta-Temecula Republican Assembly: John Sullivan

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wrinkle In Time removes God, I Can Only Imagine focuses on God

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

One of my lines when I give speeches about America's Liberty that I give to crowds is that if we are not a Godly nation, we are not capable of the U.S. Constitution.  Our Natural Rights are God-given, and the principles of the U.S. Constitution are based on that premise.

The beginning of Aerosmith's "Living on the Edge", I believe, reveals that Christians like myself are not the only ones noticing that we've taken a route different than what God wants.

There's somethin' wrong with the world today
I don't know what it is
Something's wrong with our eyes
We're seein' things in a different way
And God knows it ain't his
It sure ain't no surprise
The Founding Fathers warned against our society rejecting Godly values, and following the rule of man, rather than God's rule of law.

Benjamin Franklin emphasized that without virtue, free societies could not properly function.  He said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

With freedom comes responsibility.  A responsible society is one that is virtuous. A man with virtue is a man who possesses "sacred honor." It is for the sake of a free society that men must deny the evils of human nature, and implement the principles of being virtuous into their own lives. It is best for society, and for one's own existence, to strive for betterment, to strive to improve oneself each and every day. To be civilized, and be restrained from the temptation of mob rule, is among the cornerstones of a free society.  Morality must be at the center of any design of liberty.

When a society abandons its virtues, the people become corrupt, and unwilling to abide by the rule of law. A viciousness blankets the people, which leads to violence and lawlessness. In response, unable to restrain the mobs, the people in the position of power feel the need to crack down on the people who are partaking in violence and disorder in order to attempt to restore peace and safety. Laws become more strict, and the servants in place to govern become masters who rule over the populace. Then, the vicious debauchery that caused the society to become a violent mob in the first place infects the society throughout every portion of the culture, and throughout every hall of law enforcement and government, leading the society to no other way out than to commit suicide, and die a bloody death through societal collapse, a bloody revolution, and the chaos of transition into bondage. We are now beginning to see the early stages of that death in our world, and though the Constitution is the political solution, we are incapable of restoring the republic or abiding by the principles of the Constitution if we refuse to return to the moral standards that built his nation, and made it a virtuous society in the first place. Without having a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, the moral standards necessary to maintain an orderly and virtuous society are impossible. Without God, people are not capable of freedom, and therefore, if we do not restore our society as a virtuous one, liberty will be lost.

John Adams said, "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Frederick Douglass, a former slave who achieved freedom in 1838, escaping by boarding a train, agreed with the Founding Fathers regarding the necessity of being a virtuous people. He said, "The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous."

George Washington said, in his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

About 79 B.C., a young lawyer, Marcus Tullius Cicero, preached that it was time to return to honest government. He felt that Rome could still be saved. Cicero recognized that though they were tossing aside standards set by the early Romans, and the citizens were no longer worried about defending their rights, instead living on the gifts from the treasury the politicians had offered them for their votes, he believed that they had not passed the point of no return. They were fat, immoral, careless, and happy to live on the government's offerings, which had been taken by bureaucratic chicanery from the substantial men of business, but if the people would only realize their folly, and fight to restore the republic, Rome could be turned around.

In the book "Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician" by Anthony Everitt, the author states on page 182 that Cicero was concerned because "There had been a decline in moral standards and a corruption of old habits of responsibility in public life. All would be well if only there were a return to traditional values."

Rome refused to change its ways, and ended up under the rule of a string of dictators, beginning with Julius Caesar, which eventually led to the empire's collapse, largely initiated by the corruption and debauchery from within.

We, here in America, and worldwide, are once again rotting within.

Growing up, among my favorite books was "A Wrinkle in Time."

Disney has put out a film based on the novel, but the movie has been slammed by a long list of negative reviews and reactions from both critics and moviegoers.  The film opened earning only $32 million, a weak opening for a movie that needs to gross at least $250 million just to break even.

A part of the problem is that word got out that the movie has eliminated what it considered to be overt Christian content and themes which were originally included in the book written by Christian author Madeleine L’Engle. Even the secular website BusinessInsider published an article titled “’A Wrinkle in Time’ ditches the book’s explicit Christian references — and the movie really suffers because of it.

Without the Christian themes and devices, the reason behind the actions of the Mrs. W's, and even an explanation of who the mysterious beings are, becomes lost, and leaves the story both empty, and confusing.

The screenwriter, Jennifer Lee, defended her exclusion of the Christian elements, arguing, “What I looked at, one of the reasons Madeleine L’Engle’s [book] … had that strong Christian element to it wasn’t just because she was Christian, but because she was frustrated with things that needed to be said to her in the world, and she wasn’t finding a way to say it, and she wanted to stay true to her faith, and I respect that and I understand those feelings of things you want to say in the world that need to be said that are out there. In a good way, I think there are a lot of elements of what she wrote that we have progressed as a society, and we can move onto the other elements.”

Did she mean New Age elements?  Are we talking about the same kind of elements who hates God and Christianity, like we've seen throughout the entertainment industry?

The movie celebrates individuals like Gandhi and Buddha, but there is no mention of Jesus - as there is in the book.

Jennifer Lee alienated a large Christian audience that has proven time and time again to be a major factor in the success of a film.  Jennifer Lee’s christophobia reveals where we are headed, internally.  America is literally committing suicide by turning its back on God.

