Political Pistachio
Mr. Constitution, Douglas V. Gibbs
First Pass
- SAVE Act
- ICE Enforcement
- California Gubernatorial Race
- Chad Bianco
- ICE
- Kneeling Controversy
- Steve Hilton
- Chad Bianco
- Polling regarding California Governor’s Race
- Polling regarding U.S. Mid-Term Elections
- Democrats vs. Republicans
| Mr. Constitution Hour KCBQ 1170 AM/96.1 FM at 8 pm and KPRZ 1210 AM/106.1 FM, Saturday at 8 pm (All Times Pacific) |
 Mr. Constitution Hour airs every Saturday Night at 8pm Pacific Time. 8:00 PM: KCBQ The Answer San Diego (https://theanswersandiego.com/) and KPRZ K-Praise (www.kprz.com) Mr. Constitution Hour on KPRZ and KCBQ is a radio broadcast that looks at The United States Constitution through the lens of Christianity. The program is hosted by Mr. Constitution Douglas V. Gibbs. This Week: Mr. Constitution Hour by Douglas V. Gibbs: Angel Moms, ICE, SAVE Act and Constitutionalism – My good friend, Angel Mom Agnes Gibboney, recently met with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and it aired on television, and her message to me when I texted her about it was, “We need more ICE, we need more deportations.” But, are the ICE operations constitutional? Why is immigration such an important issue? How does it tie to the SAVE Act and voter ID laws? Are they constitutional? Then, Doug discusses the very foundation of constitutionalism, and what it will take to preserve it. Catch past episodes at Salem San Diego’s podcast page set up for Doug at https://omny.fm/shows/douglas-v-gibbs/playlists/mr-constitution-hour-by-douglas-v-gibbs And on the following podcast platforms: I-Heart Radio Spotify Audacy Apple Tune-In Audible Amazon ListenNotes Rephonic Podchaser Ivoox And ranked among top ten best constitutional podcasts by FeedSpot. Become a Patron to Help Support the Movement |
 |
| ALERT: Be a sponsor or advertiser (contact me at constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com to discuss terms) Donate (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/douglasvgibbs) Become a $9 per month Patron Member at my website (https://www.douglasvgibbs.com/membership-account/membership-levels/) Purchase my books! Scroll down to the list and all of the links at www.navigation2liberty.com Saturday Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs” Mr. Constitution” Constitution Radio: With Doug, Alan and Dennis – KMET 1490 AM, Saturday 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Pacific http://www.kmet1490am.com |
  |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For years, America has been told that using Native American names for schools, streets, and sports teams is an act of “cultural appropriation.” The claim is repeated so often that many assume it reflects the consensus of Native communities themselves. But the truth, as expressed by Native leaders who refuse to be spoken for, is far more complex, and far more revealing.
One of the clearest voices in this debate is Frank Black Cloud, a leader within the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA). He has become a national figure precisely because he challenges the narrative that Native names and imagery are inherently offensive. His argument is simple, powerful, and deeply rooted in the lived experience of Native people:
Erasing Native names does not protect Native culture. It erases it.
Black Cloud has said publicly, including in appearances on Fox News, that the movement to purge Native names from public life is not driven by Native communities, but by activists who neither understand nor represent them. According to him, fewer than ten percent of Native Americans support the idea that respectful use of Native names is harmful. The overwhelming majority see these names as honorific, educational, and culturally sustaining.
This is the part of the story the media rarely tells.
The Paradox of “Protection”
The cultural appropriation argument claims to defend Native identity. Yet its practical effect is the opposite:
• Removing Native names from schools removes daily reminders of Native history.
• Removing Native mascots removes opportunities for students to learn about Native cultures.
• Removing Native imagery removes visibility, and visibility is the lifeblood of cultural survival.
Black Cloud calls this what it is: cultural erasure disguised as cultural sensitivity.
He argues that when a school proudly bears a Native name, it becomes a point of connection, a place where students ask questions, learn stories, and encounter a culture that predates the United States itself. When that name is stripped away, the culture doesn’t become safer. It becomes invisible.
Who Gets to Speak for Native America?
A recurring theme in Black Cloud’s advocacy is the question of representation.
Who decides what is offensive?
Who decides what is honoring?
Who decides what is erased?
For too long, the answer has been: not Native people.
Black Cloud insists that tribal voices, not academics, not activists, not distant bureaucrats, should determine what constitutes respect. And when Native communities are actually consulted, the results are strikingly consistent: they overwhelmingly support keeping Native names in public life, provided they are used with dignity.
This is not cultural appropriation.
This is cultural continuity.
The Constitutional and Cultural Stakes
From a constitutional perspective, the push to eliminate Native names raises deeper questions about free expression, historical memory, and the right of communities to honor the cultures that shaped them. A nation that erases its symbols erases its story. And a nation that erases its story erases its identity.
Black Cloud’s position aligns with a broader American principle: We do not protect culture by hiding it. We protect culture by teaching it, honoring it, and keeping it visible.
A Voice Worth Hearing
Frank Black Cloud is not a celebrity activist. He is not a political operative. He is a Native American leader speaking for his own people, and he is saying something the country needs to hear:
Representation is not the enemy. Erasure is.
In a time when America is struggling to remember who it is, voices like Black Cloud’s remind us that honoring the past is not an act of harm. It is an act of gratitude. And gratitude, unlike outrage, builds nations rather than dismantling them.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
  Patriots’ Soapbox Presents Douglas V. Gibbs LIVE Friday: 2-4 Pacific/5-7 Eastern SAVE Act, Mid-Terms, California’s Governor’s Race and other odd anomalies. https://dlive.tv/psb https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1MYxNwWbNnQKw https://patriotssoapbox.com/ Visit Doug’s Website Visit Navigation 2 Liberty |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If you watch the “man on the street” interviews circulating online, you might conclude that many Americans can’t name the three branches of government. Legislative. Executive. Judicial. It’s unfortunate when the average citizen doesn’t know this, but when an elected official doesn’t know it, the problem becomes far more serious.
These three branches exist at every level of government:
Federal Government
• Legislative: Congress (House and Senate)
• Executive: President, departments, and agencies (including the Department of Justice)
• Judicial: Federal court system
State Government
• Legislative: State legislature
• Executive: Governor, state agencies, attorney general
• Judicial: State courts
County Government
• Legislative: County governing body (Board of Supervisors, Commissioners, etc.)
• Executive: Sheriff and associated offices (Coroner, Auditor, Treasurer, Assessor, Clerk)
• Judicial: County courts
Municipal Government
• Legislative: City council
• Executive: Mayor, city manager, police chief
• Judicial: Municipal courts
The Legislative Branch creates, modifies and repeals law. The Executive Branch enforces it. The Judicial Branch applies it in the cases before it. This is middle‑school civics. Yet, many Americans can’t explain it, and, disturbingly, some officeholders can’t either.
Case in point: Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Sheriff Garry McFadden. During a legislative oversight hearing into the murder of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian immigrant killed last summer on the L train, State Representative Allen Chesser asked McFadden a foundational question: “What branch of government do you operate under?”
McFadden’s answers were astonishing.
First: “Mecklenburg County.”
Asked again: “The Constitution of the United States.”
Pressed further, he repeated “Mecklenburg County.”
Chesser then asked if McFadden even knew how many branches of government exist. McFadden admitted he did not.
When Chesser finally laid out the three branches and asked which one a sheriff belongs to, McFadden said, “judicial.”
He was wrong. As Chesser explained, sheriffs are part of the executive branch, whose job is to execute/enforce the law.
Chesser asked the question for a reason: McFadden has repeatedly stated his opposition to cooperating with ICE. Chesser wanted to know how McFadden reconciled that stance with his executive‑branch duty to enforce the law.
ICE is an executive‑branch agency. It enforces federal immigration law under the President.
Sheriffs, as county executives, are expected to cooperate with lawful enforcement actions from other levels of government.
But McFadden has decided he will not.
If a sheriff can refuse to assist ICE because he disagrees with immigration law, what stops him from refusing to enforce any other law he dislikes? Should he ignore stop‑sign violations? Should he watch bank robbers flee because bank robbery is a federal crime?
A sheriff who does not understand his own constitutional role, and refuses to carry out the duties of that role, is unfit for the office he holds.
The murder of Iryna Zarutska was not an isolated tragedy. The suspect, Decarlos Brown Jr., had been arrested more than a dozen times and had repeatedly passed through the custody of the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office and the North Carolina prison system. Legislators argue that McFadden’s soft‑on‑crime policies allowed Brown to remain free long enough to kill.
Compounding this, McFadden has refused to cooperate with ICE detainers, a direct violation of federal law. When a sheriff knowingly releases dangerous individuals who are subject to lawful federal detainment, he is not merely expressing an opinion; he is obstructing the enforcement of the law.
A law enforcement officer who intentionally allows a crime to occur, or continue, because he personally disagrees with the law can face serious civil and criminal consequences. Federal statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 provide remedies and penalties for officials who deprive individuals of their rights under color of law.
When sheriffs refuse to assist ICE in apprehending criminal aliens, or when they stand by while protesters attack federal officers, they are enabling criminal activity through deliberate inaction.
The issue is no longer whether Sheriff McFadden understands his job. His testimony makes it clear he does not. The real question is whether an elected law enforcement officer who knowingly refuses to enforce the law should remain in office, or face consequences for the unlawful actions and inactions that have already cost innocent lives.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary