al davis dead

More about the federal government's raid on Gibson Guitars

Posted by zaen Sunday, September 4, 2011 0 comments

No place in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to raid a private business like this, tell them what wood they can use. . . then again, they don't have the authority to tell us what kind of lightbulbs to use, health insurance to buy, or how much carbon a company releases.

Secondly, in this time of economic difficulties, and employment problems, why is the government going after a successful business that has been weathering the recession storm, and hiring people?

Is this more evidence of how much the liberal left hates success, producers, and the private sector?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Aztlan War In Next Five Years?

Posted by zaen 0 comments

Phoenix-based Nuestros Reconquistos claims that there will be a war very similar to the Civil War fought in the next five years. “La Raza and MEChA have already talked to Latinos and Phoenix and explained that Latinos need to arm themselves for war,” says Nuestros Reconquistos President Manuel Longoria.

Cecilia Maldonado of Chicanos Unidos Arizona isn’t hoping for any sort of war, but believes it may be unavoidable. “For generations, our people have prepared us to take back the lands of the Southwest that were stolen from our Mexican ancestors. Because of the bad economy and many racist laws, Latinos will be forced to fight sooner than later,” says Mrs. Maldonado.

Latino groups believe they have enough people in states such as California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to successfully wage a war on the United States.

Latino group claims Aztlán war in next five years - Examiner

By the definitions set forth by Article III, Section 3, Clause 1, this is treason against the United States. Is our president responding? Is our justice department taking action against this call to levy war against the United States? They are not even willing to secure the border. . .

In fact, some of the States, and the federal government, are aiding and abetting:

Dream Act: California Embraces Anti-Arizona Role on Illegal Immigration - ABC News

Federal Government Arming The Drug Cartels: Evidence Suggests Cover-Up in ATF Scandal, as More Guns Appear at Crime Scenes - Fox News

Memo outlines backdoor ‘amnesty’ plan: Immigration staffers cite tools available without reform - Washington Times

Obama Administration Will Not Deport Illegal Immigrants, Granting “Backdoor Amnesty”?? - MSNBC

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Praise for Douglas V. Gibbs and his Constitution Speaker radio program

Posted by zaen 0 comments

After Saturday's show with guest Arkady Faktorovich, the following words of praise were directed at yours truly:

"That was a good show, your best yet." - Joe the Engineer

"You suck, I can't believe they let rightwingers like you on the air!" - Carl of San Bernardino

"You sound better than Rush." - Virginia of Murrieta

"You remind me of Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, when you talk about the Constitution." - Ed of Murrieta

"How do you find these guests? They are fantastic." Dee of Mead Valley

"I seeeeee you." - Ken of Montclair

"I've learned more from you in a few weeks about the Constitution then in my entire life in the educational system." - Hank of Ontario

"We've been trying to shut you up for years, and someone wants to pay you to talk? Go figure." - Randy of Corona (my brother)

"You are very professional about your radio show." Travis of Temecula

"You are my favorite Pistachio." Member of Riverside Country Democrat Party Central Committee.

"I enjoy your show." - Kevin of Temecula

"Spiffy hat!" - Paul "Prying 1" of Inglewood

All these folks can't be wrong!! I am a thorn in the side of the hard-left liberals, and haters of the Constitution, and loved by all of the other listeners. Are you missing the shows?

Check out all of the archived podcasts HERE

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Article V. Convention subject of today's Constitution Speaker Radio!

Posted by zaen 0 comments

Join us today at 2pm Pacific on KCAA 1050AM radio (KCAAradio.com) for a conversation with Bill Walker of the Friends of Article V. Convention to discuss the importance of this tool on our tool belt of taking back the country, and the dangerous misconceptions our there regarding an Article V. Convention that includes the argument that a "Con-Con will enable them to rewrite the Constitution."

Choosing your Battles - Was The 16th Amendment Properly Ratified?

Posted by zaen 0 comments

In an ongoing Email conversation regarding whether or not the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was properly ratified, a reader of Political Pistachio and listener of my Constitution Study radio program, has become quite bothered by my style of teaching in the sense that he believes I have left out critical information regarding the notion that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. The following is my latest response to this person:

David,

I read the material in the links you sent me, though I have not read the books your recommended. I am fully aware of the notion that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. I even say, often, while talking about the ratification of the 16th Amendment, that it was "allegedly" ratified. Reality is, however, whether or not it was properly ratified, that the 16th Amendment is in force, and we have an income tax. The battle to prove it was not properly ratified, I believe, is a losing battle. The goal must be to change income tax, reform income tax, and eventually repeal the 16th Amendment.

You are welcome to continue your fight to bring to the attention of America your theories, and I am aware that the direct taxation the 16th Amendment unleashed was against the original intent of the Founding Fathers. However, nobody will be convinced to eliminate the 16th Amendment until it becomes no longer necessary. That, my friend, can only be accomplished by reducing federal spending to constitutional levels. If the federal government only spent as allowed by the Constitution, spending would be about 5% of GDP. Prior to 1913, spending was about 2-3% GDP. We also have to remember that the 16th Amendment, according to the proponents of that time period, said (to convince those against it to change their votes) that it would be voluntary, and temporary.

As much as things change, things stay the same.

I do appreciate your passion, I did read the material you sent, and I am fully aware of the opinion the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. And this is not the first time amendments have been played with. The original 13th Amendment, for example, was ratified, and in full force, and then suddenly vanished (interestingly enough about a decade before the formation of the American Bar Association). We didn't even know about the existence of that amendment until researchers happened across it when they found an old 1825 Constitution in a library in Maine in 1983. The amendment made illegal titles of preference, for one, which would eliminate the title of "your honor" given to judges, or "esquire" for lawyers. It also would not allow rules such as that only lawyers can run for District Attorney. The amendment was written on the idea that we are all created equal, and nobody (including lawyers and judges) should be able to receive preferential treatment, or have titles of preference.

That was then, this is now. When it comes to the old 13th Amendment, or the 16th Amendment, we must use the tools available to us to make the changes necessary. I believe that though the argument the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified may very well be a valid argument, the way to eliminate the income tax is a very different path.

Thank you for the feedback, and listening to my Constitution Study radio program.

Oh, by the way, I find it interesting that you rightly conclude the courts do not have the authority to "interpret" the Constitution, and then turn around and use the Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Co 157 U.S. 429,558 (1895) and the Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co. 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916) case to validate your argument. The courts can declare something unconstitutional, but it is only opinion by the courts. Laws cannot be struck down unless done legislatively. Regardless of Constitutionality prior to 1913, and regardless of any court cases where judges say anything to the contrary, the fact that there is an amendment to the Constitution makes the income tax, as wrong as the concept of a direct tax is and as against the founders the concept of a direct income tax is, constitutional. . . or at least in the eyes of the system that does not buy into your argument that the thing was not properly ratified. They, the establishment, even with proof that cannot be refuted, will never accept your argument. As I said earlier, I do not believe that is the right path for restoring our Constitution. Though a mere mention of the theory the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified in my teaching of the Constitution sometimes arises, I do not believe spending a lot of time on the questions concerning the ratification of the 16th Amendment will help the average person who knows little to nothing about the Constitution is going to be helpful in assisting the average person to understand the Constitution as a whole.

Blessings,

Douglas V. Gibbs

www.douglasvgibbs.com

www.politicalpistachio.com