All is not lost, however.  There are projects with a different message than the anti-God one sadly portrayed in most Hollywood films.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE is the story behind the most-played Christian contemporary song, “I Can Only Imagine” by the band MercyMe. Since he was a young boy, Bart Millard’s father, Arthur, was emotionally and physically abusive. When Bart isn’t able to fulfill his own father’s dream of being a football star, Bart enters the world of music. Eventually Bart becomes so fed up with his father, he leaves for good and joins a band. The band struggles to find success. Bart realizes he needs to return home and somehow find resolution with his father, who’s dying. What Bart doesn’t know is that his father has found Jesus.

I Can Only Imagine hits theaters today, March 16, 2018.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

If Federal Gun Laws are Unconstitutional, Why Support CCW Reciprocity Bill?

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

As I have been teaching for decades, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal.  In the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution the federal government is not given any expressly enumerated
authority regarding firearms, and the 2nd Amendment specifically states that when it comes to federal law, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

At a Tea Party meeting in Banning, recently, one of the members of the group asked me, "If all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, then why do you support President Trump's call, and the Republican Congress legislating, a reciprocity bill regarding concealed carry?  I thought Congress was not allowed to make laws regarding guns?"

The reciprocity bill is not technically about guns as much as it is about Article IV.'s Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, the reciprocity bill is not so much about guns as it is about reciprocity.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause reads: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”  Put in simple language, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause judgments rendered, certificates given, or other licenses or agreements made in one State are to be acknowledged in others; when a U.S. citizen resolves an issue within one of the States that resolution must be recognized by all other States.

The Founding Fathers originally intended, with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to protect the self-government autonomy of the States, while also promoting union of the sovereign States as well. To do this, the Founding Fathers needed to make sure that judicial rulings in one State would be respected by all States, because otherwise there would be a substantial opportunity for abuse. Doing so affirmed the autonomy of the individual States, while also ensuring that the States remained unified.

Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, something as simple as a divorce would not be recognized outside the State where the proceeding took place.  In recent years, the courts have said exactly that, but in their case, they were trying to force the States to recognize all marriage certificates issued, even if the State does not recognize homosexual marriages.  Therefore, if a couple is married in one State, they don't have to become married again if they move to another State . . . no matter who they are.  If a divorce occurs, and one of the members of the divorced couple moved to another state, it is not necessary to file for divorce all over again.  Thanks to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the State that serves as the new home of the transplanted divorcee recognizes the divorce filed and approved in the State of origin.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause also protects against abusive litigation. If someone in one State sues someone and the court delivers a valid judgment, this person cannot file the same suit in another State. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the outcome of the suit in the first State is recognized and considered to be the final judgment. Likewise, someone who is ruled against in litigation in a State cannot flee to another State to evade punishment, because the ruling in the first State's court is still valid in the new State.

Because of the Full Faith And Credit Clause, professionals like doctors and lawyers only need to go to school once. As they move to new States, they can apply for reciprocity in certification so that they can practice in their new location. Things like drivers licenses also benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause.  If you visit your aunt in another State, you don't have to stop and apply for a license to drive in that State.  Your license allows you to still drive your vehicle in the new States.  If you move to a different State, one can easily change one's driving license to the new State.

Why are licenses and certificates regarding guns somehow outside Full Faith and Credit?  If driver's licenses and marriage certificates are recognized in all States, why not firearms licenses and certificates to conceal carry?

The reciprocity law would be simply the federal government's way of enforcing Article IV.'s Full Faith and Credit Clause regarding guns, as well.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Temecula Constitution Class: Amendments 11 and 12

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

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 17
Amendments 11 and 12
Further Limiting the Courts, Amendment 11
The Judicial Branch was added almost as an afterthought. The judiciary was originally designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. The Anti-Federalists feared the judicial branch becoming a judicial oligarchy, and therefore the judicial branch was constructed to only apply the law to cases they hear. All opinions the judges may have of the law after reviewing the law was considered to be only opinion. Any changes to law, regardless of what the courts felt about the law, could only be made legislatively. However, soon after the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, fears of a tyrannical court arose, and so additional limits were placed on the federal courts by the 11th Amendment. No case against a State by citizens of another State, or by the citizens or subjects of a foreign state, shall be heard by a federal court.
The 11th Amendment changes the intent of Article III. As limited as the courts were supposed to be, the Founding Fathers realized the courts weren't limited enough, and as a result, the 11th Amendment wound up being ratified in 1795.
Federal judges maintained that the federal courts should have the power of judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of laws. In response to the judicial urgings for the powers to judge the extent of the federal government's powers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that giving the federal government through its courts the power of judicial review would be a power that would continue to grow, regardless of elections, putting at risk the all important separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on power. The final arbiters of the Constitution are not supposed to be the courts, argued these Founding Fathers who were believers in the limiting principles of the U.S. Constitution. The power of the federal government must be checked by State governments, and the people. The States and the People are the enforcers and protectors of the U.S. Constitution.
As you may recall, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, resigned his position in 1795, disappointed in how few powers the federal courts had. When approached later by President John Adams to return to the United States Supreme Court as the high court's Chief Justice, Jay turned Adams down. He said the Court lacked "the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government." He also did not wish to serve under Thomas Jefferson, the victor in the 1800 Presidential Election, who was an advocate of limited government, and a judicial branch that existed as the weakest of the three branches of government.
While John Jay was Chief Justice, among the influences of his decision that the court was too weak to promote a strong, centralized national government, was the case of Chisholm v. Georgia in 1793, which eventually led to the proposal, and ratification, of the 11th Amendment. A citizen of South Carolina sued Georgia for the value of clothing supplied by a merchant during the Revolutionary War. After Georgia refused to appear, claiming immunity as a sovereign state, as per the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) the federal courts took the case. The nationalist view by the justices deemed that in this case Georgia was not a sovereign State; therefore, the Supreme Court entered a default judgment against Georgia. What ensued was a conflict between federal jurisdiction and state sovereignty that reminded the anti-federalists of their fears of a centralized federal government consolidating the States, and destroying their right to individual sovereignty.
Realizing that the clause in Article III gave the federal courts too much power over State Sovereignty, Congress immediately proposed the 11th Amendment in order to take away federal court jurisdiction in suits commenced against a State by citizens of another State, or of a foreign state. This is the first instance in which a Supreme Court decision was superseded by a constitutional amendment, and evidence that the Founders saw the legislative branch and the States as being more powerful parts of government than the judiciary.
Constitutional Amendment - Changes made to an existing constitution.
Judicial Branch - The branch of the United States Government responsible for the administration of justice; a central judiciary that is limited to federal authorities, and separated from the will of the central leadership.
Judicial Review - The unconstitutional authority of the federal courts to review law, interpret the Constitution regarding laws, and then determine the constitutionality of laws.
National Government - Any political organization that is put in place to maintain control of a nation; a strong central government that does not recognize the individualism or local authorities of the smaller parts, such as states, of the nation.
Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why did the Founding Fathers design our governmental system with the Judicial Branch being the weakest of the three branches of government?
2. Why is judicial review only supposed to be an opinion?
3. How did Chisholm v. Georgia change the authorities granted to the federal judiciary?
4. How does the 11th Amendment protect State Sovereignty?
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), Cornell College - Politics:
Jefferson's Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798, Avalon
Project, Yale University:
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Virginia Resolution of 1798,
Electoral Procedures for Electing President Changed, Amendment 12
"Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
The 12th Amendment changes the procedure for electing the President and Vice President originally provided for in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3. The procedure has remained the same since its ratification, save for the States changing their procedures from appointing the electors by the choice of the State legislatures, thus following the instructions of the State legislatures, to the citizens voting for who the electors are expected to vote for. Though the electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, in practice they usually vote for the candidates chosen by the voters in their State. 1824 is the last election in which electors were primarily appointed by their State legislature. In that election, six states followed that procedure. South Carolina was the final State to follow the practice, ceasing the appointment of their electors by the State legislature upon the approach of the American Civil War.
Each State is constitutionally allowed to choose how to appoint or elect their electors, and the methods vary from State to State. Generally, electors are nominated by their State political parties in the months prior to Election Day. In some States, the electors are nominated in primaries, the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other States nominate their electors in party conventions.
The need for the 12th Amendment became apparent after the problems that arose in the elections of 1796 and 1800. The Twelfth Amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures on June 15, 1804.
Before the 12th Amendment, electors could vote for two candidates, though at least one had to be from a State different from that of the elector (as a protection against a larger State dominating the federal government). A majority of the vote needed to be received in order to win the presidency. If no candidate received a majority vote, then the House of Representatives chose the President.
In 1800, after a tie in the Electoral College, the House tied 36 times. That particular election was marked by a battle between the Federalists, and Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Even though Burr was Jefferson's running mate, Aaron Burr wound up Jefferson's adversary when the vote went to the House. The lame-duck House controlled by the Federalists threw their support behind Burr, because they did not trust Jefferson's philosophy of a limited government.
The term Electoral College did not appear until the early 1800s, and did not appear in legislation until 1845. The concept was designed to act in a manner similar to Congress, where a portion of the election was connected to the population-based premise that was also used by the House of Representatives, and another portion of the Electoral College would be based on the State appointment premise used by the U.S. Senate.
In Federalist No. 39, James Madison explained that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of State-based and population-based government.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. His definition of "faction" in relation to elections was "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." In a republic it was necessary, according to Madison, to vary the distribution of powers, including those powers held by the members of the populace. Only a thorough division of power throughout the American System would protect the United States from the excesses of democracy, and countervail against factions. Madison further explained that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism.
Prior to the 12th Amendment, the choice of the Vice President went to the second place winner of the presidential election. The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors. If a tie arose, the Vice President was chosen by the Senate, with each Senator casting one vote. Though it was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President, because the sitting Vice President is President of the Senate and casts the tie-breaking vote, it is assumed that if that situation had arisen, the sitting Vice President would indeed be the deciding vote for his successor. Because the second place winner became Vice President, it was very possible for the President and the Vice President to be from different parties. In fact, that is what happened in the 1796 election. John Adams won that election as the Federalist Party candidate, and Jefferson became the Vice President as a Democratic-Republican candidate. The fear was that by the two men being of different parties, the Vice President may do what he could to impede the ability of the President, or could even launch an effort to remove the President from office so that the Vice President could succeed to the office of the President.
The 12th Amendment eliminated the possibility of problems arising between the President and Vice President due to them being from different parties by having the President and Vice President elected as a ticket, thus lessening the Vice President's motivation for staging a coup.
The 12th Amendment also eliminated the "two votes for presidential candidates" method, changing it instead to the electors casting distinct votes for President and Vice President.
The 12th Amendment indicates that no elector may vote for both candidates of a presidential ticket if both candidates inhabit the same State as that elector, a provision consistent with the Framer's original language against collusion.
The 12th Amendment also clarified language to not allow those constitutionally ineligible to be President from being Vice President.
A majority of Electoral Votes is still required for one to be elected President or Vice President. As in the case before the 12th Amendment, when nobody has a majority, the House of Representatives, voting by States and with the same quorum requirements as under the original procedure, chooses a President. The 12th Amendment requires the House of Representatives to choose from the three highest receivers of Electoral Votes, rather than the top five as was the process under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.
The Senate chooses the Vice President if no candidate receives a majority of Electoral Votes. The 12th Amendment requires a quorum of two-thirds for balloting.
Collusion - Conspire together.
Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by the voters in each State to elect the President and Vice President of the United States.
Limited Government - A government that acts within the limitations granted to it; a governmental system that is restrained by an enumerated list of authorities; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
Quorum - Minimum number of members of an assembly necessary to conduct the business of that group.
Sectionalism - Loyalty to the interests of one's own region or section of the country, rather than to the country as a whole; loyalty to a political agenda or ideology rather than to the country as a whole.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why did the States originally appoint electors, rather than the electors being elected directly by the popular vote by the public?
2. What lessons did the Election of 1800 provide?
3. Now that the presidential election is determined by party tickets, which ensures
David McCollough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster.
Edward J. Larson, A Magnificent Catastrophe: The Tumultuous Election
of 1800; New York: Free Press (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).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments I-XII; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987).
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Independent Media Kills "I Heart Radio"

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

The face of entertainment and news broadcasting is changing.  Technology, and public frustration with the mainstream media outlets and their allies, have taken their toll.  Thanks to the boom of smartphones, tablets, and other devices, people want their information mobile, short, quick, and without the hands of large corporate media giants in the pot.

Within the next five to ten years cable television and terrestrial radio will no longer be what it is now.  These platforms will either need to adjust and evolve, or be pushed aside.  Already, streaming services, satellite radio, and the ability to pretty much access anything you want is available on the world wide web.  Internet reach is expanding, and services are becoming faster and less expensive.  The emergence of unlimited data is making our mobile devices even more valuable tools.

One of the leading cable and internet providers, recently, aired a commercial where a couple kids are using their devices while a spokesman discusses television, and the various ways available to watch it.  At one point the kids are shocked by the spokesman's reference to people watching television on a television.  One of the children says, "Who watches TV on TV?"  The other chimes in, "Yeah, weird."

A friend of mine has a dock for his phone, and it replaces his radio.  He can talk on the phone, listen to music, access news reports, and even access what is playing on his television at home, with his smartphone, which, when it is plugged into the dock, plays everything through his speakers.

My mother's car doesn't even need the dock.  Her phone is programmed into the car, so if it is near, the car automatically picks it up and provides similar services as my friend's now archaic dock.

On top of that, with Sirius/XM, what you can't get with your phone is available through satellite radio.

Some cars are now being equipped with their own WiFi.  Who needs the phone with you when the car has everything except an ashtray?

With all of this technology, how long before terrestrial radio becomes a relic of the past?

While I am not sure that terrestrial radio will completely die out, the age of massive radio networks is surely on its deathbed.

The radio network which owns the most radio stations, I Heart Radio, which owns 858 stations nationwide, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

The network is not only on the verge of possibly going out of business, it has been forced to use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to restructure its overwhelming debt load.  The plan is to work with the creditors who holds more than $10 billion of its outstanding debt.  The debt has reached upwards beyond $10 billion, and revenue has been in a death spiral.

I Heart Media was also recently a news item when Liberty Media offered to purchase 40% of the radio industry giant last month, which would have brought I Heart Radio into the same family that owns Sirius/XM.  The February 26 proposal never became a deal.

That said, not all of I Heart Media is up against the fence.  Clear Channel Outdoor, a subsidiary of I Heart Media, and one of the world's largest billboard companies, did not commence Chapter 11 proceedings.

The primary controllers of I Heart Media, Bain Capital and Thomas H. Lee Partners, own 68% of the voting stock of I Heart Media.  These are also the same private equity firms who led a $17.9 billion leveraged buyout of Clear Channel Communications Inc in 2008.

I Heart Media's shares have been losing value since 2015.  The network giant began back in 1972 with the purchase of KEEZ-FM in San Antonio, Texas, where it is currently headquartered.

Of course, media is not the only collateral damage to emerge during the technology revolution.  Toys R Us is closing all of its U.S. stores, as online sales of items continues to skyrocket.  Brick and mortar stores, aside from independently local ones, are also on their way out.

Did you notice the common link between I Heart Radio's demise, and the death of Toys R Us?  Aside from the fact that online outlets are taking over a large share of the market, and the big boys just haven't figured out how to compete in the world of online sales and online information?

While technology is a large part of the story, so are independent outlets.  The exodus of large corporations from our neighborhoods to online storefronts and entertainment empires has left us with a wonderful thing in our communities.  We are returning to localism.

While the the top two radio hosts are a part of the large corporate networks, Rush Limbaugh with I Heart Radio, and Sean Hannity with Cumulus Media Networks (formerly ABC Radio Networks) and Premiere Radio Networks, Dave Ramsey at number three is a star in the new world of independent radio.

Ramsey grew his network over twenty years station by station.  No networks.  No syndication companies.  He contacted independent stations one by one, and kept adding to his network.  Now, he's on over 500 stations around the country.

The reality is, independent stations, stores, and local services are on the rise.  Large corporations like Toys R Us, I Heart Radio, Macy's, large movie theater corporations, and various other large corporate entities are facing financial turmoil . . . except for the ones with a great internet presence, and except for their smaller, local colleagues.

While Netflix and Hulu are killing the desire to go to the theater, local theaters that play movies as they are on the way out for a lower price are thriving.

While Toys R Us and Macy's are experiencing economic death, the mom and pop shops are popping up everywhere.

While I Heart Radio is trying to save its fiscal booty, smaller independent radio stations with locally produced content are growing.

I am not expecting local independent offerings to displace the dying corporations in a neighborhood near you, largely because while most of the business is going online, local and independent stores, radio stations, and services are going to fill a large part of the void left behind.

In short, keep that old radio in your car, and the antenna on your car.  While the big guys will eventually only be tuned into through satellite or internet streaming services, the local stations still want to bring you local weather, local news, local sports, locally produced programming, and likely a few shows like Dave Ramsey's.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Important Postcript:  In addition to the death of corporate radio and the rise of independent airwaves, the same is going on in television and video.  Who needs cable when you have You Tube?  Who needs big news media when you have other video services, and a plethora of news and commentary websites, like Political Pistachio?  That is why we are working on developing video serials teaching constitutional principles, while we also work to expand Constitution Radio.  The Constitution Radio program, which moved from online's BlogTalkRadio to terrestrial AM Radio in 2011, and from KCAA to KMET in 2015, is ready to grow some more.  A year ago we went from one hour to two hours.  Now, the slot for Monday through Friday from 6:00 am to 8:00 am is available, and we are currently working to grab that slot.  Like Dave Ramsey, we are independent, and not beholden to any network or syndication company.  While we used to be on stations in Kansas City, Missouri and Youngstown, Ohio (stations we are working on getting back as I write this), if we are able to grab California's morning drive slot we will be able to offer our constitutionally-centered programming to more stations around the country from coast to coast and corner to corner.  But, we need sponsors, donors and more advertisers than we currently have to pull it off - and we are only a third of the way there.

Send your contributions, or begin a monthly contribution, at, or if you wish to advertise, contact me at  We are in the midst of a revolution to restore the United States Constitution, and you can be a part of it.  Let's build Political Pistachio, Constitution Radio, and Constitution Perspective Video together. 

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Students' Right to Protest Guns

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

I was emailed a question about today's student protests across the country that I believe was orchestrated by big money from various liberal causes in an attempt to create disruption once again in American Society.  Here's the question:

Good morning Doug.

You are a constitutional expert.  When a school principal says that students' have constitutional rights, high school, middle school, and elementary students.  What is that principal's Constitution reference?  

This is in reference to the planned walkout of schools today?

Thanks Doug.


Here's my response:

Nobody has Constitutional Rights.  We have God-given rights.  So, the very premise is flawed out of the gate.

What has happened is that the statists throughout American History have convinced us that God either does not exist, or He's not important.  The collective is what is important, and thanks to the collective through government guidance, you have rights that they determine, and they define.  These rights, according to the leftists, must be protected by government, guaranteed by government, and subsidized if you can't afford them.  This is why, for example, when it comes to health care, they claim that since health care is a right, government must provide it to all people, and subsidize it for anyone who cannot afford it.

If that definition is correct, then I must ask, "Where's my government subsidized firearm?"

Gun rights, to the liberal left, are not rights, and they are doing everything they can to kill any argument supporting gun rights.

In the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law (of which our Natural Rights are derived from) is given four characteristics.

1.  To assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.  This means we Natural Rights are separate (individual), yet equal (we all have inherited the same rights because we are equal in the eyes and love of God), and we are entitled to those rights.

2.  We hold these truths to be self-evident.  We know that our rights, in the sense of being self-evident, are no different than a woman's understanding that after giving birth her duty is to care for her child.  That said, if society is not virtuous, the self-evident nature of our Natural Rights becomes less clear.

3.  All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator [with their Rights].  Again, equality is mentioned.  Understand that the two times equality is mentioned, the reference also accompanies a reference to God.  Therefore, they are not talking about man's definition of equality; they were referring to God's definition of equality.  As for our Natural Rights, the passage states that we are "endowed by" our "Creator" with those rights.  In other words, they are God-given.

4.  Unalienable Rights.  Unalienable means inseparable.  They belong to us, not to government, and they can't be taken away.  Government, however, is capable of blocking our access to our rights.  For example, I own my car, but if it is stolen, I don't stop owning it, I simply do not have access to it until my vehicle is found and returned.  Same with government.  Government does not take away our rights, it simply is capable of blocking our access to our rights.  Sometimes, such blockage is the result of tyranny.  At other times, there are other causes.  For example, government blocks many of the rights of criminals who are in our penal system.  But, in those cases, it has been agreed upon by society to allow those rights to be blocked as punishment for the crimes committed.

Two other characteristics of our rights exist, as well.

a.  In the Declaration of Independence it states that among our rights are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."  Notice, it did not say that we have a right to happiness.  It states we have a right to pursue happiness.  Health Care, for example, is indeed a right.  I have a right to pursue fixing my leg should it be broken.  I do not, however, have a right to force a particular doctor by threat of lawsuit to fix my leg.  With rights come responsibilities.  If I want to pursue my right to fix my leg, I have the responsibility to locate and hire the doctor that will do the job.  If I want to have a cake baked, I have the responsibility to locate and hire the baker that will do the job.  If I want to get married, I have the responsibility to find the person to perform the service that most closely fits my needs, beliefs, and expectations.  While I have a right to fix my broken leg, pursue having a cake baked, or to get married, I don't have a right to interfere with another's rights in the process.  With my rights comes responsibilities, which means I have a right to pursue my happiness, but its not the job of the government to guarantee that happiness, or, through the force of law, enable me to interfere with another's rights in the process.

b.  Our rights only extend as far to the point where the next person's rights begin.  Again, with our rights come responsibility.  I have a right to swing my arms, but you have a right not to be punched in the nose.  So, my right to swing my arms stops at the tip of your nose.  I also have a right to travel, and in my journey to cross through an intersection.  However, my right to drive through an intersection stops at the bumper of another car trying to do the same thing.  For this reason, local government has the authority to make laws regarding our rights.  For example, to make sure the intersection remains safe for all who are involved, stop lights and stop signs are placed in certain locations - not to deny one's access to traveling through the intersection, but to make sure all parties who do so are able to do so safely.  In short, local government may make laws regarding our rights, but the federal government may not.  Local laws regarding rights are not supposed to be regarding interfering with our rights, but to make sure our rights can be carried out in a manner that preserves the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the locality or State. (Federalist 45).

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized government as being the greatest threat to our Natural Rights, which is why the Bill of Rights uses the language that it uses.

Amendment I begins, "Congress shall make no law."  Amendment II ends with, "shall not be infringed."  Amendment III begins, "No soldier shall."  In the middle of Amendment IV it reads "shall not be violated."  This is not language instructing the federal government to protect, guarantee or subsidize our rights.  It is telling the federal government "hands off our rights.  Do Not Touch!"

Okay, let's get back to our young members of American Society, and their alleged right to storm out of class and protest against other people having the right to keep and bear arms.

Do the students have the right to walk out of class?  Does that action carry with it a responsible outcome?  Are they interfering with someone else's rights?

The students have a God-given right to peaceably assembly, to protest, and to believe and voice anything their little hearts desire.  However, with Natural Rights and freedom comes responsibility.  The liberal left seems to think if something is a right, nobody may disagree, and there should be no consequences.  But, if their alleged right to walk out of class interferes with another's right to an education, or interfere's with another's right to journey down a roadway, or becomes violent like the proverbial swinging arms making contact with another's nose (case in point: violence by protesting students being reported in California a couple weeks ago), then they are abusing their right, and they are not being responsible with their right, and they will be subject to consequences for carrying out that right.

Do the kids have a right to be protesters today?  Sure.  But they also have the right to be punished for their actions, to pay the consequences of their actions, and to have their rights limited as a result of their abuse of their alleged rights.  After all, the taxpayers have the right to ensure their taxpayer money is not being wasted by empty classrooms.  The motorists have a right not to be blocked by kids in the roadway.  The victims of the violence being committed by the protesting students have a right not to be punched in the nose, and the right not to be caught up in some altercation caused by students protesting against the right to keep and bear arms.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Mark Meuser, Candidate California Secretary of State, Addresses Voter Fraud

By Mark Meuser

Just finished reading "The Myth of Voter Fraud" by Lorraine C. Minnite. In summary, according to the author, there is no voter fraud because 1) no one would cast a fraudulent vote because the benefit of doing so is less than the consequences of being caught, 2) there are not enough people reporting voter fraud, 3) in the few cases where people report voter fraud there is not enough proof for the prosecutors to prove that someone intended to cast a fraudulent act, 4) there are all these trained election workers who are looking out for fraudulent votes, and 5) those who are promoting the concept of voter fraud are simply doing so for the personal gain to surpress the voter turnout.

An underline theme of this book is, anything a Republican legislator says about needing to bring integrity to the election is a racist plot to suppress voter turnout and should be immediately rejected as partisan politics with an intent to create a Republican dynasty for years to come. Anything a Democratic legislator says about making it easier for people to vote is the gospel truth and anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot and is unAmerican.

Let's break this down. I want to go through the 5 main summary points and compare it with Larry Nassar, the man who abused hundred's of girls.

1. Larry Nassar would not abuse these girls because he has too much to lose because if he is caught abusing these girls, he could lose his job and go to jail. It is just not worth it for him to abuse these girls. As we all know, there are just people who do not follow mathematical formulas of risk versus benefits.

2. Larry Nassar treated thousands of young girls and we just did not hear enough reports of abuse. As such, Nassar did not abuse any young girls. In the same way that many young girls did not report their abuse, many citizens of this country have observed cases of voter fraud and do not report it. What benefit do they have in reporting voter fraud? It is going to take hours out of their day to explain what they saw to the election official, then to the police, then they might be called in to testify (if it ever got there). What reward do they get for their trouble? Remember, if they agree to testify about what they saw, some defense attorney is going to get up and cross-examine them about all these other areas of their life. The benefit to the citizen to report election fraud just does not exist.

3. Larry Nassar should not be prosecuted for abusing these girls because there is no evidence that he actually abused the girls. It is simply the testimony of some child against an individual who is well established in his career. For those who do not know, a witness' testimony is evidence. Just because you do not have physical evidence, it does not mean that election fraud is not going on.

4. If Larry Nassar really was abusing these girls, someone would have reported it. Nassar works with all these trained professionals and one of them would have done something. As we saw with Nassar, too many of the people around Nassar simply buried their head in the sand and did nothing. Just because someone is in an official position, it does not mean that they are going to be proactive to defend the rights of those around them.

5. The victims of Larry Nassar's abuse are simply in it for the publicity. They simply want a large paycheck from a civil suit. These arguments were made of the first gymnasts that were bold enough to come forward and stand up against Nassar. However, just because the accusation is made, it does not mean it is right. There are many who pursue issues of election integrity because they believe we live in a Republic where it is a privilege and a duty to vote for one's elected official. Voter integrity matters because when there is no integrity, we lose our Republic.

My summary of the book is that it is full of bull crap. The author is very biased and he is simply shrouding his talking points with fancy arguments that fall apart under any kind of reasonable analysis. Just because the author has fancy tables and charts and just because the author uses long mathematical formulas, it does not mean that his arguments can stand up to even low-level scrutiny.

This guy believes that there is no voter fraud so he must also believe that the Me Too movement is also a fake and that no man would ever use his position to abuse a woman who is working underneath him.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Not so fast, Pennsylvania, the counting is not over . . .

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

The Pennsylvania Special Election between Democrat young Conor Lamb and Republican Rick Saccone is a testimony for those who say that every vote counts.  While we know that Pennsylvania's elections are infested with fraud by the liberal left (and there is a lawsuit in place because Pennsylvania has refused to address the problem), the reality is that in this election, fraud or not, the difference at the moment is 847 votes, with a few thousand remaining to be counted.

While the Democrats are celebrating because Lamb is clinging to a slim lead, and he has declared himself the victor, the truth is the race is still too close to call.  That said, it also reveals to us, thanks to the candidacy of Lamb, that conservatism wins, not liberalism.

While the Democrat Party continues down its path towards the realm of Karl Marx, it turns out that for a Democrat, Conor Lamb is quite conservative.  He's pro-life, and not necessarily a fan of gun control.

While I believe among the reasons Lamb even has a chance of winning in a place that is populated by a Republican majority is because he's quite conservative for the party of the donkey, the liberal left is saying that this is a referendum against President Trump.  The political establishment is proclaiming through horns and media fanfare that this is a wake-up call that voters hate Trump. The problem is, the GOP politicians, as they live in their little bubble of fake news, are believing the garbage, and the Republican Party political class is panicking.


This election is proof-positive that conservatism, if articulated, wins.  While lamb is not a champion of all conservative values, and to be honest I can't imagine how a pro-life individual could even consider themselves a Democrat, it was his lean towards Republican values that has him in position to possibly be the winner of the Pennsylvania special election.  Well, there's that, and I am pretty sure that his statement about getting rid of Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the Democrat Party in the House of Representatives didn't hurt too bad, either.

Well, there's that, and Saccone is a pretty weak candidate, who, if the Trump administration had not shown up to bail him out at the end, would have lost easily.

Conor Lamb ran a smart campaign, taking a page from Trump by appealing to the working class in the blue collar district.  Biden was even excited about such a strategy.  The former vice president praised Lamb for appealing to the working class, stating that's how Democrats can win elections.

Really?  The Democrats pull off a victory in Alabama in a race filled with dirty politics and piles of fraudulent votes in Alabama against Judge Roy Moore, and then narrowly win (maybe) in a special election in Pennsylvania with a conservative Democrat, and the GOP leadership is panicking?

Talk about being blinded by the bubble they live in.

One Republican, Charlie Dent, a Republican congressman in a neighboring Pennsylvania district, went so far as to say the Republicans are heading into an election season with 'hurricane-force' headwinds against them.


And the special congressional election in Pennsylvania isn't even over, yet.  Democrat Conor Lamb clings to an 847 vote lead, with two precincts and a large chunk of the absentee votes still uncounted (3,200 of them), and the Republicans are crying uncle?

If Saccone can win a little over 60 percent of these ballots, Lamb is out, and the Republican wins in a squeaker.

The absentee ballots will be counted and reported in the final three counties between 11:15 p.m. eastern and an undetermined time on Wednesday morning.

To be honest, however, the GOP has no excuse for losing this district, if they do.  It carried Trump with a 20% majority, and is the district once held by very conservative U.S. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), who once represented this district in the House of Representatives.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday, March 13, 2018

Melissa Melendez: What about students who do not participate in anti-gun protests?

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

Melissa Melendez is my assemblywoman in Sacramento.  She is, in my opinion, the most conservative member of the entire California State legislature.  When the Democrats voiced their approval of anti-gun minor children walking out of school to protest, this was her response:

As always, she nailed it, and once again revealed the idiocy of the liberal left Democrats.

One more question, though: If it were pro-gun students who decided to walk out of class to protest against any of the numerous tyrannical California gun control laws, would the Democrat response be the same?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Terrorist Descendant Seeks US Congressional Seat In CA 50th District

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 13, 2018: Op Ed # 382 

In the below listed article, a terrorist descendant, Ammar Campa-Najjar, was reported to have ties with Terrorists.  He does have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Ammar Campa-Najjar is running as a Democrat for Congress in the 50th Congressional District of California, against an endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress , Congressman Duncan D Hunter, Maj-USMCR (R-CA-50). 

Campo-Najjar,  is an Open Borders Advocate,  and has ties with the Muslim Brotherhood , a designated dangerous International Terrorist Organization, that has been outlawed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Israel.  CAIR was designated as an International Terrorist Organization in 2014 and outlawed by the United Arab Emirates. 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has suspended all formal contacts with CAIR due to evidence demonstrating a relationship between CAIR and HAMAS, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.  In the United States  vs  the Holy Land Foundation Terrorist Case, the largest successful terrorism financing  prosecution in U.S. history.  In that Terrorist case, CAIR was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front group.  The FBI designated CAIR as an unindicted Co-Conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terrorist Case. 

Five CAIR leaders were convicted on 108 counts, of providing material support and financing for terrorism and  are serving prison 65, 23, 29, 5, and 1 year prison terms, and  2 CAIR leaders were deported from the United States for financing Al Q’ieda and other Radical Islamic Terrorist organizations, and for advocating suicide attacks against the United States. 
Prior to Obama’s election, Campo-Najjar was Obama’s Campaign Deputy Regional Director, and after Barack Obama took office, Campa-Najjar was appointed to serve as Head of the Office of Public Affairs of the Employment and Training Administration.  He supported Obama and Bernie Sanders very aggressive initiatives against Israel, and for the aggressive actions of the PLO.
As he did in combat in Iraq and in Afghanistan, Congressman Hunter continues to protect and defend the US Constitution, and supports it as the primary Law of the Land.  The question Campo-Najjar must publicly address to every voters in the 50th Congressional District, is whether he considers the US Constitution as the primary Law of the Land, above Sharia Law.

The Combat Veterans For Congress PAC continues its endorsement and strong support for Congressman Duncan D Hunter, Maj-USMCR who will continue to bring to Congress his extensive military experience, public policy skills, legislative experience in Congress, and his wisdom to better solve problems in government and continue to represent the 50th Congressional District of California and the Republic.  If you review Cong Hunter’s positions on his Web site, you would be pleased with his stands; they agree with the Combat Veterans For Congress Mission Statement.  We look forward to continuing to work with Cong Hunter, and we are pleased that a Combat Veteran of his caliber is serving the Republic and the American People in Congress. 

If you have friends, associates, or relatives who know voters in the 50th Congressional District of California, kindly pass this E-mail on to them, and ask them to support Cong Hunter by working in his campaign, providing financial support for his campaign in any amount, and/or by networking with others who would be willing to support his campaign.  The military is one of the few remaining institutions producing the caliber of men and women needed to restore this nation to the greatness our Founding Fathers envisioned.  We have endorsed another Combat Veteran For Congress that General George Washington would have approved of.  He is a Combat Veteran who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount “up to and including his life.”

Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author 

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62
Capt    USNR(Ret)/Former FBI
Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC
2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184
San Diego, CA 92108

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8
Terrorist Descendant Seeks US Congressional Office
California Congressional Candidate Revealed To Have Dangerous Ties With Terrorist Organizations
His family was tied to attacks at the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics
by Sam Di GangiPUBLISHED: 4:10 PM 12 Mar 2018

It is said that an apple does not fall far from the tree. Let us hope that the analogy does not apply to Ammar Campa-Najjar, who not only is a leftist hoping to take guns away from Americans, but he is running for Congress despite the fact that he is the grandson  of  one  of  the masterminds of the 1972 slaughter of eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics,” according to PJ Media.
This south California Democrat is a 2018 primary candidate for California’s 50th Congressional District and many people are quite concerned about his family’s history with Gaza. He is pro-choice, favors gay marriages, dislikes any border law, and wants Medicaid for everyone with no idea how to pay for it. He spent four years in Gaza, however, and due to this, more than a few concerns were raised.
Just the same, he looks to run against Republican Duncan Hunter. Two cycles ago, Hunter won by a margin of 71% and last time he still pulled in 63.% of the vote, That means that Campa-Najjar has quite a battle ahead of him, but simply running with such questions hanging over his head still alarms many voters.
It will come as a surprise to no one that he was Obama’s campaign deputy regional director” since he, too, had ties to extremists of the Islamic faith.
After Barack Obama took office, Campa-Najjar was chosen to serve as head of the Office of Public Affairs of the Employment and Training Administration.”
Addressing the fact that Muhammad Yusuf Najjar was his grandfather, the congressional hopeful says that he gave up the family business and wants to give peace a chance. However, since he is running with the party most likely to harm the Jewish state, it does cause some concern to any following current affairs.
To his credit, he does not shy away from his roots but takes all questions head-on. The Democrat says that his goal is for our generation to be better than our predecessors, and find a way to end this conflict.
While sounds very noble, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reminds everyone that he supported the Bernie Sanders ‘Our Revolution’ agenda. As the Times of Israel said, “The would-be president castigated Israel for an ostensibly ‘indiscriminate’ war on Gaza in the summer of 2014, and, while admitting that he didn’t really know the facts, asserted, twice, that Israel killed over 10,000 innocent civilians in the course of that conflict. … That’s seven times the self-serving figure asserted by Hamas.
Many Democrats will opine that Ammar Campa-Najjar deserves a chance since he is not to blame for his families evil, and this is true to some extent. However, since he is already aligning himself with an American Jew who is doing everything that he can to hurt the historical Jewish state of Israel, he is not actually off to a very good start when it comes to gaining, earning, or keeping the public trust.