Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Welcome Home. Never Forget. Thank you for your service.
The average person does not understand the commitment our service members make when they take the oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution, and the United States of America. I don’t know about today’s generation, but my generation took it very seriously. While in the service of the United States Navy I worked harder than I ever have since, and got the least amount of sleep per night than I have ever experienced. I was young. I went into the U.S. Navy at eighteen, and worked my way up to Petty Officer Third Class (E-4) before being discharged just a few months before my EAOS (End of Active Obligated Service) with service-connected injuries. I earned two Battle Efficiency (Battle E) ribbons. On my first ship, even though I was a personnelman, because the ship’s office was full of personnel, I was a low-ranking recruit so l performed duties on the mess decks and “four-hours-on-and-fours-fours-off” underway watches with the deck apes.
I Look back in amazement over how many duties I had to carry out in addition to even that. The military pushes an individual to limits he never thought he could achieve. It was very hard, to say the least. But, as a member of your unit, you don’t even hesitate when it comes to accomplishing those tasks. I just did it, because it was the right thing to do, and because that’s a part of what you signed up for.
I was injured while serving on my first command, and I was told I would never go back to full duty, walk normally again, or be able to mentally comprehend the rigors of my duties due to the traumatic brain injury I had incurred. After for months of rigorous physical therapy I went back to full duty, this time aboard the USS Peoria, LST-1183, seemingly fully recovered and ready to roll. After a year or so, one of my injuries began to haunt me again, and then I was placed on limited duty status, again, but this time as a path to an administrative medical discharge.
Yesterday my wife and I visited the Museum of military vehicles in Dubois, Wyoming and at that amazing location we saw incredible depictions of what our War veterans experienced throughout the history of this exceptional country.
My wife and I cried while experiencing some of the dioramas. She asked me about the term, “Veteran.”
A veteran, I explained, is anyone who took the oath to serve, and spent any amount of time on active duty. There are different kinds of veterans. We have Veterans of Foreign Wars, we have peacetime veterans, and veterans who fill all kinds of slots in between. While, in my case, we had a few entanglements with the Soviet Union, and in the Persian Gulf, because there was no official military operation going on, I am officially a peacetime veteran. I served during the mid-eighties, falling short of my four years by just a few months. I also explained to my wife that the percentage of those who serve is very low. According to the Veteran’s Affairs Office, only 7.3 percent of all living Americans have served in the military at some point in their lives. That’s approximately one in every thirteen people.
Today is Veteran’s Day. . . an opportunity for us to thank those few who were willing to take that oath.
The birth of Veteran’s Day goes back to the end of World War I in 1918. The Allied powers signed a cease-fire agreement with Germany at Rethondes, France on Nov. 11, 1918, bringing World War I to a close.
Between the two world wars, Nov. 11 was commemorated as Armistice Day in the United States, Great Britain, and France. After World War II ended, the holiday was recognized as a day of tribute to the veterans of both world wars.
Beginning in 1954, the United States designated Nov. 11 as Veterans Day to honor veterans of all U.S. wars.
Veterans have a special understanding of sacrifice, challenges, and gaining opportunity out of situations that seem otherwise to be a dire circumstance.
During my term of military service, and after, I have seen my share of hardships, and difficulties. While I was in the military my injuries should have made me dead, but thanks to some very hard working medical personnel, I was given the opportunity to live again. As I stated, I worked my way back to full duty, and served on a second sea-going command. I, then, worked even harder to reestablish myself, to restore my dignity, and prove to everyone that I was fine. My evaluations rose to 4.0. On the USS Peoria I won the May 1987 Sailor of the Month Award, and later was runner-up for the Command Advancement Program. I not only worked in my rate, but also on the fire team, the security team, flight operations, amphibious operations, and I moved from Damage Control to The Bridge during General Quarters.
Now, so many years later, no matter how much I try to make it look like those injuries from when I was in the service do not affect me, they do. I try not to grumble. I try to remember that these are simply the storms of life. Each of my scars have a story. I earned them. But I am also a believer that it’s not right to beat one’s chest. People who accomplish should not spend their lives pointing at themselves for what they’ve done. Without God, none of it would have been possible. I believe most veterans are the same as I in the way they think about their time in military service. In my eyes they are heroes, but they will shrug and simply say, “I was just doing my job.”
Our service taught us that life is full of storms, and through them we learn, we strengthen, and sometimes opportunity arises out of these difficult storms. In all things there is potential for opportunity.
As a patient in the Veteran’s Administration system, the VA has been little influence in my life. After Reagan, they dealt with me as little as they had to. What has been amazing to me is that suddenly, during the presidency of Donald J. Trump, dealing with VA became a pleasure. It used to be that I had to go through three administrators to get to a doctor. It used to be that unless what was ailing me had a direct connection to my injuries, they were not interested in seeing me. The VA, under the Trump as President of the United States, became more in tune with the needs of our veterans, and they were even bending over backwards to make sure we receive the care we need. Under the Biden administration service declined again at the Veterans Administration, but now that Trump is returning to office I am looking forward to it improving again.
Among my military brethren we have a brotherhood the civilians don’t understand. It is in a sense, a fraternity of veteran brothers. We all took the same oath. We were, and are, committed to this country, and the service we were voluntarily willing to partake in. We have unwavering loyalty to our country that was founded on the firm foundation of divine Providence. While in the military, thanks to that service, as a young man I learned to understand the true meaning of honor, and what it was like to have an entire command of brothers. The training was fierce, and the hours would never have been acceptable in the world outside the military. It was grueling. It took everything I had to accomplish what I did.
It was more than I expected when I originally took that oath, and I was more than happy to partake in the rigorous duties.
As members of the American military we fought for every American’s freedom, and in the latest years, I have been very happy to see Americans become a very loud voice for America. A voice for liberty. A voice for freedom. In short, it’s nice to be thanked, and know that the folks thanking me truly mean it.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During the recent presidential election the Democratic Party tried to make a large part of the campaign about the issue of abortion. They put out the entire spread of arguments they use, and then some, promising that they would preserve the “right to an abortion,” and that Donald J. Trump, if elected President, would seek a national ban on the practice.
Trump has taken a very constitutional stance on the issue, arguing that it is up to the States. That is, after all, what the 2021 ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson concluded, after all.
The abortion debate has been a constant one as long as I remember, and recently a friend of mine asked for help regarding a debate she was having with a friend who did not see abortion in the same way she did. Her opponent argued that abortion is about privacy, not abortion. Her friend also threw in the usual arguments like that it puts pregnant mothers at risk if the fetus cannot survive, and leaving the issue to the States will leave women who want abortions who live in anti-abortion States in a dangerous position and needing to be flown to other States to “receive the care they need.” Therefore, “there must be some sort of national law codifying the right to have an abortion.”
Abortion is not a new issue. The Founding Fathers discussed abortion, recognizing it to be against the rule of law. James Wilson, Signer of the U.S. Constitution, and defender of the Constitution at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, wrote: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”
In ancient Rome, after the republic became an empire, and as internal decay was leading the once great society towards its ruin, morality had become an afterthought. Wrong became right, and right became wrong. Abortion became legal up to the age of two years of age. A couple, if they decided they did not want their baby for any reason, could legally leave a child under two years of age in the window or on the side of the road to die from the elements. Underground Christians were fined, and often jailed, for stealing the babies away in an effort to save their lives.
When my friend asked me about the abortion issue, and what might be a few ways to defend her position, I immediately responded that arguing abortion is more complex than people realize, and any stance against abortion cannot be argued through a series of basic sound-bytes. The problem is those who support abortion, and those who stand against it, don’t speak the same language; not only literally through their tongue, but the two sides don’t even follow the same premises regarding the issue in their hearts and souls. One side believes that a baby is a person, while the other claims fails to recognize the personhood of unborn babies. If an unborn baby is indeed a person, then their death by the hands of a doctor or anyone else is murder, and violates that person’s right to life as per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. One side believes our rights are God-given which would mean abortion couldn’t possibly by a natural right, while the other believes abortion is a fundamental reproductive right and that it must be guaranteed and protected at any cost by government. One side believe that abortion is none of the federal government’s business and that the issue must be left up to the States to decide, while the other side believes it is not only a federal issue but that by leaving it to the States women will die. Then, along with all of that, there are varying degrees of beliefs regarding the issue, from believing that abortion is wrong no matter what, or that abortion should be legal all the way up to the day of birth.
For many Americans the presence of abortion in our society is a symptom of the fact that our culture is suffering from decline. It represents a failure of our people holding on to their virtuous values and principles. How can one even begin to defend the destruction of the lives of over 63 million children since the advent of Roe v. Wade, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI)?
Those who support the institution of abortion argue that it was settled law until a rogue Supreme Court decided to upend it in 2021 with the Dobbs v. Jackson decision.
Let’s begin there. Was abortion the law of the land, as the supporters of Roe v. Wade argued?
Law is something that must be established by the legislative process. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that all legislative powers belong to Congress, therefore, the Courts have no legal authority to establish law. That was the argument of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling – the court may not establish law, and there is no delegation in the Constitution granting to the federal government any authority over the power to establish any law regarding abortion in the first place. The Enumeration Doctrine holds that only powers expressly enumerated in the Constitution are granted to the U.S. Government, and since abortion is not mentioned as a power anywhere in the Constitution, including in any amendments, the power as per the Tenth Amendment belongs to the States.
The ruling by the Supreme Court in Dobbs was accurate.
But, what about the right to privacy?
When abortion became an issue just prior to the Roe v. Wade case, the practice was generally viewed by the general public as being wrong – the murder of an unborn person. In order to even get the court system to consider overturning laws against abortion they needed to convince the judges that abortion was a constitutional right – so, they devised that it was a right to privacy.
The concept of a right to privacy stems from Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, a case that had nothing to do with medical procedures, and instead was regarding one’s personal records. The right to be left alone by government is a long-standing American belief, and is an important component of liberty. Government is told that it has no authority to interfere with the rights of Americans in a number of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Court determined that based on their interpretation the Constitution implies a “zone of privacy.” The problem is, as already stated in this article, the original intent of the United States Constitution is that in order to possess a power the federal government must be expressly authorized by the Constitution to have that power. The right to privacy is nowhere in the text of the document, and it is a stretch to include abortion under the definition of the right to privacy as provided by the courts.
The right to privacy argument has elevated abortion to the same level of the freedom of speech, trial by jury, and the right to be secure in one’s person, home, papers, and effects. As far as the proponents of abortion are concerned, abortion ranks right up there with any and all other American bedrock principles. Gloria Feldt, a former president of Planned Parenthood, has proclaimed that abortion is a “guaranteed basic human right…a right as intrinsic as the right to breathe and to walk, to work and to think, to speak our truths, to thrive, to learn, and to love.” Anyone who opposes abortion, therefore, seeks to undermine and threaten the constitutional rights of women.
Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote the majority opinion regarding Roe v. Wade, wrote:
As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather. . . . .
What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. …
The proof of Roe’s failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women’s rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.
- Lazarus, “The Lingering Problems of Roe v. Wade,” Oct. 03, 2002, available at
https://writ.findlaw.com/lazarus/2002/1003.html.
In other words, the ruling exceeded its constitutional authority; and as Dobbs v. Jackson later determined, neither guaranteeing the right to privacy, nor abortion, is expressly enumerated in the Constitution as an authority of the federal government.
As for calling abortion a woman’s “reproductive right,” abortion is not akin to childrearing or child-production; it’s child destruction that not only kills an unborn child, but negates a man’s role in bringing children into the world, relegating him to only being the potential fertilizer of an ovum. A right to privacy might be able to be argued to cover one’s private sexual behavior that would result in producing a child, but the destruction of a child is hardly something that occurs outside of the view of others. And if one wishes to argue the point that there are occasions that abortion is necessary because of the hardships of raising unwanted children, there is a non-lethal means to resolve the same “problem.” Adoption.
Ryan T. Anderson, co-author of a book published by Regnery titled “Tearing Us Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing” explains that abortion has also been used to anchor the feminist argument about “equality.” Anderson suggests that “besides the physical, emotional, and mental harm done to women by abortion, great harm is done as a result of the worldview suggesting abortion is necessary for equality.” Abortion advocates basically argue that a normal function of a woman’s body is somehow dysfunctional, and in order for her to be equal to men she needs to kill her child.
Alexandra DeSanctis, Anderson’s co-author, said that “many seem to think abortion is empowering, and she thinks that’s fueled by this underlying assumption that freedom is just participation in sex at any point with anybody with no consequences. A man can walk away without physically bearing a child, but a woman cannot without committing a violent act against her own child.”
DeSanctis challenged those who are pro-abortion by saying, “What kind of society are we if the best solution we have to any set of problems is to kill the most vulnerable people among us? If you believe abortion is necessary, think about why, and think about: ‘Are the problems that you identify that make you think abortion is the solution really solved by perpetrating violence against innocent, vulnerable human beings?’ How are any of us really better off?”
During the recent election the proponents of legalizing abortion across America told us that most Americans support that position. A Harvard/Harris poll just a couple years ago says otherwise. According to the poll, 54% of likely voters want abortion restrictions, and only 8% support abortion at any stage of pregnancy. While I believe that this country was designed to be a republic, rather than a pure democracy, the fact is that even those who claim they are the preservers of democracy don’t have the numbers on their side as they claim.
One might argue, as has a number of pro-choice advocates in recent years, and Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential election, that outlawing abortion places the lives of pregnant women at risk because doctors will be fearful to perform abortions when those cases arrive.
I spent four years on the board of a Pro-Life Pregnancy Center’s board of executives, and in all of my dealings with persons in the pro-life community it was understood that each pregnancy case must be dealt with individually – and typically when the mother’s life is at risk should the pregnancy continue, the baby will not survive the pregnancy anyway. Those pregnancies are ectopic pregnancies, which typically involves when an egg plants inside a fallopian tube, rather than the uterus. A full-term pregnancy, in those cases, will always ultimately kill both mother and child, so a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy to save the mother’s life then would be acceptable. No Pro-Life Advocate has ever argued that in those cases there should be no termination of the pregnancy when it is well-understood that if the pregnancy goes full-term both mother and child will not survive. The fact that the pro-abortion lobby is untruthful about that accusation, and is content to use a situation that is actually pretty rare in the grand scheme of things, to support the argument that abortion on demand for any reason should be legal, is disingenuous at best.
The Daily Signal reported on ectopic pregnancies and the argument by pro-abortionists that pro-life laws prevent doctors from treating those kinds of pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are when a fertilized egg attaches outside the lining of a woman’s uterus. It is a rare occurrence, happening in less than 2% of pregnancies. Medical technology is not yet able to save the baby, so the goal has become to at least save the life of the mother. Doctors are fully away that an ectopic pregnancy termination is not an abortion, and the laws the pro-abortion lobby is screaming about recognizes that fact. An abortion is the intentional, unnatural procedure that kills the baby in the womb that would otherwise be able to progress and develop to a successful life birth if left alone. The termination of an ectopic pregnancy is a medical procedure that must be performed to save the life of the mother. The claims that women fear going to the doctor to end an ectopic pregnancy in States where anti-abortion laws are in place are simply not true. There are no laws in any State that denies a woman’s needed medical care for an ectopic pregnancy. In all States, even those with the strictest anti-abortion laws, removing an ectopic pregnancy is legal, and not considered abortion.
Regardless of which side of the aisle one might reside on, the reality is that the topic of abortion is serious business and is not something that should be taken lightly. Lives are involved. Mother’s lives, and the lives of the unborn children. Unfortunately, there are those on the pro-abortion side that might not agree with that statement. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky CEO, Betty Cockrum, said, “the mood of the abortion industry is total misery…it’s just no fun anymore. It just gets harder by the day. That’s tough.”
No fun anymore? Was Ms. Cockrum suggesting that the abortion of unborn lives is fun when it is not hindered by any opposition?
When Donald Trump first emerged on the scene in 2016, the abortion rate had fallen to the lowest level it had been since Roe v. Wade in 1973, so for pro-abortionists like Cockrum there was indeed cause for alarm, not just because it might get in the way of their fun of killing babies, but because abortion as a business needs the numbers to keep going up.
The business of abortion, we have learned, goes way pass the claim that it is all about reproductive rights. Last year the University of Pittsburgh was discovered to have been “illegally harvesting fetal tissue from aborted babies for experimentation.” Dr. Warren Hern at his clinic in Boulder, Colorado has been carrying out late stage abortions for decades. The film, “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” put on the big screen the story about Kermit Barron Gosnell who provided illegal late-term abortions at his clinic in West Philadelphia. He was later convicted of the murders of three infants who were born alive after using drugs to induce labor. One woman under his care died during an abortion procedure, and he covered up the death. When his clinic was investigated the visiting detectives found the feet of aborted babies in jars, saved as trophies by Gosnell. Earlier this year a memorial service for five infants killed under the services of Gosnell was held, and members of Congress have called for transparency regarding the issue.
Why would doctors perform late-term abortions like that?
Undercover journalists working with James O’Keefe in 2015 posted a video during which a Planned Parenthood doctor admitted using partial-birth abortions to sell baby body parts. Late term abortions work best because the body parts are more developed. Rather than being exposed at the party of death, the leftist political establishment attacked James O’Keefe for exposing them for selling baby body parts, the courts turned against the whistle-blowers and sent those who exposed the sickening crimes of Planned Parenthood to jail. The whole thing was so ridiculous that even the left-wing Los Angeles Times agreed that the charges and legal attack against the undercover journalists was uncalled for, and politically motivated.
Then, there’s the harm that abortion causes that goes way beyond the killing of the baby. When I was on the board for the pro-life pregnancy center, one of the issues was that young girls were popping the Plan-B pill like tic-tacs. Not only are these girls self-sterilizing their bodies, but in many cases they would take the pills later in the pregnancy and then abort the child and be horrified upon viewing the little body with arms and legs and fingers and toes that had fallen into the toilet, or wherever else the self-induced miscarriage occurred.
According to a recent study regarding Danish medical records, there is a 50% increased risk of the need for a woman to seek out psychiatric treatment during the year following a first abortion. The elevated risk was highest (87% increased risk) for personality and behavioral disorders. The numbers regarding the mental health of a woman after an abortion far exceeded any mental health needs by a woman after a live birth. Women have become so desensitized regarding killing their babies that every once in a while we’ll see horrifying stories about babies left for dead after birth.
Elizabeth Warren has argued that pro-lifers claim they care about life before birth, but could care less after birth. That, also, is a lie. For example, the pro-life pregnancy center I worked with provided resources for young mothers who had changed their minds about abortion thanks to the work of the counselors at the center for the first couple years. Providing such services is a norm at the pro-life pregnancy resource centers around the country. These centers offer diapers and other needed products, medical testing, parenting classes, ultrasounds, maternity homes, and job training referrals – typically at no cost, or very little cost.
Ultrasounds are the biggest help in changing a woman’s mind about having an abortion. While pro-abortion advocates try to convince people that an unborn pregnancy is nothing more than a blob of tissue, or just a group of undeveloped cells, the reality is that the baby is formed rather quickly, and at 21 days the heart begins beating – a reality detectable within about six weeks of the pregnancy. When a woman receives an ultrasound, and she sees the moving child within her belly on the screen, it becomes a very powerful moment. California’s purveyors of killing unborn children realize the effectiveness of the ultrasound, and has actually worked to outlaw pro-life pregnancy centers from being allowed to provide that service.
Although the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal taxpayer funding for most abortions, federal dollars pour into Planned Parenthood every year. Pro-abortion forces in Washington D.C. are now targeting the 1976 law, calling for it to be eliminated and for there to be no limit on federal funds being used on abortions. Kamala Harris planned to try to eliminate the filibuster to make it happen should she become President of the United States, but the election of Donald Trump has stopped that from becoming a reality.
On my radio programs I have suggested that abortion is simply a new version of an old barbaric practice: Child Sacrifice. Liberty Daily earlier this year released a video that explains exactly that, titling their video “There’s nothing new under the sun: Child Sacrifice never stopped.”
Seth Gruber, a leading voice in the pro-life movement, explains quite well how it is that a baby in the womb is not simply a lump of cells. He explains the science of the development of the human being inside the womb from the moment of conception. Even at the time of conception, the person inside the mother is a distinct, living individual.
My argument has always been that like our natural rights and the rule of law, the fact that inside a woman’s uterus is a baby, not something else, is self-evident. After all, we don’t walk up to a pregnant woman and ask, “Ah, when is your fetus due to be born?” We instinctively know that it is a baby, and that is what we call it when we approach a pregnant woman.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Every issue is a rule of law issue. That is what the federal republic was established on way back in 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was written. The word republic means The Public Thing, or The Rule of Law; what’s morally right is supposed to come before what the people democratically demand. For example, a representative is supposed to follow the rule of law before the demands of their voters – for example: if a majority of the people demanded that people with green eyes should be rounded up and exiled, a representative knowing that is against the rule of law would not follow the demand of the people because they would know that doing such a thing would be wrong. The wrongness of it would be self-evident to the representative, and they would instead follow the rule of law. English political philosopher John Locke spoke of the natural order of things, of which is divinely dispensated, from which we get our concepts of Natural Rights and the Rule of Law. Thomas Jefferson explains in the Declaration of Independence that not only are our rights endowed upon us by The Creator, and our rights are something we are to be able to pursue without government interference, but that “These truths are self-evident.” We have a moral foundation, a standard of morality by which we live by provided to us divinely – we know the truth, we know the lies. We know right and wrong. It is self-evident what the rule of law is.
That, I believe, is what it came down to on November 5, 2024 when Donald Trump was elected President (again), and did so with the popular vote along with the Electoral College, and with both Houses of Congress. Andrew Breitbart used to say that “politics is downstream from culture.” A virtuous people will vote for virtuous leaders, and a virtuous people will expect virtuous laws and virtuous moral standards in their society.
Benjamin Franklin wisely put it this way: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
You get the kind of government your morality, or lack of morality, demands. And, to paraphrase Franklin a bit, when morality goes out the window and the line between right and wrong becomes blurry the government must tighten its grip to keep it all from descending into chaos.
I learned early in life that we, as human beings, need boundaries. We have a human nature that is capable of going wayward quite easily. We constantly battle with our flesh, argues biblical teachings. None of us are truly worthy. We all fall short of the glory of God. Chaos can easily disrupt the natural order of things, and so can our human nature. The natural order of things operates with boundaries. From electrons to planets, things operate with specific orbits or designed paths. When those orbits or paths are disrupted, chaos ensues. Plants grow when the conditions favor their growth. The seed needs nutrients from the soil, water, sunlight, and space to grow. If those conditions are not met, the plant will likely not grow in the manner it is supposed to. Its path will be disrupted. The rules for the growth of a healthy plant must be applied, and followed – the boundaries must be in place. One cannot substitute oil in the place of the water, and chopped up plastic and rubber in the place of the soil and expect a proper result to transpire. The plant will die. A society is no different. Once some of the things are off-kilter, usually because of the disruptive meanderings of human nature gone wild, ultimately it will affect the entire organism.
The Election in 2024 was a call to get back on track. To return to the rule of law. To inject the natural order of things, a common sense moral standard, back into our culture and American System. Everything, after all, was beginning to seem like it was in disorder. The election was a call for America to restore its foundational culture of life, family, values, and what’s right as we know it to be – to restore the rule of law to the parameters that we know it is supposed to be; truths self-evident.
Evil has gripped this country, or at least it has tightened its grip around the neck of the leadership of the Democratic Party and their allies in the media, academia, entertainment, and a few other seedy corners of the galaxy. But, darkness cannot operate well when the light is shined upon it. We recognized the dark path the Democrats have been marching down, and Americans responded. The leftwing madness was exposed, and America did not like it.
In the beginning when the spotlights began to touch the edges of their operations the Democrats tried to throw mirrors up in order to deflect the light. That is what the accusations of fascism and Hitler were all about. It was projection – deflection. They wanted to cover up how evil they are by making their opposition look more evil than them. That’s like smacking your finger with a hammer to make the pain of your big toe go away.
The purveyors of immorality realized they had to convince you that they are not the immoral ones, after all. They wanted you to believe that their madness was the actually path of the rule of law. Those who called for “life with no boundaries” needed to convince you that life with boundaries is a bad thing, and anyone who disagrees is as evil as the most evil ideology in modern history; fascism. When asked by Anderson Cooper on CNN if she believed Trump is a fascist, Kamala Harris said, “Yes, I do.” Hillary Clinton called the Madison Square Garden Rally by Trump a reenactment of a Nazi Rally in 1939. Tim Walz, Harris’s running mate, seconded that opinion. They needed to make sure Trump looked so evil that you wouldn’t notice their dance down the path toward hellish ideas, policies and concepts. They tried to destroy the man with their words, media attacks, impeachment, lawfare, and ultimately they even tried to kill him.
Ultimately the whole thing was simply designed to cover up their own inequities – to shield you from realizing what their diabolical plans truly were..
The dangerous rhetoric was nothing new when it comes to the screaming pie holes of the leftist progressive commie Democrats, but it was reaching a new crescendo. Hitler. Nazi. Fascist. Genocide. Homophobe. Islamophobe. Apartheid. Sexist. Misogynist. White Supremacist. Racist. They grabbed for any word or phrase they could to convince you that Trump and his supporters are evil, and America would come to an end as we know it if Trump took the reins as President once again. The problem is, their false accusations trivializes evil. Words like Hitler and Fascism will begin to lose the true evilness that they are. On the back end, evil is not so evil if evil of the past was just their version of Trump, right?
It’s a version of class warfare, in the end. That’s what tyrants do. They divide people into groups, find a common enemy, and then set them at war against each other and as the chaos reaches its maximum potential they then come riding in claiming that they can fix all of the problems that they actually caused. It’s Cultural Marxism. The Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, Cambodia, and pretty much every other communist or hard-core dictatorship has gone through it at some point in history. George Orwell warned us about it, using the same recipe book in his creation of the future society of Oceania. Winston Smith’s realizations, however, fell on deaf ears when it comes to those chasing after the policies of the Democrats. The party of the donkey somehow does not recognize the correlation, and in truth they see no harm in their damaging policies and ideas. Meanwhile, as the followers demand their false equity and Marxist concepts, the leadership has worked to throw shadows over their evil doings, and convince everyone that their opposition is the real enemy to fear. In this day and age, most Americans realize that we are not really a hyphenated society. We are, in the simplest way to put it, all Americans. And of the things we have in common are about our families, and our ability to financially survive. The direction of the country was headed in a wrong direction, and we knew because of our own pocketbooks, and what we were seeing with our eyes.
You know – truth self-evident.
Most people do not feel they are better off than they were four years ago. And, most Americans are not keen on the identity politics being used — the division created by political ideology and Cultural Marxism. We don’t want to be greatly divided. We want the American Dream without government poking its nose into our business. Simple as that.
We all have been in agreement that something was wrong, but we also on Election Night came to the agreement that the thing wrong with America was not Trump, nor the foundational principles of America. We know that we are drifting away from those principles, and we voted to stop the bleeding. We realized that we had exchanged our faith in constitutional principles, which have their foundation in Faith in God, and gave into the dark path of faith in politicians and government programs. The rule of law was tossed aside, uprooting the Bible as the foundation of the rule of law, and the rule of man was driven out there for a test drive. The thing is, when you embrace the rule of man, and toss aside the rule of law, it doesn’t take very long before you start dancing around a golden calf.
We realized something was seriously wrong.
Government is not our source of liberty, nor our rights. Those things are divinely dispensated. It does, after all, say in the Constitution’s Preamble, “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,” does it not? Blessings of Liberty. That’s a godly thing. And remember, we are endowed by our Creator with those rights – and the Constitution was ordained and established – created with the favor of God.
We are not free because government says so, and we do not have rights because government says so. We are free by virtue. We have liberty because God created us that way. The Constitution simply says that our rights belong to us, and the government has only limited authority to make laws that are necessary and authorized by the Constitution. Nothing more.
America has been prosperous and a shining beacon for the entire world because America is godly, and we have been (for the most part) recognizing and following the rule of law since our founding.
That is what this election was about. The Democrats, led this time by Kamala Harris, was telling us that God was to be denied, our natural rights are government’s to determine, and that their left-wing power is forward thinking. So, they aimed to stack the Supreme Court, stack Congress, and stack the presidency. And, they were willing to accomplish these things using everything at their fingertips, legal and illegal – be it non-citizen voting, tweaking the election, and passing laws to change our system to better fit their authoritarian desires.
This election stopped all of that … we hope.
They claimed they were trying to save the democracy. The Founding Fathers rejected democracy, and gave us a federal republic. Democracies are destructive, allowing the population centers to dominate everything, and vote away the rights of the minority populations that don’t play ball with their dreams of tyranny. The Democrats have been seeking a realignment of American Society away from the Constitution and its biblical foundation to a secular, collectivistic European-style socialist state, while fanning the flames of division between races, ethnicity, lifestyles, the sexes, and morality. They want you to believe America was founded upon racist ideals, and that America as it has been is irreversibly racist, so we don’t just need change, we need to completely do away with the old system. “We don’t want to go back,” they told us – a slogan based on the idea that the Constitution and the American System has been flawed from the beginning. In their minds, it all must be overthrown.
That’s what we stopped on Election Night. The overthrow of America. The true insurrection. The true insurgency. But what do we do now? How can we unteach the youth all of the “America is systematically racist” garbage that has been crammed into their brains?
It begins with God, and continues with education.
Keeping the Republic is a lot more laborious than saving a democracy. Keeping the Republic goes way beyond voting. And with all of the damage done, it is all hands on deck. The win on Election Day is not a call for complacency, it is a demand for doing everything we can to make sure that this country doesn’t follow the damaging leftist path again. We need to change the curricula back to foundational principles, create instructional materials that are in line with American foundational principles, and we need to flood the positions of education and politics with our Faith-grounded allies. You, my friends, may need to run for office, or get involved in the schools, or support those who are deep in the fight.
We need to combat the revolutionary agenda of leftwing insurrection and recognize that the way to do it is from the inside. We need to make sure Lawfare as it was waged against Trump simply because he was the opposition never happens again. We need to make sure that Voter ID becomes a constitutional amendment, not just law, to keep the socialists from playing the non-citizen voter game ever again. We need to shine a light on who the Democrats really are; that they are the true socialists and fascists of this age and that they operate in direct opposition to what our Constitution created. We need to shine a light on their lies and demonization of the truth – recognizing that the blurring of the lines between right and wrong is destructive. The Kamala Harris campaign lost not because of who she chose as running mate, or because men didn’t want a woman president, or because of some other racist or sexist reason. The Democrats lost because they warped their data, hold warped positions, and ignore that we are Americans – not various groups that need to be set against each other. Open borders, inflation, abortion, transgenderism, green “we’ve got to save the planet” obsessions, and all of the other racist and evil positions of the left-wing Democrats needs to be sent into the past never to resurface again.
Truth won.
Now, once Trump and the Republicans, take office, we need to make sure we get things done. Let’s stop China from buying up land in the United States. Let’s reignite the free market and send inflation packing. Let’s get away from the idea that the doctors should be drug-pushers and the free market ought not challenge the power of Obamacare or insurance companies. Let’s break up the cartel between government and the pharmaceutical industry. Let’s send the leftwing media packing by moving the public away from listening to and viewing their tripe. Let’s take action, I prefer through a constitutional amendment, to make sure election integrity shines bright and that non-citizens do not vote in any of our elections with a Voter ID amendment to the Constitution. Let’s keep the federal government out of the business of the States except when a need of resources like during a natural disaster happens – then let’s make sure agencies like FEMA operate as they were originally intended to. Let’s secure the border, reform our immigration laws to make it harder to illegally come into the country, yet make it more streamlined for those who do follow the law and wish to immigrate to this great country and be an assimilated productive member of our society. Let’s get back to our enemies around the world thinking twice about acting aggressively while simultaneously making sure those strategies do not include sending our military boots around the globe. Let’s protect places like Israel and Taiwan, and make China and Russia and the Islamic countries nervous again. Let’s do what we can to make sure Lawfare doesn’t rear its ugly head again, and ensure that all of the court cases against Trump go away. Let’s free all of those political prisoners that the Democrats had targeted – especially the January 6 people of which I fully expect Trump to pardon once in office. Let’s quit with the identity politics and move forward as Americans. Let’s end the transgender madness, take men out of women’s sports, and recognize this madness for what it is – a socially induced mental illness. Let’s unleash the free market by reducing taxes across the board, eliminate the taxes Trump has called for eliminating, work toward the day that the 16th Amendment is repealed, reduce government regulations, give back much of the governmental legislation needed for the free market back to the States, and use tariffs to bring manufacturing back to the United States. Let’s end climate extremism, recognize that the climate changes due to natural phenomenon and adjust to it rather than chase communism as the answer to “save the planet.” Let’s stop pushing to electrify everything. Let’s stop with the name-calling, the antifa and Black Lives Matter divisive antics, stop burning down our cities every time some lefty claims racism is on the rise, and stop trying to suspend our rights and the principles of the Constitution. Let’s punish criminals for committing crimes, and stand firm against our international enemies. Let’s stop being the culture of death and recognize that babies in the womb are people too and have a right not to be killed. Let’s stop trying to confuse the whole abortion argument by stopping all of the “life of the mother” arguments. In just about all cases where the mother’s life is in danger, the pregnancy is not one that will reach a healthy conclusion so terminating dangerous pregnancies is not abortion – they are medical procedures to save the life that can be saved. Let’s stand firm with Israel, and recognize that Islam in nearly all cases clings to its fundamental foundation and simply wants to spread around the world and stamp out every Jew and Christian in the process. Islam only understands a firm hand. Cease-fires and appeasement never works with Islam. Thomas Jefferson knew it, James Madison knew it, and Donald Trump knows it. Let’s not mess with the checks and balances created by the Founding Fathers, and that includes the filibuster rule. Checks and balances keeps tyranny at bay. Let’s kill every law that targets gasoline powered engines, restore incandescent lighting as a choice for consumers, stop any talk about ridiculous taxation or price controls, let’s stop trying to convince children to chemically sterilize themselves, let’s stop forcing our daughters to share locker rooms with boys who think they’re girls, let’s return education back to teaching our kids how to read – write – and do math, let’s get our preachers back to a moral stance and for them to act as community leaders who are not afraid to talk about the issues, let’s restore critical thinking, let’s create a new trustworthy media, let’s restore civil discourse, let’s eventually do away with the Federal Reserve, let’s do away with the 17th Amendment and reverse Reynolds v. Sims so we can start marching down the road of restoring the republic, let’s stop selling our military secrets to the highest bidders and/or China, let’s reignite a vibrant space program, and let’s get back to the original principles of the Constitution as they relate to liberty, the free market, and the federal government’s role in our lives.
On all of these things the Republican Party needs to unify. One of the problems during the first Trump presidency was that too many Republicans had fallen for the Democratic Party’s negative rhetoric, and even though Trump had both Houses of Congress during the first two years, he got little legislative support. Let’s not fall for that again. Let’s all work together to restore what we had, and frankly, to Make America Great Again.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Support Mr. Constitution’s movement to educate America …
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After last night’s dominant win by Donald J. Trump for President of the United States, which includes winning the popular vote, much of the media is calling it a great comeback. Trump did not “come back” into the favor of America. He won in 2020. This was the great overcome, as in overcoming the cheat and proving that Donald Trump’s election as President was simply too big to rig.
Voters said no to high inflation and economic attacks against the business sector. Voters said no to heavy regulations and the government banning products. Voters said no to wokeism. Voters said no to the green agenda. Voters said no to price controls and heavier taxation against the free market. Voters said no to an open border and lawlessness. Voters said no to monkeying with the U.S. Supreme Court. Voters said no to war and anti-Israel rhetoric. Voters said no to the dangerous rhetoric. Voters said yes to future blessings, and moving forward to restore liberty for future generations. Voters said yes to making America great again not only for themselves, but for our posterity.
The “Battleground States,” as always, were the key. In the past that meant Florida and Ohio. Those are now solid GOP States. Trump’s win came by way of North Carolina, Georgia and Pennsylvania; with a strong assist by Wisconsin and Michigan. At the time of writing this piece, Trump remained ahead in Arizona and Nevada, as well.
In addition to the win, the Republican Party has gained a majority in the U.S. Senate (though Susan Collins of Maine and Murkowski in Alaska may pose a challenge so we need to land a couple more seats) currently 52-45. Republicans lead in Senate races in a couple more States and could end up with 54.
The House of Representatives looks like it will shape up to maintain a Republican majority in that legislative body, as well.
As famous democrats have said, “Elections Matter.”
Trump’s agenda, however, will not launch until Inauguration Day on January 20, 2025 — and that journey will likely include surviving last ditch efforts to stop him claiming he is not eligible because he is guilty (even though he’s not) of inciting insurrection. That said, the Democrats will be a minority on January 6 when the electoral votes are counted before a joint session of Congress, so even that effort will likely fall face first into the mud of history.
My question now, is, will there be violence?
Seattle has already experienced a share of violence.
Will the Democrats accept the election results?
Rachel Maddow is already claiming that Trump’s win was due to Russian interference.
They tried to stop the win…
In Pennsylvania “disrupters” caused chaos at a voting site.
The blame-game has already launched.
MSNBC blames Kamala’s loss and Trump’s win on “white women” and “misinformation.“
The Washington Post is “mystified” over the election results.
Oprah is convinced there will never be another election again — as Kamala Harris at the time of the writing of this piece STILL has not conceded — and refused to talk to her supporters on Election Night.
Meanwhile…
The Republican Party, remade under the skillful hand of Donald Trump, even flipped the governor’s seat in Puerto Rico to the GOP.
Donald Trump thanked God for the opportunity to continue to serve America.
Kamala was right on one thing — America was ready to turn the page.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The 2024 Election is upon us, and while some people are conflicted between red and blue political colors, or they are thoroughly convinced that Kamala Harris is a communist or Donald Trump is a fascist, for me it comes down to the original principles set up by the Founding Fathers, a moral standard, and a little bit of common sense. In short, while I have my political preferences, among my main keys when looking at the issues is whether or not the federal government is authorized to even handle the issue and what was originally meant when the Framers wrote our founding documents.
Originally, we thought the presidential election would be between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, but the Democratic Party nominee changed when it became apparent that Biden’s mental decline had reached a point that even convinced the Democrats that he was not fit for service. So, to “preserve democracy,” the Democrats undemocratically removed Biden, and inserted Vice President Kamala Harris.
The Democrats are running Kamala Harris with their usual talking points, including words and phrases like change, hope, and a new way forward. Except, having been a part of the Biden Administration for the last three and a half years, Kamala represents more of the same. It brings to mind Ronald Reagan’s slogan, “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” During the Biden presidency, Harris served as a willing accomplice. Her ideas from her 2020 run for President are will documented from her pledges and debates, and if anything she leans even further left than Joe Biden. I remember when banning certain guns came up as a question in a debate, way back then, and Biden tread carefully saying, “There’s something called the Second Amendment,” and Kamala laughed at his remark. Now, however, she has recognized that Americans don’t necessarily go for such extremism; so, she’s been sounding like a flip-flopper, realizing her old, well-documented, extreme progressive leftist positions may not be good for her campaign.
Both Trump and Harris have been making their rounds, and past experience and current language makes it clear where each candidate stands regarding the issues. The problem is, the media has been doing all they can to hide Kamala’s true agenda while they claim Trump’s agenda is one of retaliation, xenophobia, favoritism toward the wealthy, international chaos, and that he is an enemy to the Left’s precious social justice objective.
Based on past records, speeches, advertisements, interviews and debate transcripts we will examine the following issues, and where each candidate stands on each issue and whether or not that stance under examination survives constitutional scrutiny.
Policy, apparently, is not something the Democrats wish to talk about, much. They’d rather claim Trump’s a fascist, even though based on the basic definition of fascism the Democrats are closer to fascism than Trump ever was.
Abortion:
Democrat Kamala Harris: The Democratic Party has a long history of standing behind the idea that abortion is a constitutional right tied in some phantom way to a right to privacy, and in recent years they have pushed that there should be absolutely no legal limits to abortion. The Democrats championed 1973’s Roe v. Wade ruling and have railed against the 2021 Dobbs v. Jackson decision which invalidated the 1973 abortion ruling, sending the issue of abortion back to the States. Kamala Harris is calling for federal legislation to guarantee abortion be legal in all States, and has argued that the States that are limiting abortion injure women’s access to their constitutional reproductive right, causing a deep pain. Therefore, she is willing to use unconstitutional powers of the federal government to force all of the states to abandon any anti-abortion laws. She has argued that limiting a person’s ability to have an abortion at any stage of their pregnancy leads to injury or the death of pregnant women, and that if elected President Trump would sign a national abortion ban into law, and do what he could to remove abortion medication (abortion pill/Plan B pill) off the market. She also claims that Trump would use his justice department to prosecute women for having abortions, and that he would create a federal agency to monitor pregnancies.
Republican Donald Trump: During his presidency, Trump was the most pro-life President in the history of this country. He was the first (and only) President to attend the annual March for Life event. When Dobbs v. Jackson was decided, he verbalized that it was possible because of his Supreme Court nominations. In line with the Dobbs Ruling, he has indicated that the issue of abortion should be left to the States. He has also said that he would not sign a national abortion ban into law and that the federal government under his watch would not limit access to abortion medications. He told Time Magazine that prosecutorial actions regarding abortion, as with legislation, must be a decision of the States, individually. As for monitoring pregnancies, that is something the Democrats have gleaned from their misinterpretation of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, an agenda that Trump has repeatedly indicated he has not read, and does not associate himself with — not necessarily because he agrees or disagrees with it, but because he wants his positions to be purely his and for people to understand he’s not following some agenda written up by people other than himself or his team. Despite accusations to the contrary, and criticisms by the pro-life movement, Trump has also indicated that he plans to make in-vitro fertilization a “free” treatment for women in the United States.
U.S. Constitution: The Enumeration Doctrine, which is a concept from the Constitution that basically says that the federal government does not possess a power unless it is expressly authorized by the Constitution by being enumerated in either the original seven articles or in a subsequent amendment, dictates that any federal involvement in the issue is unconstitutional. As per the Tenth Amendment, because abortion or legislation regarding any medical treatment or care is not listed in the Constitution as being authorized to the federal government, and there is no language in the Constitution that prohibits the States from making any legislation regarding the abortion issue, the issue belongs to the States and only state legislatures may legislate, prosecute, or administer any government activities regarding the abortion issue. The federal government, including federal courts, have no authority to be concerned with abortion in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, Harris’s call for federal legislation regarding abortion is unconstitutional. Harris’s determination to take away the efforts by state laws to regulate the issue is unconstitutional. Trump’s call to use federal power to make in-vitro fertilization treatment free for women is also unconstitutional. The federal government has no authority whatsoever regarding the issue. And, if the fact that unborn babies are “persons” is ever codified by law, judicial opinion, or constitutional amendment, then abortion would be illegal across the country because it would violate clauses in Amendment V. and Amendment XIV. which disallows government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Environmental Issues:
Democrat Kamala Harris: In the name of saving the environment the Democrats have historically been against domestic drilling for oil. Over the years their political position on the issue has sacrificed American energy independence, and has morphed into a full-blown hatred for fossil fuels, and a determination to stop anything that would enable domestic production, including the method of fracking. Climate Change hysteria has led them to demand, in order to save the planet, that everything must go electric. In line with her party, Kamala Harris has consistently called for the banning of fracking domestically. However, during the 2024 campaign, realizing that position alienated some of the voters she needs to win, she has indicated during the 2024 campaign that she is against expanding fracking, but not banning the practice. She continues to oppose off-shore drilling. As Senator, Harris was a sponsor of the Green New Deal which calls for the United States to move away from all fossil-fuel-influence-energy by federal mandate. As candidate for President she has moderated her view regarding energy, but still supports leftwing policies designed to tackle Climate Change. Her support for the Inflation Reduction Act carries with it support for a federal financial push toward electric cars and “clean energy” projects. She has also been party to the creation of the National Climate Corps, a program designed to carry out much of Biden’s climate agenda that has enlisted over 20,000 young people. Harris shares the Democratic Party’s goal of cutting gas emissions in half by 2030.
Republican Donald Trump: Domestic drilling has been a constant policy by Trump who does not recognize the argument that “man-made Climate Change” is the global danger it is advertised as, nor that the human component is the only legitimate factor. Trump has indicated he believes renewable energy methods, especially wind power, is riddled with many flaws, and that if the United States is to be an energy leader in the world, and if energy prices for Americans is to come down, the way to do it is for America to become energy independent and to unleash all of America’s domestic oil capabilities. Trump has also indicated that everything is connected to energy, so bringing down energy costs is a sure-fire way to reduce cost of production, prices, and battle inflation. Trump’s plan includes increasing oil drilling on public lands, offering tax breaks to energy producers (oil, gas, and coal), creating more natural gas pipelines, building more power plants (including nuclear), and eliminating federal incentives and mandates pushing people to switch to electric cars. His position regarding electric cars has been that in a free market the decision belongs to the consumer, not government. Trump has also pledged to again abandon the Paris climate agreement, and eliminate all of Biden’s energy mandates that includes subsidies for renewable energy, regulations against fossil fuel producers, and laws targeting products deemed energy-inefficient by the Democrats (lightbulbs, stoves, dishwashers, etc.)
U.S. Constitution: Constitutionally there are no expressly enumerated powers authorizing the federal government to be involved in energy issues, nor environmental issues. While the federal government does have a say regarding activities on public land that is either owned or controlled by the federal government, any regulations regarding access to energy products or strategies on private land is strictly none of the federal government’s business. As for Climate Change, the argument that human activities have a large effect on global temperatures remain in the realm of theory. History reveals that global temperatures have risen and dropped a number of times long before human industry emerged. Those who oppose the man-made climate change argument surmise that the phenomenon is the result of natural factors, including sunspot activity, solar flare activity, and other natural influencers.
Democracy and the Rule of Law:
Democrat Kamala Harris: Harris and the Democrats have argued that Trump and the Republican Party are dangerous to American Democracy, and that Trump’s willingness to conduct himself in criminal ways, including paying hush money, committing fraudulent business practices, engaging in sexual abuse, and inciting insurrection in his alleged attempt to overthrow the 2020 election makes him an enemy to democracy and the rule of law, and it makes him an unstable, dangerous fascist. A Trump presidency, according to the democrats, would result in a loss of freedoms, and the rise of an authoritarian dictatorship akin to the rise of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany. Trump will go after his enemies, and pardon the insurrectionists who attempted to overthrow the government and the election on January 6, 2021. Instead, Kamala supports Biden’s call for hunting down and imprisoning everyone involved with January 6.
Republican Donald Trump: Trump has maintained that corruption and fraud fills the election process, and that it is the duty of the federal government and the States to take action to quell it. He supports Voter ID laws (as do most Americans), and taking action to clean voter rolls when it comes to the presence of non-citizens on those rolls. He has argued that he did not incite insurrection on January 6, 2021, but that he had been calling for his supporters to protest peacefully; and that January 6 political prisoners need to be released and the Biden Administration’s minions need to be investigated regarding those arrests, indictments, and convictions. He has argued that the swamp still needs to be drained, and that once in office the “enemy within” will be rooted out as a result of his overhauls of various federal agencies. He has also indicated that any federal official or those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be found out and will be brought to justice for their illegal behavior and activities deemed connected to enemies of the United States.
U.S. Constitution: The United States was not established as a democracy, but as a Republic, so any attacks against mechanisms designed to preserve the republican form of government (checks and balances, Electoral College, Filibuster and Cloture, and the independence of the judiciary) are not only illegal, but should be prosecuted either through impeachment or through the criminal courts (or both). As for the legal attacks against Trump for his “insurrectionist” activities as President, as President of the United States the job of the Executive is to execute the laws of the United States, and that includes election laws. If election laws are not being carried out properly, or are being violated, the President has direct responsibility to call out such issues and take action to resolve them. The Democrats have falsely accused Trump of inciting violence on January 6, and evidence reveals it was a set-up and that undercover federal agents were embedded in the crowds at The Capitol on January 6. Therefore, Trump is not guilty of trying to overthrow an election, or to commit insurrection; he is guilty of trying to do his job of President at the time. Also, Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution states the President may only be charged in a criminal court with actions that occurred during his presidency if he has first been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate regarding those same charges. Otherwise, the President has immunity regarding those issues. If there are those who have broken the law, especially those who use government to fund their illegal activities, the President’s Department of Justice has every authority to legally go after those people, prosecute them, and if they are found guilty to jail those persons as punishment. The President may also pardon anyone found guilty of a federal crime, except in cases of impeachment, as per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, regardless of what the courts or the opposition political party says about it, or how they’ve labeled those persons.
Federal Bureaucracy:
Democrat Kamala Harris: While the Democrats will argue that any Republican President that operates without receiving permission from Congress first is an authoritarian dictator, Democratic Presidents, including Joe Biden and Barack Obama, have routinely used executive orders to work around Congress when the legislature does not play ball with them; an unconstitutional action since executive orders hold no legislative authority as per Article I, Section 1 which grants all legislative powers to Congress. In 2024, Kamala Harris’s campaign is arguing that Trump’s plans are in line with the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025,” which they argue is an authoritarian manifesto designed to remake the federal government, upend the hiring and firing of federal workers, and increase the power of the President to authoritarian levels. Trump’s plans, according to the Democrats, is to fire the bureaucracy, and take full control by packing the bureaucracy with allies. Therefore, the Democrats have taken action to make it more difficult to fire federal staffers, which includes banning the option to reclassify federal employees as political appointees or other at-will employees which would make it easier by law to let them go.
Republican Donald Trump: Project 25 is a 922 page set of recommended policies by the Heritage Foundation (the book is 887 pages). While the press has been stating that Trump has been trying to distance himself from the think tank policy recommendations document, the truth is that Trump has simply said that he has not read it, nor was he a part of putting it together. From a conservative point of view the recommendations are fairly good but much of it might be problematic when it comes to the constitution, and some are outside the ability of the federal government to implement or enforce. Most of the policies listed have been exaggerated or misdefined by the Democrats and their media allies, or maligned because they are an obvious departure from the plans that the Progressive Left has for this country. Trump has, however, indicated that the federal bureaucracy is crawling with anti-American agents he defines as the “deep state,” and it is his goal to “dismantle the deep state,” meaning that he wishes to remove those “rogue bureaucrats.” He includes in that group those who “weaponized the FBI and DOJ to target conservatives, Christians, and their political enemies.” Trump has pledged to also target particular departments, such as the Education Department, and curtail independent activities by certain regulatory agencies in the hopes of cutting government waste, government spending, and red tape. He has also indicated that he plans to eliminate ten federal regulations for every new one imposed.
U.S. Constitution: The Hamiltonian Federalist Party used the bureaucracy to attempt to increase federal influence domestically, and usurp the Constitution when able. Thomas Jefferson, after he took office in 1801, fired half of the federal bureaucracy. One of the results of his actions was a weakening of the big government Federalist Party that the political organization never recovered from. By the 1820s, the Hamiltonians as a political party had faded into the memory of history. Through various judicial strategies, however, the Hamiltonians embedded themselves within the judiciary, dominating federal activity through judicial fiat by way of judicial review; a game they played skillfully until President Trump was able to tip the balance with his nominations to the inferior federal court system, and the United States Supreme Court. The bureaucracy has, primarily for the last hundred years, used regulatory activities to usurp the Constitution and operate as a legislative body. It’s overhaul would be very constitutional, especially since most of the federal departments exist unconstitutionally in the first place (including the Department of Education), and according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution the execution of federal laws domestically is supposed to be through the constitutional state militias. The federal government has no constitutional authority to maintain federal law enforcement agencies. There has been no need for it because the federal government also has almost zero domestic powers.
Border Security and Immigration:
Democrat Kamala Harris: During the Biden Administration, with Kamala Harris playing a supporting role, the border has been wide open, and Trump’s executive orders that supported existing federal legislation were reversed immediately by Joseph Biden which has led to the greatest number of illegal aliens entering the country in America’s history, with a large majority of the illegal aliens coming from countries other than Mexico – and those released back onto the streets of America by Ice under Biden leadership were largely criminals. Harris claims that a better law, a bipartisan compromise that would resolve the problem, was killed by the GOP at Donald Trump’s request because he knew it would serve as a solution and then Trump would not have the immigration issue to use as a campaign argument – the Democrats actually killed it because the GOP was unwilling to give them what they wanted. If elected, Harris has promised to bring the bill back, and sign it, with all of the Democrat Party wishlist items included. She also has explained during her 2024 campaign that she, as a prosecutor, understands the issues Americans face regarding the border and that while serving as California’s attorney general she went after drug cartels and Latin American gangs.
Republican Donald Trump: During Trump’s presidency the entrance into the country by illegal aliens had reached a low when compared to the previous decades. Trump campaigned on building a border wall to assist with border security, of which Kamala Harris at the time called a Medieval Vanity Project. Trump not only has vowed to secure the border, and execute existing immigration laws on the books, but to deport the illegal aliens let into the country by Biden and and Kamala Harris through a massive deportation program. He has also called for the death penalty for any migrant who is convicted of the murder of a U.S. Citizen. Trump also states he plans to revive and expand travel restrictions from countries considered enemies of the United States, and to toughen screening of immigrants coming into the country in order to ensure that dangerous criminals are not allowed into the country. Associated Press has reported that Trump also plans to put an end to the concept of “birthright citizenship” as it is applied to children whose parents are both in the country illegally.
U.S. Constitution: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution grants to Congress the authority to make laws “prohibiting” migration into the United States. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to make laws regarding the naturalization process. Article 4, Section 4 authorizes the federal government to protect each of the States from invasion. Amendment Fourteen defines citizenship. The bipartisan law that Kamala Harris claims would provide a solution focuses on the “asylum” argument when it comes to migrants seeking entry into the United States. The law would not solve the problem, nor require more stringent vetting to weed out the criminal element, but would essentially use asylum judges to rubber stamp entry which would not change the flow and who is coming in, but would look like on paper that a vetting process is involved eliminating the conservative argument that the migrants entered the country illegally. As mention with the above constitutional provisions, the federal government has the authority to make laws prohibiting certain persons from entering the country for any reason, pass immigration law with any protocols they seem fit, secure the border and call up the militia (in this case, National Guard) to secure that border, and deport people if they violate those immigration laws. The States, however, do hold concurrent powers in the sense of being able to apprehend and detain illegal aliens, but from there they would need to be in contact with federal agencies for the purpose of transferring those persons to federal custody and ultimately so that the federal government can, if they choose to, deport the individuals. This is why sanctuary state laws, which violate Article VI. of the Constitution (State laws contrary to federal laws on issues authorized to the federal government), which disallow local enforcement from communicating with federal agencies regarding any arrests of person who may be illegal migrants.
Foreign Affairs and Conflicts:
Democrat Kamala Harris: Two wars began to rage during the presidency of Joe Biden. Harris, while claiming Israel has a right to defend itself, has also been vocal in defense of civilians in Gaza. When it comes to Islam, we must ask: are there really any civilians? Are not all inhabitants in a Muslim environment potentially a military operative? Harris has supported Biden’s proposal of calling for a cease-fire deal, but has stated that a condition must be that all hostages held by Hamas be released. Harris has also endorsed a two-state solution, which would grant sovereignty to a Palestinian State. Harris has shown no differing positions from Biden regarding Ukraine. Biden has sent tens of billions of dollars in military and other aid to Ukraine, including a $61 billion gift that was a part of a $95 billion war aid measure that included money for Israel, Palestine, and Taiwan as well. Biden also secretly sent weapons shipments to Ukraine, which included long-range ballistic missiles. A part of the legislation also included a provision targeting TikTok’s China-based owners, ByteDance, giving the company a nine month window to sell the company to a non-Chinese buyer, or face losing U.S. access.
Republican Donald Trump: Expressing full support for Israel, and their work to “destroy” Hamas, Trump’s only concern has been that Israel is not working as fast as he believes they ought to. Trump’s attitude is that they should do what they need to do, finish Hamas off, and be done with it. He has called Hamas a terrorist organization, and has stated that pro-Palestinian protests in the United States is uncalled for and should be dealt with swiftly and decisively. Trump has indicated he supports revoking the student visas of foreign students who espouse antisemitic or anti-American views, and deport supporters of Hamas. Regarding Ukraine, Trump believes that Ukraine’s survival is important to the United States, but is not convinced Ukraine’s leadership is as honest as Biden’s administration believes. Trump, as with NATO, also believes European countries, if they believe Ukraine’s survival is so critical, should participate in Ukraine’s defense more than they are. Trump has also indicated that if he had been President for the last four years, neither of these conflicts would have erupted. He’s right, because Biden’s policies have skyrocketed oil prices, which has increased the funds available to Russia and Iran — those oil funds, in addition to other packages, gifts, and the lifting of sanctions, have set the world up for the current showdowns we are seeing in those two arenas of war.
U.S. Constitution: George Washington commented that the best way to keep the peace is to be ready for war. It was his way of saying, “Peace through strength,” a slogan that slammed into popularity during the Reagan Years. Washington also warned about foreign entanglements, indicating that if the United States was to meddle in foreign conflicts it needed to only be when American interests were directly affected. Israel has been our chief ally in the Middle East since its inception in 1948. Islam has not been shy about its anti-American sentiments. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and from their point of view there is no separation between civilians and military. As our chief ally, and a country we have many treaties and shared interests with, it is our duty to stand behind Israel, and work with Israel when it comes to eliminating Muslim terror threats. Washington’s warning about foreign entanglements comes to mind when it comes to Ukraine. The Ukrainian government is among the most corrupt in the world, and Russia seems to be wanting to reach back into history and bring back together the old Soviet Union. The conflict between the two goes back thousands of years. The Founding Fathers, primarily based on the debates of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, believed that it was dangerous to enter into treaties that created international polities like NATO and the United Nations. From their point of view, such agreements opens the door for unwanted foreign influence on domestic affairs, as well as an unnecessary drain on American resources.
Social Issues:
Democrat Kamala Harris: Social Justice, and using government resources in the name of giving certain groups a little help towards reaching equity, is seen by Harris and the Democrats as an evolutionary step in the right direction. From Harris’s point of view the attitudes of bygone days when it comes to racism remain in place, and “love is love” requires as much government assistance in the effort to stop any discrimination against any lifestyle as possible. Through education the Democrats believe sexism, racism, and any discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity will be a thing of the past. The attitude suggests, but is not said directly, that includes opposing parental rights, and doing nothing to interfere with transgender athletes.
Republican Donald Trump: The Trump camp has basically signaled that Trump disagrees with the notion that racism is rampant, and he believes transgenders who are men who believe they are women have not place in women’s sports. On the latter issue Trump has indicated he will ask for legislation clarifying the distinction between men and women, and he promises to defeat the gender ideology. A part of the effort to battle against transgender medical procedures will be to pull federal money from any entity that participates in the “chemical or physical mutilation of minor youth.” Trump also vows that the federal government under his guidance will take punitive steps against any doctor or hospital, or public school teacher or official who “suggests to a child that they could be trapped in the wrong body.” He would also support a ban of transgender persons from the military, and use federal legislation to prohibit hormonal or surgical treatments for minors.
U.S. Constitution: British Law developed from Saxon Law. The Saxons considered h0mosexuality as one of four unforgivable crimes. British sodomy laws echoed that sentiment. Constitutionally, the federal government has no authority to be concerned with these types of domestic issues. When it comes to our natural rights, the Constitution calls for a hands-off approach by the federal government. The First Amendment begins, as a matter of fact, with the words, “Congress shall make no law.” Our rights are to be left alone by government. The federal government has no authority to “take sides” when it comes to any social issue. The States and the culture need to work those things out, themselves. Any federal law or action regarding social issues like racism, marriage, or sexual persuasion are strictly unconstitutional.
Taxation and Tariffs:
Democrat Kamala Harris: While claiming they will reduce taxes for the middle class, Democrats have a history of raising taxes across the board. Harris’s campaign is calling for raising the corporate tax rate, and target the rich every avenue they can pull off. Meanwhile, she has hammered Trump over tariffs, claiming that tariffs are a large part of the blame for inflation and that Trump’s economic plans would devastate the economy.
Republican Donald Trump: In 2017 Trump headed a tax overhaul that reduced taxes across the board. Trump is calling for a new list of tax cuts, including eliminating taxes for tips, eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, and eliminating taxes on overtime pay. He has also pledged to make interest on car loans tax-deductible as is mortgage interest…but only for cars built in the United States. He has also called for cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% (for companies who produce their products in the United States) and repeal all tax increases signed into law during the Biden presidency. He’s also calling for an expansion on tariffs, and for Congress to pass legislation to provide the President with reciprocal tariff authority against countries who impose tariffs against America. Trump also vows to cut federal spending, sicking Elon Musk on the gargantuan task.
United States Constitution: The 16th Amendment established the foundation for direct taxation through our modern-day income tax leviathan. Prior to 1913 when the amendment was ratified the federal budget was primarily funded by the States paying an income tax based on population, and tariffs. History shows that reducing taxes typically increases revenue due to the fact that the reduction encourages growth in the private sector. That, combined with a reduction in federal influences on the free market, launches economic booms. Tariffs are a valuable tool, but like anything, works best when used in moderation. Tariffs also encourage domestic production, and for foreign competitors to seek opening factories or production centers inside the United States. Cutting federal spending is the key. As a side note, in 2007 a friend of mine, Tim Kerlin, and myself through an intense study determined that 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional…I am sure the number is higher today. Inflation’s primary causes? A large deficit, and government influence in the free market. The best ways to reduce inflation includes a reduction in taxes, a reasonable use of tariffs, a reduction in federal spending, and a reduction in governmental regulations against the free market – that’s how President Thomas Jefferson did it during his presidency, and those moves launched America into an age known as The Era of Good Feelings.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I am a firm believer that Donald J. Trump will win the 2024 Election by a landslide greater than every past presidential election save for George Washington’s. However, in the minds of the Democratic Party, a Trump win is unacceptable. They have gone after him because he stands against them, and they can’t control him. They have attacked his character, his supporters, impeached him, raided his home in Florida, gone after him legally with lawsuits, accused him of being an insurrectionist, accused him of being a fascist, and they have taken shots at him. There is no limit to what they are willing to do. They cheated to steal 2020 and they will do what they can to steal 2024. Last time, they shut everything down for four hours. We went to bed believing Trump was going to win, and woke up to the surprise of a Biden win. However, the same trick won’t work this time. So, for months I have been saying on my radio programs I expect a worldwide cyber-attack on Election Day.
Then, I saw this:
Background: “AFCEA [Armed Forces Communications & Electronics Association International] Atlanta [Chapter] Homeland Security Conference on Critical Infrastructure, November 6-7, 2024, with a large scale cybersecurity exercise on November 5, 2024” (link in footnote)
—On Nov. 5, ELECTION DAY, there will be a special cybersecurity exercise at the Conference.
Get this. The exercise is described as a large-scale interactive event, with participants from federal, state, county, city government agencies, academia, and industry.
The exercise will simulate a cyber-attack on “critical infrastructure.”
That’s right. It’s a so-called “Jack Voltaic”-type exercise, which was developed to test responses to attacks on large infrastructures.
QUITE odd to schedule the exercise on Election Day.
QUITE odd to run an exercise simulating a cyber-attack on critical infrastructure ON ELECTION DAY, especially since electronic voting across the nation IS a piece of critical infrastructure.
Type your email…
Subscribe
IF bad actors were looking to mess with electronic voting, this exercise would create a reasonable cover and method.
If the actors wanted to rig electronic voting and needed an excuse to explain “anomalies” in the vote count, or to explain a sudden shut-down of key voting precincts, the cyber-exercise would provide those explanations.
“Well, you see, there was a temporary glitch owing to the fact that, parallel to Election Day voting, Homeland Security was running a crucial but unrelated cyber-exercise, and ‘wires were crossed,’ so to speak…”
“Nothing to see here, the problem was fixed, and the exercise proceeded, as did the vote count. Occasionally, these things happen. Homeland Security assures us that voting was not impeded…”
“Of course, some people are spreading rumors and conspiracy theories about ‘altered vote counts’. These accusations are entirely unfounded. The Homeland Security exercise had nothing to do with the vote count…”
One wonders…
The other thing being juggled is the threat of violence. Of course none of us are surprised that violence is being predicted — the lefties are potentially violent individuals. The 2016 Summer of Love was a great example of what they are capable of, as is various other riotous responses to their hatred of Trump ever since.
Word is that some states are preparing for “potential election unrest.” In Washington D.C. cops are on 12 hour shifts, and “police chiefs across the United States are making unprecedented plans for Election Day and the weeks that follow.”
We have to remember that the lefties are thoroughly convinced that Trump is a modern-day Hitler, right down to the argument by Hillary Clinton that his Madison Square Garden Rally was a re-enactment of a Nazi rally in 1939. The believe that, as Kamala Harris put it, “Trump is out for unchecked power…he is unhinged, unstable, and given a second term, there would be no one to stop him for pursuing his worst impulses.”
Of course, Trump is not an authoritarian — if anything, the Democrats are projecting. Their policies scream governmental control…
The thing that has always got me was that they claim Trump is all these things, yet in the four years of his first term he never acted upon any of those alleged impulses. Wouldn’t a dictator, given the chance, grab that kind of power the moment they are able?
When the topic of election violence arises, again the lefties run in the wrong direction in terms of accusations. They want you to believe that MAGA gangs are roaming the streets committing the crimewave that seems to be haunting America’s cities. Their short memories are convinced that if violence comes as a result of a Trump victory, it’ll be Trump supporters doing it … and worse, they’ll also be violent if Trump loses — never mind the trauma a Trump win would cause inside the brains of those poor Democrat voters.
Well, I am expecting violence, especially if the torch is handed over to Trump, but as we have seen in recent history (and even further back during previous decades) if there is to be any violence, it won’t be from folks wearing red MAGA hats. The Democrats have historically cornered the market on election violence.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary