Political Pistachio

Douglas v. Gibbs - Mr. Constitution

Political Pistachio

grim reaper democrat party
By Douglas V. Gibbs

 

Enlightened.  Progressive.  Modern.  Shining cities in America are designed to be the model for how everyone should live and die in a fair and equal America.  Progressive policies have reshaped the landscape of our cities, introducing reforms regarding the justice system, crime-prevention, social-justice, electric bikes, added bike lanes, and a warm and fuzzy attitude toward anyone who wants to do anything they desire in public (or in front of kids in drag shows or at libraries) because they identify that way.  Drugs have been legalized and bail has been kicked to the curb.  Government programs have increased, and with them so has income taxes; but don’t worry, the corporate tax rates are hitting high marks to make sure those wealthy people pay their fair share.

Utopia.

As a result, homicides are up, drug addiction is up, prices are up, rental rates are up, homelessness is up, fire deaths are up, public violence is up, the overall cost of living is up, misery is up, and suicides are up.  Prosperity is down, well-being is down, job growth is down, and private property ownership is down.  America’s cities are many things under progressive rule, but they are definitely not utopia.

America, as a result, is stagnant.  We are sliding backward.  And the cities?  They are nowhere near being the oasises that they’ve been advertised as.  Instead, our cities remind us more of dystopian hell-holes we read about in science fiction novels after the end of the world finally arrives.

Modern progressive policies remind us more of a world built by George Orwell, than one built by the gods of progressive mythology.

The problem is that the political leftwing progressive socialists do not understand how anything can operate without their hands ensuring that it is all well regulated.  Rather than laissez-faire, they rely on ideas kin to Rousseau’s general will where an allegedly benevolent ruling class makes well-intentioned decisions based upon what they believe to be the best course for the overall community.

Except, historically, that kind of collectivism always fails.  When the collective comes before the individual, failure looms quickly upon the horizon.  When well-meaning intrusion dictates lives, lives are destroyed.

∼    ∼    ∼

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  – C.S. Lewis

∼    ∼    ∼

This is not to say that the opposite extreme in all cases is the answer, either.  Of course a society must collectively come to a decision regarding the rules it will operate under, and form a collectively funded law enforcement arm to handle it.  A consent of the governed is necessary for a society to operate in an orderly manner.  But the closer the issues come to the individual, the less any government should be involved.  Laws and government intervention must only exist where necessary, not where desired by well-meaning ruling elitists.  Unfortunately, progressives believe individuals can’t be trusted.  It takes a village, explain the collectivists; which is fine until the village decides to cancel any opposition for daring to think individually.

History tells us where we need to go next, if we are willing to pay attention, and carefully listen.  Sometimes change, for the sake of change, is not the right path to take on our way to bettering a society.

Greece soared to great levels of prosperity until mob rule through direct democracy burned it down, over and over again.  Rome became the greatest civilization in history until the republic demoralized into an empire full of prominent men who ruled, rather than represented.  Britain once inhabited all points of the globe, ensuring the sun never set upon its empire, only to shrink into nothingness thanks to a power-greedy ruling elite, and a shameful continuation of various mercantilist policies.  When government gets too big for its britches, and decides it knows better than an individual when it comes to individual decisions, the culture will rot and the society will fall.  It happens every time.

Has America fallen into the same trap?  Are our cities the canaries in the coal mine?  If we don’t heed what has led to their deterioration, will their rotting fates spread like a cancer across the fruited plains from sea to shining sea?  

Globalists like George Soros and Klaus Schwab sure hope so.  In fact, they are betting on it.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

A Promise of Truth Self Evident Cover

Delays, delays, delays. The delays were due to some formatting issues. They have been resolved and the copies of my new history book for those of you who pre-ordered are on their way.

The estimated arrival according to the printer is March 30-April 3 (while I am in Oregon during Spring Break). Therefore, expect me to have your copy in class April 8-12 (plus extras for sale to those of you that did not pre-order).

If you wish to buy it online, the Amazon page is…

https://www.amazon.com/Promise-Truth-Self-Evident-American-History/dp/B0CY96RVFQ/

Kindle is also available…

https://www.amazon.com/Promise-Truth-Self-Evident-American-History-ebook/dp/B0CW1K9PDY/

dot matrix biden
By Douglas V. Gibbs

Everybody saw it coming because we all know that the Democrats, and President Joseph Biden, are in it for themselves, power, and stopping Donald J. Trump no matter what it takes.  The “State of the Union” is the least of their concerns.  In fact, it is their desire that the State of the Union is in shambles.  It is their aim to destroy liberty, betray America’s foundations, transform America into something the Founding Fathers never intended, and then hand its dying carcass over to the Globalists of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and to Communist China.  America’s well-being is not their aim, they wish to destroy America’s foundational principles; therefore, the phrase “Make America Great Again” angers them beyond words.

To constitutionalists like myself, all of that is common knowledge, and the war for America’s soul goes back farther into history than the lifetimes of the likes like Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill and Hillary Clinton, or George Soros.  The anti-liberty attacks began before the ink was dry on the pages of the United States Constitution, and while the names and logos of the attackers were different than today’s, the aim was the same — destroy America’s sovereignty and this silly experiment regarding liberty, and force the people living in the New World back into the prison of bondage controlled and regulated by the ruling elites of Europe, and their mercantilist allies.

The federal government has become King George III.  Rather than the Jacobins or the Fabians, now we have the Soviets who have not accepted the USSR’s collapse, the North Koreans, and the Communist Chinese.  Rather than secret societies and shadowy factions seeking global control, we have the United Nations, European Union, and the World Economic Forum.  Worse of all, they’ve come out of the shadows and are operating in the open.

Same stuff, different actors and different level of shadows.

Once you know all of these things, the political far left is pretty predictable.  On Saturday Night my radio program on KPRZ in San Diego (Mr. Constitution Hour, 9pm Pacific) will include a report about the State of the Union Address, where I explain it was more of a campaign speech than anything, and it targeted Biden’s opposition.  The thing is, I pre-recorded that show Thursday Morning, before the speech.

Biden provided no surprises.  What he said was easily predictable.

Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, his third speech to Congress since stealing the Office of the President of the United States, was politicized, filled with vitriol, and targeted repeatedly anyone who dared to stand against the Democrats — especially Donald J. Trump.

It was likely the most political State of the Union speech in my lifetime.

No surprise.

Biden hates Trump, hates the Republicans, and his party of leftwing communists will do anything to finally achieve their final solution — turn America into a one-party system that reminds us more of something Orwellian, than that of something based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

It lasted about 90 minutes, and during that hour and a half President Biden repeatedly attacked the Republican Party for daring to stand against him, and refusing to accept a border deal full of little hidden gems that has the Democrats dancing in anticipation.  He claimed the economy is fine, and any hiccups are the fault of the GOP.  Immigration is Trump’s fault according to Biden, and he’s waiting for legislation from Congress to secure the border — despite the fact that the problem erupted when he reversed all of Trump’s immigration executive orders, and then saw fit to refuse to execute federal immigration laws that are already on the books.  He claimed he’s doing a great job making progress towards a greener economy, even though it has all flopped and fizzled, and is being pushed by authoritarian means, and as Americans are fighting to be able to survive in the pitiful economy that is floundering under leftist policies whether or not they can afford to spend the money for a new electric stove or electric car is the least of their worries.  Right now, the task of putting food on the table and pulling off their payment for their homes are greater concerns that “saving the planet”.  Never mind that its all based on junk science, anyway.

As expected the Democrats clapped and cheered wildly as Speaker Johnson shook his head in disbelief, and the rest of the Republicans either clasped their hands, or sat on them.

When the room became freezing cold over immigration falsehoods pouring from his pie-hole, in response to Georgia Congressman Marjorie Taylor-Greene’s calls for him to say her name, and to try to save the moment, he brought into the conversation the murder of 22-year-old Laken Riley, claiming her killer was “undocumented,” rather than an illegal alien that was in the country, and was let go multiple times after committing crimes, because of his party’s policies; and, he mispronounced her name, calling her Lincoln Riley. His attempt to warm the chill fell flat upon the snowy floor covered with broken promises and failed policies.

The Democrats are doubling down on their “let’s stop Trump at any cost” strategy, and the speech revealed it clearly.  Biden claims he is trying to “preserve democracy” as his party places obstacles to an honest democratic vote at every turn.  They want to save democracy, but are trying to keep Trump off of ballots so that people have no democratic choice.  Well, they were, then that pesky Supreme Court corrected the problem (sort of).

I’ve heard word that the Democrats are so worried that they are focusing on trying to gain both Houses of Congress so that even if Trump pulls off the win they can decertify his election into the White House before he has a chance to be inaugurated; you know, the action they claimed Trump attempted with the January 6 false flag, of which they call “insurrection.”

President Trump spent the evening, as Biden’s trembling and confused body spewed out the words he was so carefully provided by his handlers, posting rapid responses in a play-by-play volley to Biden’s speech on Truth Social.  As a result, the social media network had so much traffic that his posts became temporarily unavailable many times throughout the night.

The polls say the race is a close one, but reality says otherwise.

Trump posted, “CROOKED JOE BIDEN IS ON THE RUN FROM HIS RECORD—AND LYING LIKE CRAZY TO TRY AND ESCAPE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE HORRIFIC DEVASTATION HE AND HIS PARTY HAVE CREATED!”

Trump pulled no punches, as usual, and while they are not saying anything about their fears, the Democrats are out-of-their-mind-afraid that they will lose in November.  How do I now?  If they weren’t worried, last night’s speech would have been a State of the Union address, rather than a “we better attack the opposition as much as we can before the last of the rats jump off the sinking ship” anger-fest and lashing out against Biden’s GOP opposition.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

891bcb3bae3954d2

Opinion by Allan McNew

It’s election season again with opinion letter writers to the editor arguing over what is or isn’t socialism while shouting over one another and questioning the other’s intelligence.

An old saying: “If you want someone to think you’re wise, agree with them.”

Politics is about power. Those who seek power, regardless of the political label one runs under, can be divided into two groups, those who want to tell everyone else what to do and those who want to be left alone.

Unclothed Communism and fascism are pretty much the same thing regardless of who “owns” the means of production, the oligarchy dictates what will be produced and how. Fascism tends to place more of an emphasis on race than communism, but that depends on local flavors. The early 20th century Italian fascists didn’t chase Jews around like the German fascists did. Fascism tends to be nationalistic, while communism is roughly divided between the Stalinist and the Trotskyist views of socialism in one country at the time and under the circumstances versus socialism taking the world by storm all at once.

The concepts of socialism and communism were the same to Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and so on and so forth, others in the socialist fold describe socialism as the precursor to communism. The leaders of socialist movements study the works of Marx, Lenin, Gramsci and Mao, among others.

Capitalism” is a label coined by Marx according to his interpretation of economics, just as “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith was another interpretation.

Maoist communism in China was an abject failure, marked by famines, poverty, backwardness and under capitalization. There might presently be lip service honoring Mao and the communist ideological ancestry, but the Chinese government has moved on to crony capitalism saddled to fascist mercantilism.

The Soviet Union was a failure too, and when it fell it became an oligarchic kleptocracy riddled with corruption and crony capitalism.

It seems to me that elitists and true believers who travel under the Democratic Party label strive to dictate to the common folk as to how the most intimate and insignificant details of their lives will be conducted while the party is obsessed with race. The Democrat Party has been obsessed with race ever since Republicans freed their slaves 150 some years ago.

Originally it was anti-black, then it was about civil rights and now when most everyone seems to be getting along better than ever, it’s blanket condemnation of whites as being congenitally disposed to oppressive bigotry, can’t help themselves – making the description itself racist bigotry.

The Democrat Party also seeks to have unfettered control over the means of production, which, combined with minute control of society and obsession with race, suggests fascism.

But, some of the current topics of debate:

“The economy is good and inflation is down.” Nice try at gaslighting the subject. Everyone knows what the price of groceries, gas and other commodities were and what income could buy on the last inauguration day of Jan 20. 2020 and now, three years later. The spin on inflation is that currently the rate of inflation is down. However, the fact is inflated prices are here to stay and continue to rise and income isn’t keeping up.

“Employment is up.” The refilling of jobs rendered vacant by the response to covid isn’t some great harbinger of accomplishment, and people who are uncounted as unemployed by exhausting unemployment benefits and those who have given up seeking employment doesn’t suggest that employment is “up.”

Illegal immigration. Kids are no longer being held in the Obama cages (that’s when they were built and first utilized), they are now being sex trafficked for prostitution by the cartels. And, people wouldn’t be drowning in the Rio Grande or dying by being abandoned by cartel polleros in the desert if the border was shut tight, like it nearly was under Trump. Biden rescinded everything Trump did to secure the border, and his directing the Border Patrol to remove constantine wire placed by Texas to inhibit border crossings shows that despite every excuse Biden comes up with concerning the border, he wants it wide open.

 
trump has you covered
By Douglas V. Gibbs

The judgment was for $355 million in penalties against Donald J. Trump for alleged fraud (disgorgement/ill-gotten gains) that, after all of the dust settles is actually around the tune of more than $464 million.  The lawsuit was brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James on behalf of the State of New York.  New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron presided over the case, not allowing a jury, and ruling that all defendants were guilty and liable on all seven claims.  The argument was that Trump claimed the financial condition of the Trump Empire was better than it was; a summarization that calculated the net worth of President Trump was routinely inflated which was then used to allegedly defraud banks and insurers causing them to take undue risks.

In the legal world there are hurdles that must be cleared before any lawsuit can see the light of day.  Standing is one of those hurdles.  Standing is a three-legged stool that requires injury to be established, and:

  1. The Complainant has been injured or is connected to the injury.
  2. The Defendant caused the injury or is connected to the injury.
  3. If the Complainant wins the case then resolution, or partial resolution, regarding the injury will be achieved.

In the real world the ballooning of the value and image of one’s business or property value is a common occurrence.  Of course, one wishes the value of whatever is connected to one’s ability to secure a loan is as high as it can be.  For example, if one wishes to secure a mortgage loan and the borrower needs additional monies from the loan for other projects, they are going to hope the assessment of the property is high enough to meet the requirements for achieving the loan amount desired.  However, in the end, it doesn’t matter how valuable the owner claims the property (or business, or individual’s worth) is, the bank or lending institution will (or at least is supposed to) perform their own due-diligence to ensure they have accurate numbers and are being taken for a ride.  (Side Note: Funny how lenders were considered to be “Predatory Lenders” back during Obama’s reign, but now it is being claimed the predators are the victims with Trump in the room).  It is not the responsibility of the borrower to establish the value, it is up to the lender.  Sure, the borrower will hire a firm or company to perform the assessment, but the bank will not typically believe it unless they are an approved company for performing such tasks, or they have done their own assessments in addition to what the borrower had performed.  In the end, the bank is not required to lend to a borrower who they believe may be inflating their worth.  The bank can say “no” if they so desire.  Trying to convince them that one’s value is higher than it might be is not fraud, it’s a part of the process that, in the end, if the bank or lending institution is a good one, is fully under the control of the lending party, anyway.

As for the loans, and the work connected to the loans, the work was completed, the loans were paid back, the interest was paid as expected, and the lenders stated they liked doing business with Mr. Trump and would do business with him again.

We must ask, once more, “Where is the injury?”

If there is no injury, there is no standing.

After Justice Engoron ignored the fact that there was no standing, he not only allowed the case to proceed but he then decided there would be no jury.  When later asked about the lack of a jury, the answer was that the Trump team didn’t ask for one.

In America, that is not how it works.  Only in cases under a certain dollar amount, we call those “small claims,” or in cases in which the defendant waives the right to a jury by signing a document saying so, shall there be no jury.  Otherwise, a jury is a natural right not only discussed and enumerated as a right in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but also is plainly laid out in the New York State Constitution.

Article I, Section 2 of the New York State Constitution reads as follows:

§2. Trial by jury in all cases in which it has heretofore been guaranteed by
constitutional provision shall remain inviolate forever; but a jury trial may be
waived by the parties in all civil cases in the manner to be prescribed by law.
The legislature may provide, however, by law, that a verdict may be rendered
by not less than five-sixths of the jury in any civil case. A jury trial may be
waived by the defendant in all criminal cases, except those in which the crime
charged may be punishable by death, by a written instrument signed by the
defendant in person in open court before and with the approval of a judge or
justice of a court having jurisdiction to try the offense. The legislature may
enact laws, not inconsistent herewith, governing the form, content, manner and
time of presentation of the instrument effectuating such waiver. 

No waiver?  Then the right to a jury remains.

In other words, contrary to Justice Engoron’s opinion, Trump did not need to ask for a jury, he has/had a right to a jury and it could only be taken away if he asked for it to be taken away.

The Democrats, and Letitia James, have engaged in lawfare against President Trump, and are even willing to violate the law to achieve their political goal of destroying the man and keeping him out of the White House.  After the case New York Attorney General Letitia James even appeared to taunt Trump about the interest he may also have to pay, posting on Twitter (a.k.a. X) her glee that the post-judgment interest is accruing at nearly $112,000 per day.

She wrote on the day of the judgment: “In a massive victory, we won our case against Donald Trump for engaging in years of incredible financial fraud to enrich himself. Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and his former executives must pay over $450 million in disgorgement and interest.” 

Sounds like a pro-commie, anti-bourgeoisie/anti-free market attitude to me.  But, I digress…

On Feb. 23, James, who has denied having a “personal vendetta” against Trump despite remarks suggesting otherwise, posted flatly, “$464,576,230.62.”

“+$114,553.04,” she added in another post the next day, referring to the potential added interest Trump may be on the hook for.

Donald Trump has appealed the ruling, filing in the New York State of Appeals.

The verdict, which also violates the “excessive fines” natural right as enumerated in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Section 5 of the New York State Constitution

(§5. Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor shall
cruel and unusual punishments be inflicted, nor shall witnesses be unreasonably
detained.)

…is regarding a case that names no victims, and shakes up the objectivity of New York business and legal rules; which New York Governor Kathy Hochul sent a message out to other businesses to assure them they are fine as long as they aren’t Trump

“New York and Letitia James is in the face of New York corporate law,” claims Legal Scholar Jonathan Turley.

Now we find out if all of the justices in New York are criminals seeking to side with the Democrats, or if the rule of law still has some sort of meaning in the State and the illegal verdict established by Engoron will be overturned.  If not, I am guessing the appeals will keep on going, and in the end it will all be overturned, or at worst become a federal case that Trump can pardon once he is in the White House again, should that become a reality.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

25-trump-flag.w1200.h630.1x
By Douglas V. Gibbs

As the 2024 Election Season approached former President Donald J. Trump was hit with 91 charges for various criminal allegations.  While the big ones, according to the talking heads of the media, were insurrection and attempting to overturn an election, technically none of the indictments were specifically regarding those alleged crimes.  His political enemies are practicing a game of “death by a thousand cuts.”  As Trump has worked to navigate the weaponized legal minefield thrown at him, he made a statement that the press has gone nuts over.  He has claimed he has presidential immunity.  None of the charges against him, as a result, are legal.

The questions at hand, then, are simple.  Is Trump correct?  Does he have presidential immunity?  Does the United States Constitution address such an issue?

The answers are “yes,” “yes,” and “yes.”

As an instructor regarding the Constitution I had never really looked at this issue, before.  I am very familiar with the clause that relates to Trump’s immunity question, but had never recognized it as a clause regarding immunity, before.  I never had to.  This is unprecedented.  Never before in the history of this country have we had a former president attacked with multiple lawsuits while out of office, and while celebrated as the leading candidate in the next Presidential Election.  Typically, in history, if a President of the United States serves two terms, they are back-to-back.  Only once, prior to Trump, did the occasion of divided terms emerge.  Grover Cleveland was the only President to leave office after serving four years only to return for a second term four years later.  He was the 22nd President from 1885-1889, and the 24th President from 1893-1897.  A bachelor going in, Cleveland married 21-year-old Frances Folsom in 1886, making him also the only President to get married while serving as President.

Cleveland was the first Democrat elected to office after the end of The War Between the States.  Today, Cleveland would probably feel more comfortable in the Republican Party.  He pursued policies barring special favors between government and economic groups, writing, “Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.”

Barring Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 635 vetoes, Cleveland vetoed more legislative bills than any other President with 584.  While liked by both parties, Cleveland’s attitude was that government’s job was to interfere as little as possible with the private sector, and the daily lives of the citizens of the United States, often placing him at odds with proposed legislation.  He challenged big money, angered the railroads by investigating their government grants of real estate, forcing them to return 81,000,000 acres, and in 1887 he called for Congress to reduce tariffs.  Never once during his presidency did he hesitate to do what he thought needed to be done, because at no point was he worried that his political opponents might go after him legally after he departed from office.

Could you imagine how carefully a President of the United States would need to step if upon the end of his term as President knew the vultures populating his opposition would be ready to strike with lawsuit after lawsuit to destroy him?

From a judicial standpoint immunity has been ruled upon a number of times.  In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the President has absolute immunity from civil damages regarding conduct within the “outer perimeter” of his duties.  Clinton v. Jones (1997), however, disallows immunity for suits arising regarding conduct by the individual prior to taking office as President of the United States.

Three Presidents have been criminally investigated while in office, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.  Only Trump, however, has been pursued prosecutorially after leaving office.  Nixon would have been, one might suggest, but about a month after taking office President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, granting, “a full, free, and absolute pardon…for all offenses against the United States…committed or may have committed or taken part in.”  The pardon likely saved Nixon from protracted and expensive legal battles that would have likely never found impartial juries.

The United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is where the real hammer against going after a President lies.  At the end of Article I, Section 3 the Constitution discusses punishment for conviction of impeachment, and the language provided is clear:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 Impeachment is a political trial.  If an individual is convicted of an impeachment, they are not walked out of office in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit.  According to the clause in Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution the worse punishment if convicted by impeachment is removal from office and the inability to hold office ever again.  Criminal punishment may only be handed out after a criminal conviction in a criminal court (civil would be the same).  And, the clause clearly states that in order to be pursued criminally they must first be convicted by the Senate in an impeachment case for the same offense.  The clause is in Article II, so it is specifically regarding the President of the United States.

The good news for Trump is that because he was charged (impeached), but not convicted, immunity covers his entire presidency.  The good news for Biden is that based on the constitutional argument regarding immunity, if he is able to escape impeachment during his time in office he will also be immune from subsequent criminal prosecution.

The reality is, if we are to follow the text of the United States Constitution, every single criminal charge levied against Donald Trump regarding actions he took while President of the United States is unconstitutional, and all of the weaponization of the judicial system against the man needs to legally stop this instant.  Unfortunately, we are dealing with authoritarian tyrants who could care less about the law, nor the Constitution, so the prosecutorial witch-hunt against Trump will continue…illegally.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary