Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Perhaps we should change the name of the Democratic Party to the “Criminal Party.” After all, they have revealed with their policies, political positions and activities that they are all about acting criminally and protecting criminals. We know that they were willing to stand side-by-side with the Cultural Marxists lawlessly calling for defunding the police, and in many localities worked to carry out that kind of madness. We’ve seen leftist judges and laws in places like deep-blue California working to reduce penalties for breaking the law, reducing jail time for those already incarcerated, and even letting out of jail not only “non-violent” offenders, but also violent offenders who operate among the worst of the worst when it comes to the world of criminality. President Joe Biden’s shameful pardons released a number of criminals, and reduced the death penalties of nearly all federal death row inmates to life in prison without parole. The Democrats have harbored criminals, they act as criminals, and do everything they can to protect their criminal friends and family – even willing to act criminally to do so in the first place (Hunter Biden suddenly comes to mind). And, they have done all they can to allow criminal illegal aliens into this country, and to shield those criminals from paying any consequences regarding their criminal activity, even if that activity is the murder of American Citizens – a brutal defiance of American Law and the lives of the innocent.
Laken Riley was murdered by an illegal alien from Venezuela. Jose Antonio Ibarra was found guilty on all ten counts in the murder of the twenty-two year old nursing student, facing life in prison.
Laken would likely be alive today if the policies of the Biden Administration and the Democratic Party did not go out of their way to protect criminal aliens. We have been subject to open borders, and sanctuary states and cities where local Democratic policies have harbored criminal aliens by refusing to allow local law enforcement to communicate and coordinate with federal immigration officials. Ibarra, a beneficiary of misguided Democratic Party policies, was released by authorities after he committed crimes prior to Laken’s murder.
In addition to their ill-conceived and foolish immigration policies, the Democratic Party’s version of “bail reform” has also proven to be a massive failure; endangering residents and allowing career criminals to roam the streets and commit crimes again and again without any significant consequences.
Ibarra, the murderer of Laken Riley, had been arrested on two felony charges. His criminal activity should already have, at the very minimum, prompted serious scrutiny of the risk he posed to others. Considering that he was an illegal alien, the offenses should have also triggered a process that would have led to him being deported out of the country and tagged for arrest and deportation should he find his way back into the country. But, federal open border policies of the Biden Administration, and New York State’s sanctuary and bail reform laws, made sure any prosecution was declined and that Ibarra continued to remain in the country without any accountability, walking the streets without any legal interference, and that there was no monitoring of his compliance with the conditions of his release thanks to the absence of secured bail.
With no consequences, he was free to continue to commit crimes, and hunt innocent victims. Meanwhile, President Biden and his Democratic friends hammer their GOP counterparts for calling for border security and seeking to carry out immigration laws on the books. Meanwhile, President Biden has provided Presidential Medals of Freedom to those like George Soros and Hillary Clinton who have been pushing these policies, and funding them with their foundations.
How many more lives must be snuffed out before the United States takes action to make sure the criminal element isn’t out there operating lawlessly without consequence? How many more parents must lose their children, grappling with the details of the horrific murder of their loved ones when their children, such as in the case of Laken Riley, should not have even been at that kind of risk in the first place? Sure, with Trump elected the security at the border will change for the better, but how do we ensure that the rogue Democratic Party prosecutors around the country operate to enforce criminal laws and ensure that victims are not left out to dry, or that more victims do not suffer the same as did Laken Riley?
In an attempt to begin the process to fix the problem, the GOP=controlled House of Representatives recently voted to pass the Laken Riley Act. The law, if the bill passes the Senate and gets signed by the President, prioritizes the arrest of some criminal illegal aliens such as those who commit theft offenses, and would enable the federal government to bypass unconstitutional sanctuary ordinances. Every Republican voted in favor of the bill, and 48 Democrats voted in support of the bill. The bill had been reintroduced in the House after having passed the same chamber in March of 2024, with only 37 Democrats supporting it last year. However, the Senate led by the Democrats at the time failed to take up the measure. This time, however, the bill has a better chance with not only a GOP majority in the Senate, but with Democratic Senator John Fetterman co-sponsoring the bill. Granted, with the cloture rule in place in the Senate, despite a Republican majority in the Senate with the GOP holding 53 seats, the bill would require 60 votes to achieve cloture and have the opportunity to pass.
The concern of this writer is that 159 Democrats opposed the bill to begin with. How is it that any American, much less an official in the federal legislature, could bring themselves to vote against deporting illegal aliens who commit violent crimes against Americans? Were these Democrats not paying attention to the voice of We the People when Donald Trump once again achieved victory largely because of his illegal immigration policies and the GOP who supports such policies won to keep or achieve a majority in each House of Congress? If you’ll remember, Biden’s biggest concern over the murder of Laken Riley is that the term “illegal immigrant” was used when describing the status of her killer. Are you kidding me?
According to the Daily Signal, Freshman Congressman and member of the House of Representatives Addison McDowell for whom this was his first piece of legislation he was able to vote on as a sitting member of Congress said regarding the bill, “Laken Riley would be alive today if the Biden administration had prioritized the safety of our citizens over their open-borders agenda. This bill is an important step in making sure something like this never happens again.”
Shamefully, Democrats like Representative Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., who chose to vote against the legislation, bashed the bill for requiring ICE to arrest and detain illegal aliens who are “merely charged with committing an act of theft or shoplifting,” adding that the bill is “pernicious and absurd.” Nadler did not even mention the fact that these “immigrants” he was claiming to protect had broken the law also by crossing the border illegally in the first place, as Laken Riley’s murderer did, which is also a crime in itself.
Why, one might ask, would these Democrats vote against the Laken Riley Act? Could it be that they support letting criminals walk the streets without facing any consequences for their lawless actions? And how is it they can’t seem to separate in their minds the difference between immigrants who legally go through immigration protocols, and those who are gaming the system and crossing illegally only to commit crimes inside the United States without any fear of consequences thanks to Democratic Party policies? My non-lefty colleagues may argue that the Democrats stand against such common sense legislation because the Democrats want the illegal aliens voting in elections. But, I believe it goes much deeper than that.
If you’ll remember, back in 2019 the United States Supreme Court took up the question regarding if there should be a box to mark for citizen on the U.S. Census. Ultimately, the real question was, “Should illegal aliens be counted towards apportionment in the House of Representatives?”
In Article I, and in the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution states that population counted for the purpose of apportionment must not include “Indians not taxed.” Why? Indians not taxed were not to be counted because they were not citizens. Only citizens were to be counted for the purpose of apportionment because those are the persons who legally vote and are being represented in the House of Representatives. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the box asking citizenship status on the census is unconstitutional. Therefore, all persons in the United States are being counted regarding apportionment. Since illegal aliens largely flock to the cities and blue areas of the country, what this does is make sure that more Democratic Party seats in the House of Representatives are available to be filled by leftwing Democrats. We might ask ourselves, would the GOP majority be as narrow as it is in the House of Representatives if Blue States were not benefitting from counting illegal aliens which boosts how many seats they have in Congress? California only lost one seat in the House after the last census. How many more seats would States like California lose if illegal aliens were not counted towards apportionment?
159 Democrats opposed the bill in the House of Representatives, and the Democrats in general oppose the Laken Riley Act, because it further erodes their power. Democrats are all about power, and are willing to break the law, allow lives to be destroyed, and violate the Constitution to keep it. So, they do things like oppose the Laken Riley Act, and destroy the lives of people they falsely claim are insurrectionists, to protect their narratives and preserve their power. They were willing to attempt to destroy the life of Donald Trump, as well as the January 6ers, for power. And, as we have seen in their opposition to the Laken Riley Act, they are even willing to continue to support the wholesale slaughter of Americans at the hands of criminal illegal aliens in an attempt to protect their precious power in Congress.
The actions of Democrats regarding their failure to enforce immigration policy, secure the border, and stand against the Laken Riley Act are shameful, destructive, and considering the terrorists and Chinese Nationals crossing the border as well thanks to their policies – Treasonous.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During the Constitutional Convention, when the delegates began meeting on May 25, 1787 in a room at Philadelphia’s State House (which, today, we call Independence Hall), sentries were posted at the closed doors and windows because they were sure the people would not understand the debates, and be fearful of the constant changes of the document and to keep their “secrets from flying out.” The members of the convention swore a vow to not reveal to anyone the words being spoken and the actions being taken. The convention was rigorous, and while some delegates departed, with a few of them returning later, the majority of the delegates met nearly every day for four months, taking once only an eleven-day break.
The first draft of the Constitution was completed and printed in August of 1787. The document was printed with wide margins so that the delegates could make notes in the margins. Then, the Framers went back to work and did not produce the final official printed version until a month later.
The Preamble on the first draft changed significantly by the time it reappeared on the final draft. As with the other sections of the Constitution, the committee wrote the section as they felt was proper, and then it was presented to the floor for debate, and suggestions for alteration should there be any. The “Committee of Style,” headed by Gouverneur Morris, presented the final draft of the Preamble in September of 1787. The introduction to the Constitution, which it was agreed would not be legally binding as would be the rest of the Constitution, began with awkward phrasing and stilted language. This was nothing new, for the whole document had originally been twenty-three articles, and through diligent work had been condensed into seven articles.
The early draft of the Preamble, for example, began with “We the People of the States of,” and then named each and every State. The phrase was changed to “We the People of the United States.” The final draft was intended to have a more unified vision, and was intended to be presented with emotional force.
The purpose of the Preamble was to introduce the Constitution, communicating its reasons for being written, and the goals that needed to be met by the new system.
While traditionally the Preamble is broken up into a beginning or introduction, six purpose clauses, and a conclusion, we can break it down further today. The aim, as some may instruct, was to outline the fundamental goals and guiding principles of the U.S. Constitution, setting the stage for the articles that follow. However, the six clauses between the introduction and the conclusion, while they are all purposes that the Framers sought, can be further broken down with the first four serving as a purpose (or reason) for the establishment of a federal government, and the final two serving as results if the new government operates as originally intended.
The Preamble is the introduction to the Constitution that lays out the general goals of the Framers. It is not legally binding, and emphasizes that the Union is ruled by the people, not a king or a dictator, or even the President of the United States.
In 1905 the United States Supreme Court agreed in their ruling of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, stating in their judicial opinion that the Preamble is not a source of federal power or individuals’ rights. Rather, federal powers are set out in the articles and amendments that follow, and our rights are enumerated in the language of the Constitution following the Preamble.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
On Tuesday multiple wildfires broke out in Southern California, so far destroying over 1,100 structures, evacuating over 180,000 residents, charring more than 30,000 acres, and taking the lives of five people. Currently, the fires are zero percent contained. Fire-fighting crews have battled the flames with limited ability to reach containment due to not only the high Santa Ana winds but because of limited water sources. The water tanks that supply the gravity fed hydrants reached such a low level that there was not enough water pressure to fight the fires in some areas. Due to the high winds and thick smoke the conditions were too dangerous to add to the fight an air assault with fire-fighting aircraft. The winds have been reaching 100 miles per hour in the mountains of the region. In Eaton Canyon where the Eaton fire is burning gusts up to 70 miles per hour have been reported. Pumper trucks equipped to draft water out of lakes and swimming pools are being brought in from other counties and states to assist the effort.
Over a thousand fire trucks have been deployed to the scene from all over the western region of the United States with tens of thousands of homes threatened by the fires, and underbrush in the hills serving as kindling to keep the mountains and forest ablaze. While critics have questioned the presence of so much underbrush, officials have assured the press that cleaning up the underbrush in a manner suggested by critics has simply not been possible.
Criticism has also been leveled against California’s authorities in regards to their response. Despite a massive fire a few weeks ago, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass went to Ghana in Africa to attend the inauguration of a politician, and Governor Gavin Newsom waited too long to relocate resources and has restricted the amount of water sent to Southern California via the aqueduct through the Central Valley claiming that the water restriction was necessary to save the Delta Smelt (a small fish that is not indigenous to the area). The Los Angeles City Council also recently cut $17.6 million from the fire department budget in an effort to gain control of their massive budget. However, the city has been spending billions of dollars on new homes and renting hotel and motel rooms for the homeless, as well as allocating funds to efforts associated with DEI policies and pushing the woke agenda in education.
On Wednesday, Governor Newsom announced that FEMA has granted federal dollars to help the effort as the governor declared a state of emergency. Governor Newsom has deployed the National Guard to assist first responders in fighting the blazes.
Evacuation traffic has been at a standstill, with the LAPD sending officers to Hollywood to help alleviate evacuation traffic. With the homes that have been evacuated empty, looters and burglars have taken advantage of the situation and are burglarizing the homes. So far, twenty individuals have been arrested by the L.A. County Sheriff for theft in evacuated areas.
I have been in touch with residents in the Inland Empire (Riverside County and parts of San Bernardino County) and for many of those in the region electricity has been cut and the residents have been told it might take a week or two before power resumes. In one case, I talked to a young man who then went to look for a generator so that he could generate electricity for his household, but was told at a number of retailers that in California the sale of gas-powered generators are no longer allowed by California law. While you can get generators that hook up to your natural gas, gas is also being cut in many areas, and remember that the current push by Democratic politicians is to eliminate natural gas. As of last night, 1.5 million people are without power throughout Southern California, with some of the areas cut purposefully to guard against sparking new fires. As far south as San Diego power has been cut for some customers, with the latest report indicating that 9,600 are without electricity service in California’s southernmost major city.
In parts of Los Angeles County, and in the City of Santa Monica, curfew orders are in effect in the evacuation areas. In Santa Monica about 2,500 households are under mandatory evacuation order, with an additional 8,338 homes under a voluntary evacuation warning. All Los Angeles schools have been closed during the emergency.
The affected areas also includes Hollywood, and potentially Beverly Hills.
Smoke from the fires have turned the sun red and has drifted all the way out to the Inland Empire where the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has declared that the air quality is at “very unhealthy” levels. Air quality is at hazardous levels in the areas at and near the fires, with the highest risk existing in Malibu and Pacific Palisades.
In Pasadena the Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center with more than 100 years of history has been destroyed, as has the Palisades Branch Public Library, the latter partially damaged during a fire in October of 2020, reopening after two years of renovation in 2022.
Included in the loss of homes are properties owned by numerous celebrities and well-known persons, as well as houses owned by Hunter Biden and Kamala Harris. Some speculation by critics of Biden and Harris have suggested that the fires may have been deliberately sparked as a way of destroying incriminating evidence that may have existed in those homes. As with the Maui Fire, heat energy weapons are being considered by some opinion writers, videographers, and podcasters as a possible culprit when it comes to asking how the fires were sparked in the first place.
President-Elect Donald Trump has stated that California’s environmental policies have prevented “millions of gallons of water” from reaching Southern California’s Los Angeles Basin, “including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way.” State policies have reduced how much water is diverted from Northern California to Southern California, and State and Federal policies require California to direct a portion of excess rain and snowmelt runoff into the ocean to protect the habitat of the delta smelt fish. When officials indicate California is suffering from drought conditions, critics are quick to point out that those conditions are man-made, and can be changed easily.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
P.S. Additional Notes:
LA Gave Away “Surplus” Fire Fighting Equipment to Ukraine in 2022
Reminder: Hundreds of LA Firefighters Were Suspended and Terminated for Refusing the Jab
LA Fire Chief Warned Budget Cuts Would Impact Responses to Major Emergencies Weeks Before Fires
ICYMI: New LA Fire Chief Is a DIE Hire Whose Goal Is to Hire More Sexual Deviants [VIDEO]
