Political Pistachio

Douglas v. Gibbs - Mr. Constitution

Political Pistachio

judicial constitution-gavel
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Harrinton v. Purdue Pharma the question comes down to liability.  Should individuals be released from civil liability if their company’s product proves to have issues?  Should a very rich family be influenced in any way over the bankruptcy of their company?  Should the fact that deception was used to market a drug enable injured parties to go after, legally, the individuals behind that deception, despite the presence of a bankruptcy?

Twenty-seven years have passed since the prescription opioid drug, OxyContin, first came on the market.  Purdue Pharma manufactured the drug, but they promoted the drug as safe and less susceptible to abuse.  It turned out, however, that the claim was false, and deceptive.  OxyContin proved to be highly addictive, and the addictive nature of the drug resulted in what many have called a public health crisis that led to thousands of lawsuits seeking trillions of dollars against Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family who were the principal owners of the company.  Recently, they relinquished control over the company.

The question before the United States Supreme Court is whether to allow a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma to move forward.  Blocking the plan would release members of the Sackler family from civil liability for opioid-related claims.  The plan moving forward would be the only way to ensure that those seeking retribution would receive compensation and funding for opioid recovery projects, and ensure the Sackler family was liable regarding those claims.

The Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in 2019, and a bankruptcy court in New York put lawsuits against both the company and the Sackler family on hold.  In September of 2021 the federal bankruptcy court confirmed a plan to remake Purdue Pharma as a nonprofit devoted to addressing the public-health problems created by the opioid epidemic.  Members of the Sackler family concurred, and even offered to contribute up to $6 billion to the plan. In exchange, provisions in the plan shielded them from future civil liability for opioid-related claims.

A federal district court struck down the bankruptcy court’s ruling, but a federal appeals court reinstated it earlier this year, pushing the case to the Supreme Court in August.

Deputy Solicitor General Curtis Gannon told the U.S. Supreme Court justices that the releases for the Sacklers go beyond what the law allows, urging the justices to hold that such nonconsensual third-party releases are not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code because they extinguish property rights that do not belong to the bankruptcy estate.

Gregory Garre, who argued on behalf of Purdue Pharma, countered that the court should reject the government’s argument that nonconsensual releases are always invalid. Congress’s use of the words “any” and “appropriate” in the law belie the idea, he contended, that bankruptcy plans can never include third-party releases – and indeed, he noted, they have been used for nearly 30 years.

The justices seemed to split in their positions, seeking to focus on broader and more practical questions, questioning the viability of the current version of the bankruptcy plan as the best or only version of a plan to help opioid victims and their families.  However, as Gannon argued, if the current plan does not go forward, it would preclude any recovery at all for the victims. 

One must ask, however, from a constitutional perspective, is it within the federal government’s authority to seek a particular path for any recovery for the victims, much less a better one or alternative one to the one being offered?  There has been years of investigations into the Sacklers, and according to Gannon, a better deal “does not exist.”  If this settlement plan blows up, the victims “are going to get zero dollars.”  Shouldn’t the Sackler family be expected to face liability, especially since the Sacklers took money out of the company for themselves after the deception had been perpetrated?

According to the arguments before the court, of the $11 billion that the Sacklers took out of the company in the years leading up to the bankruptcy, 40% went to pay taxes, and 97% of the post-tax funds transferred to the Sacklers would in fact be included in the settlement should that be the path taken.  If the plan doesn’t go forward, there would be “serious issues” for the victims in trying to collect any award that they might receive in a lawsuit.  

The reality is, the arguments and the discussions regarding this case are only beginning, and what is coming out right now is simply the Supreme Court’s first glance at the facts of the case.  It’ll take a while for the justices to fully go through all of the arguments and data available, and a decision in the case is not expected until the end of June.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Santos Removal from Congress Constitutional Rarity

By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution provides for the removal of a member of the House of Representatives should the legislative body wish to do so.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Before the removal of George Santos in a vote that included both Democrats and Republicans this morning, the successful move of expelling a member from the House of Representatives had only happened five times before.  With the removal of Santos, it moves the needle to only half a dozen over the last two-hundred and thirty-four years (since the Constitution went into effect in 1789), and Santos is the first in over twenty years.

The action, needing a two thirds vote to accomplish it, has been in the working for over six months, but the vote was not ensured as being enough until Friday, December 1, 2023.

The final tally Friday Morning was 311-114-2, with 105 Republicans joining almost all of the Democrats. 

Santos’ scandals began early, with him lying about his resume in order to get elected.  Santos took his seat eleven months ago, and even back then the rumors were flying that expelling him from office was on the horizon.  With a slim majority, the GOP takes a risk losing a Republican in a district held by the Democrats since 2013, before Santos pulled off his win.  The Republican Party is also suffering from internal fighting between establishment Republicans who tend to spend time in the laps of the Democrats and drinking from the same trough as the lefties, and the Patriots in Congress who still believe the Republican Platform and the United States Constitution is something that should be defended.  

Nonetheless, 112 Republicans refused to vote to expel Santos during Friday’s vote, despite the controversies he has been a subject of.  Their warning was that it was a dangerous precedent to remove an elected Congressman from office without a criminal conviction.  The fear is that such a move might become easily abused in light of the current stark division between the political parties, and even within the parties.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, still relatively new in his role as the gavel-wielder in the House of Representatives, made clear that he had “real reservations” with the effort to remove Santos before his criminal cases and due process had properly run their course.

The charges against Santos are non-starters and minor hiccups, to be honest, when compared to the criminal activities of many Democrats that includes bribes, targeting opposition with false criminal cases, and worse; meanwhile, they are expelling a guy who is accused of stealing puppies from the Amish and spending campaign funds on botox

What about the Democrat senator who was chair of the Foreign Relations Committee (!!) and was charged with taking bribes (including gold) from foreign governments?

I guess collusion with foreign sources, even those who seek to destroy America, is okay in the eyes of certain members of the federal government…

scamdemic i wont wear masks

By Douglas V. Gibbs

AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

A friend of mine, who used to talk to me until his Christian Conservative self decided to go off the deep end regarding President Trump and believe he was something worse than Hillary emailed me recently because I used the word “scamdemic,” to tell me: “The pandemic was real.”

When I use the word “scamdemic,” I am not saying that the COVID virus was completely a lie.  The virus was out there, for sure, but it wasn’t what they made it out to be, and the hysteria surrounding it was a big scam.  Did you notice that the deadly virus never left any dead bodies in the streets, or inside homes?  People died in the hospitals, from the treatments, rather than the disease.  And, if indeed the virus was floating around in the air when we breathed, six feet was not going to do it.  Viruses move through the air like smoke, they don’t suddenly plunge to their death at the six feet mark.  Then, there’s the mask thing.  Big pores, little viruses.  I lost friends telling people that the masks did nothing to protect anyone.  It was like trying to stop mosquitoes with chain-link fences.

Then, a few months ago, I had a very enlightening conversation with one of my hard left sisters-in-law.  She said, “Doug, you and Virginia didn’t wear masks, right?”

I responded, “I didn’t, except maybe on five occasions in total in the beginning.  She had to for work, and did a few times in stores, but for the most part neither did Virginia.”

“Hmm,” she said.  “And you guys didn’t get the vaccine?”

“No,” I told her.  “Neither one of us did.”

“And you never got COVID?”

“I had a flu,” I said, “In December of 2020 that might possibly have been, but I never checked, and I got over it in four days.  Virginia never got sick at all with anything.  So, no, I don’t believe we ever got COVID.”

“I see.  Curious,” she said.  “Mom and me and my sisters all wore masks faithfully, got the shots, and the boosters, and we got COVID three times each.”

Now, the following headline has been provided to me:

Masks Caused Increase in Covid Infections, Major Study Finds

Excuse me?  Are we saying that a major peer-reviewed study has concluded what I knew all along simply using common sense?  Is it true that face masks not only did not work, but may have been a component in spreading Covid infections?

The cross-sectional study, titled “Association between Face Mask Use and Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection,” was conducted by a team of Norwegian researchers.

According to the paper, published in the renowned British Cambridge University journal, the researchers conducted an “observational study that analyses data from a population, or a representative subset, at a specific point in time.”

In this case, the point in time they analyzed was data from early 2022.

They examined a cross-section of data for people who reported testing positive for Covid and revealed how often they wore a mask.

According to their research, “We examined the association between face masks and the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 using cross-sectional data from 3,209 participants in a randomized trial of using glasses to reduce the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2.”

“Face mask use was based on participants’ responses to the end-of-follow-up survey.

“We found that the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 was 33% (aRR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03 – 1.72) higher in those wearing face masks often or sometimes, and 40% (aRR 1.40; 95% CI 1.08 – 1.82) higher in those wearing face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported wearing face masks never or almost never.”

In the raw data, regular mask-wearers had a 74-75% higher risk of testing positive for Covid.

“The crude estimates show a higher incidence of testing positive for COVID-19 in the groups that used face masks more frequently, with 8.6% of participants who never or almost never used masks, 15.0% of participants who sometimes used masks, and 15.1% of participants who almost always or always used masks reporting a positive test result,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

“The risk was 1.74 (1.38 to 2.18) times higher in those who wore face masks often or sometimes and 1.75 (1.39 to 2.21) times higher in those who wore face masks almost always or always, compared to participants who reported never or almost never wore masks.”

Covid infections were more prevalent among those who wore masks more often.

Personally, I always believed the mask wearing thing was a) tyrannical…how dare governments force people to wear masks in the first place, and b) demonic.  To hide one’s true self, and be possessed by the demon depicted on the mask.  That’s history.  It’s not something we should ignore.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary



By Douglas V. Gibbs

AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

“Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they would wish that they and their prosperity should live.” — James Wilson, November 26, 1787 in remarks in Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

John Adams once wrote, “The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

The Revolution that forged America into existence began long before the first shot was fired on Lexington Green, and continued after the British surrender at Yorktown. The idea of Thanksgiving goes all the way back to the pilgrims, and in reality even further back than that.  The Colonists used thanksgiving ceremonies and feasts to thank God for their survival and bounty, while sharing their bounty with their new found friends, the Indians. However, the holiday did not find its first governmental recognition until President George Washington recognized it in 1789 with a proclamation. Thanksgiving wasn’t celebrated nationally on the fourth Thursday of every November until President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed it to be in his Thanksgiving Address of 1863. Thanksgiving was not even a formal federal holiday until 1941.

In 1787, in an effort to create a more perfect union, the federal government was born through the pages of the U.S. Constitution. It took the sovereign States uniting as one to defeat the great British Empire, so it was reasonable to assume a strong union would be necessary to weather the storms the new country would encounter in the future. With God’s guidance, the Founding Fathers studied history, and labored for four months to give us the greatest document, second only to the Holy Bible, this world has ever seen: The U.S. Constitution.

Understanding that history reveals the danger of too much power in any one group’s hands, the Founding Fathers aimed to divide power as much as possible, and rather than make the new union of states a democracy fully run by the vote of the people, or an oligarchy fully run by the whims of a few powerful men, the Founders chose to make this country a republic based on law, operating under the rule of law, and that law was not to be based upon the opinions of a bunch of judges or politicians, but forged in the text of the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

The Founding Fathers used history, and the guiding principles of their faith in God, to structure the federal government. Fashioned based on a godly foundation, the federal government has only limited powers granted to it by the States and delegated to it by the pages of the Constitution.  The enumeration of certain powers in the U.S. Constitution is known as The Enumeration Doctrine. If the federal government desires a new authority, they may propose an amendment, but such authority is not to be granted unless the States approve the request by ratifying the amendment with a 3/4 approval. The States can propose amendments as well, through convention – a method not used since the ratification of the Constitution (though the call for a convention has been applied for over 750 times by 49 States). The federal government, however, as history has proceeded, has seized power without the consent of the people, and is becoming a governmental system the Founding Fathers feared may emerge. . . hence the reason for the detail that went into the U.S. Constitution – to stop the formation of a tyranny before it can take root.

Storms were on the horizon, and the Founding Fathers knew this. They recognized that there were those out there that desired a more centralized government, those that place as much faith, if not more, in government than they did God. These learned men understood that challenges would arise. Knowing these things, they wrote the Constitution with the intention to address each of those issues, and ensure that the great experiment of the United States of America would stand the test of time.

The Constitution, and the principles of America contained within its pages, are not out of date, no more than liberty and freedom can be out of date. The philosophies of the Founding Fathers are contained within the pages of the founding documents (Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution), and if we as a country based on liberty were to simply adhere to its wisdom, the United States would continue to prosper. George Washington realized that the U.S. Constitution was not written only for the era of America’s founding, but to outlast empires and other foreign governments as a government structured to fit the requirements of human nature. Freedom is the same regardless of the time period, and the challenges are always present, as well. However, the United States survived the obstacles it had experienced, and the U.S. Constitution was written to be a sound document rooted in the wisdom of the ages. Therefore, George Washington felt it important to give credit where credit is due, and proclaim a day of thanksgiving to the Lord for the miracle that was, and is, the United States of America.

The original Thanksgiving found the Pilgrims celebrating more than just giving thanks to God for their bounty. The Pilgrims had tinkered with a communal system, a centralized community basket, or what today we call “socialism.” The socialistic system failed, and many pilgrims literally starved to death. Without the personal incentive of a free market environment, the people did not work their fields as they should, becoming dependent on others to supply the food and supplies to the community stash, and becoming more dependent than they should be on trade and help from the Indians. However, when the system was changed to one of a free market, where the citizens kept most of what they produced, and then were able to sell or trade their excess in a vibrant market within the community, and eventually with other communities, the new settlements began to flourish, and prosper.

Once per year we have the opportunity to give thanks as the Pilgrims did, and as the early Americans did; giving thanks for survival and prosperity, giving thanks for the loved ones we have around us and around this country, giving thanks to God for the birth of this great federal republic, giving thanks for the miracle of the U.S. Constitution, and to thank God for our defeat of socialism way back in the 1600s, which may have very well destroyed America before the country had the chance to take its first deep breath. It was freedom, liberty, and a free market that gave the Pilgrims their bounty, and the Founding Fathers understood that. The real question now is, though the Founding Fathers understood the principles of liberty, do we?

Happy Thanksgiving, and may America continue to be the shining beacon on the hill – the light of the world that serves as an example of freedom, prosperity, and one republic under God for all to see, and emulate.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


trumps constitutional duty

Repost from December 22, 2022

By Douglas V. Gibbs

AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

I want you to use your critical thinking skills.  We have been told that Trump has called for the end of election rules and the Constitution so that he can overturn the 2020 Election and be put back into office.  That is not what he said.  Read Trump’s quote about the termination of the Constitution carefully.

Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.


He did not say he wants the founding document terminated, he said that the election fraud, if it continues and if the past fraud is ignored and allowed to stand, will lead to the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. The people heard what they wanted to hear, not what Donald J. Trump actually said. When you believe something so deeply it just hurts, even if it is not true, like those who hate Trump do, you find a way to twist it into reality.  Such are the practices of the woke crowd, conspiracy theorists, and Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers.  Remember when they began the “Trump is racist” campaign?  It began when Donald Trump said that among the illegal alien population are criminals and murderers.  I am figuring we all believe that murderers and criminals are no good for our country.  The never-Trump lefties and GOP lefties and “Never-Trumpers” screamed he claimed all Mexicans are murderers and criminals.  Trump never said such a thing, but people sometimes hear only what they want to hear.  If your twisted mind is convinced he’s racist, no matter what he says, racism will scream true for your ears to hear.  If you believe racism is everywhere, even if it’s not, you will see it everywhere. When Donald Trump first burst on the political scene, I had my reservations.  He’s been very successful, but stories were circulating that he was unhinged, unprincipled, and his business practices were less than honest.  Principles and integrity are a huge consideration when deciding if a particular candidate for office, any political office, measures up to what one wants.  So, I did some deep diving to make sure that Trump was, at the very least, better for the country than Hillary Clinton. The bar set by Clinton, to be honest, was pretty low.  If a candidate was breathing and not a raging communist they were better than she.  But, I still needed to know if Trump was the right choice after he clinched the Republican nomination.  

The media was full of hate for the guy, as were most other sources, so my searches could not be conventional.  Their hate for him because he was not a part of their little club, and he was willing to stick a stick in their spokes, had them seeing things the way they view the “termination of the Constitution” quote; twisted, and not quite with the truth in mind.  Fortunately, I am deep enough into the political world that I know people who know people.  I was able to talk to people who knew Trump personally, or knew someone who had worked for Trump.  What I discovered was that nearly all of the accusations being levied against Trump were false, misrepresented without context, or they were simply dishonest exaggerations of the truth.  So, I decided I would vote for Trump.  I wasn’t a full-fledged Trumper, yet, but I was willing to give him my vote. My support for Donald Trump increased once his presidency took off, and once I realized that anything being claimed about him by those who hated him were partially false, or straight out lies.  I was no longer influenced by their campaign of hate, and I began to analyze closely, and honestly, his decisions, his policies, and his way of going about combating the forces against him.  He impressed me.  I became convinced I had made the right choice, and that while we did not get the President I originally wanted, America got the President it needed for such times as these.   I was still not convinced he was a “conservative” when he was elected.  But, as I observed the game that was afoot, I realized that the attacks against him by the Democrats and Republican Establishment pushed him in a conservative direction.  In other words, while he wasn’t what one would call a conservative in the beginning, it seemed he was willing to learn, and he quickly learned that conservatives and constitutionalists were his allies and began to embrace conservative principles and ideas along the way.  His development ultimately made him the most pro-life President in history.  Some of the people he surrounded himself with advised him accurately most of the time regarding what is or is not constitutional, as well, but unfortunately, he was also surrounded by people who were the enemy, or were in cahoots with his political enemies.  Overall, however, aside from maybe the “warp speed” decision when it came to the scamdemic jab, for the four years of the Trump presidency he followed the Constitution better than any president since Calvin Coolidge. With that all said, Trump’s post-presidency life has continued to draw the ire of the left, and GOP establishment.  Most recently, he was said to have said something against the United States Constitution.  So, we must ask; did Donald J. Trump throw the Constitution under the bus in a Truth Social post? CNN, you know, that bastion of truth and honesty, proclaimed that Trump “called for the termination of the Constitution to overturn the 2020 Election and reinstate him to power.”  They call any questions about the 2020 Election “election denialism” and “fringe conspiracy theories” even though folks like Mike Lindell (with footage showing false ballots being added to the count, along with other dubious activities, at the vote-count centers), Dinesh D’Souza (used GPS tracking to show “mules” delivering false ballots at ballot boxes in States where “ballot harvesting is illegal”), and Dr. Douglas Frank (using mathematics to arrive at the conclusion there was fraud; and who is speaking to the Constitution Association on January 21 in Murrieta, California) have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was fraud in that election, and that the fraud changed the election from a Trump landslide to a Biden squeaker.
Politico also claims Trump called for the termination of the Constitution, claiming he is “denying” it “without deleting the incriminating post.” Now, influenced by Trump’s full belief that elections can’t be trusted when it comes to the elections, and fraud may be involved in many more elections than Americans are willing to admit at a level that is indeed changing elections away from candidates who support liberty, Donald Trump is now under attack due to a recent post on Truth Social that is being falsely reported that he called for the “termination” of the Constitution.  That’s a pretty serious accusation.  The problem is, that’s not what Trump said. Let’s revisit the beginning of this article in more stark detail, now. Trump wrote:

So with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great “Founders” did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

The American People have already been conditioned to believe such talk is “fringe conspiracy theory” language, and that Trump is some kind of monster so if he opens his mouth about something what he said is actually worse than what he said.

We’ve also been conditioned to believe that if a person says something and it can be dissected to mean something awful then that is how they intend to act and operate and that is what they meant to say (even if it’s not what they said) — unless, of course, they are a hard left Democrat and they really did say something stupid, then, they simply misspoke. In response to reactions that were launched that he called for a termination of the United States Constitution, Trump posted:

The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American people that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS. What I said was that when there is “MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION,” as has been irrefutably proven in the 2020 Presidential Election, steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG. Only FOOLS would disagree with that and accept STOLEN ELECTIONS. MAGA!

Trump later added in a second post:


His initial remarks were mischaracterized just like the “rapists and criminals” statement regarding illegal immigration was mischaracterized.  Context was set aside, and meanings were assumed through a foggy pair of political spectacles that only sees “Orange Man Bad”.

Trump’s words, to give a little context, were a response to the Twitter revelations regarding election inerference that have been popping up since Elon Musk became the new owner of Twitter, as well as information revealed that Twitter worked to suppress anything that they politically disagreed with, and that they did so in collusion with the Democratic National Committee and the FBI.  The collusion is across the board.  Nobody can be trusted.  The Democrats have been doing everything they can to influence elections, even through social media, suppressing anything that reflected poorly on Democrats generally, and then-candidate Joe Biden in particular, while pushing to the front of the line anything that worked against Trump, or the GOP.  In particular, Musk has revealed that Twitter’s leftists suppressed the [Hunter Biden] laptop story. Like the leftwing globalist communist Deep State, the global power-player consortium, and leftist mainstream media, they feared the Hunter laptop story would derail Biden’s campaign. Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has emerged verbalizing the truth, apologizing for suppressing the story.  Such stories were labeled as “disinformation” despite the fact that it was actually the truth. I can relate.  Facebook has continuously been shutting me down (and I have been shut out of my Constitution Study page on Facebook despite having at one time over 10,000 followers on that page), Google has played games with me (one of the instances I made a video about it showing the problem on the video for all to see), YouTube has shut down, so far, two of my videos (I also made a video about that), and my books are a target, one of which has a “disagreeable” less than favorable depiction of the homosexual militant political machine. Tucker Carlson has also finally reached the realization of the revelation, “We cannot trust the government with ANY stats or facts. They lie ALL the time now”, which includes collusion with big tech, and other big corporation interests and power-players (does Big Pharma suddenly come to mind?).

Fox News has reported that an FBI agent testified the FBI held weekly meetings with Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley ahead of the 2020 presidential election to discuss ‘disinformation’ on social media and how to censor information, and that Twitter had been tagging tweets as “disinformation” ahead of the 2020 Election. The news is flush with the evidence piling up regarding the 2020 Election, and Trump has been watching these reports showing “massive fraud”.  With that context in play he knows the system is screwed up.  He knows that what the judges are “interpreting to be constitutional” is out of whack.  So, with that in mind, he posted, “fraud [of] this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Read that carefully.  He wasn’t calling for the termination of the rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution, he was saying that the “massive fraud” perpetrated through the collusion of Big Tech, the media, the Democratic Party, and federal government intelligence agencies is leading to the “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” In other words, if we keep allowing this fraud it will terminate the Constitution.  He’s not calling for the Constitution’s termination, he’s saying the fraud is terminating the Constitution.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
14th amendment section 3

By Douglas V. Gibbs

AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

The Democrats are desperate to keep Trump as far away from politics as possible.  His election in 2016 put a monkey wrench in their sixteen year plan to move America into a one-party system.  Trump’s policies ran opposite of their policies, and his administration threatened to reveal how evil their criminal political enterprise really is.  Their propaganda, their false Russia-Gate fabrication, their multiple impeachments, their multiple legal attacks and court cases, and their constant smear campaign has not yielded the results they have needed.  Donald J. Trump is as popular as ever, and may even be capable of exceeding their cheat in 2024.  They can’t take that chance, so they are desperate to do anything they can to keep Trump off of the ballot.

Among their latest schemes to stop the Trump Train from running them off of the political road has been the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Three.  The writers of the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment sought to punish anyone who supported the secession of the Confederate States prior to the War Between the States for their unconstitutional insurrection against the Union.  Never mind that secession was perfectly constitutional since the firmer union created by the Constitution remained a voluntary union, despite arguments to the contrary by Hamiltonian-minded historians and politicians.   The “Radical Republicans” of Congress at the time hated any supporter of secession with the same kind of vitriol we see today being pointed at Trump.  They were willing to do anything to force the Southern States into compliance.  The Union, after all, had already used military force and the destruction of war to beat The South into submission, so why would they worry about any repercussions for disallowing anyone who supported the “rebellion” to ever be able to hold political office again?  Nonetheless, the clause is in the Constitution.  The question is, does it apply to Donald J. Trump?

Typically, in the American Legal System, if you are going to be considered “guilty” of something, that guilt must be proven in the court of law.  In other words, mere accusations does not make something a conviction.  To be convicted of something and to reap the legal consequences that accompanies that conviction a person must be entitled to the full due process of law.  Even a burglar caught red-handed robbing a liquor store is not sentenced and thrown in jail without the benefit of a trial.  Natural Rights are a big deal when it comes to American Liberty, and no matter the situation, legally we are all supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and may not suffer the consequences of the accusation unless a conviction is achieved.  

That said, our courts are definitely being used as a weapon.  Our patriots being accused of insurrection on January 6, 2021 are being convicted, even though the evidence does not support the accusations, and the juries have been fully convinced before they even took their seats in the jury box that anyone present at the Capitol who is a Trump Supporter is guilty of all charges despite, in many cases, the fact that the person in question never stepped onto the steps of the Capitol, and in the case of some friends of mine, arrived long after the “insurrection” had ended.

But, the enemies of the Constitution and Liberty, who now claim they love the Constitution when it comes to the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that was designed to keep insurrectionists out of political office, are convinced that Trump incited insurrection, his supporters committed insurrection, and Trump doesn’t even need to be convicted of participating in insurrection to be considered guilty of insurrection, and therefore as per the Fourteenth Amendment Donald Trump is disqualified to run for office, including for the Presidency in 2024.

Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said on CNN that former President Donald Trump does not need to be criminally convicted of insurrection to be disqualified to run for President as per the Fourteenth Amendment.  

Raskin said, “The authors of the 14th Amendment themselves dealt with that question. They felt that if someone sets themselves at war against the Constitution, and engages in the most profound anti-democratic act of trying to overthrow an election by installing themselves in office with an insurrection, then at that point, they are constitutionally barred. So, when people say, it is undemocratic what the voters decide, that’s like saying, let Vladimir Putin run for president, even though he’s not a U.S. citizen because it would be undemocratic to deny that choice to the voters. The Constitution has already made that judgment.”

He continued, “I think what we need is a judicial determination of whether or not an impeachment by the House, 57 to 43 vote in the Senate, enough to establish as a civil proposition that he’s engaged in insurrection or whether you need additional adjudicated fact finding by the court. But nowhere does it say that you need to have a criminal conviction in order to make section three of the 14th Amendment apply.”


Let’s break-down what Raskin said, shall we?

“If someone sets themselves at war against the Constitution” — The Democrats (and most Republicans, for that matter) have been operating against the Constitution through government for over two-hundred years.  A study a friend of mine and I conducted in 2007 found that 85% of federal spending is unconstitutional.  In addition to the unconstitutional operations of government’s politicians and bureaucrats, in 2020 they were so worried that Trump would continue his dismantling of their criminal schemes they rigged the election, and stole it from a man that actually won by a landslide.  And yet they say “he” is the one at war against the Constitution?

“most profound anti-democratic act of trying to overthrow an election by installing themselves in office with an insurrection” — Our country is not supposed to be a democracy, it is a republic.  For those of you who think the words are synonymous, please read my book, “Repeal Democracy,” inside which I explain the difference between the two very different governmental systems.  Also, the Electoral College, and even the perception regarding it (such as, Pence was not there to “certify” the election, but to count the electoral votes.  Certification, according to the Constitution, is achieved by the Electors), is completely unconstitutional in the first place.

Was January 6, 2021 an example of insurrection?

First, let’s go over the timeline on January 6, 2021, in Washington D.C.:

  1. 12:00 pm: Trump’s speech began.
  2. 1:00 pm: Outer barricades stormed by protesters.
  3. 1:10 pm: Trump’s speech ended according to Washington Post (which means no Trump supporters who were there to hear Trump’s speech were among the protesters who breached the outer barricades ten minutes earlier).
  4. 1:30 pm: Capitol Police overtaken at steps of Capitol (at this time no Trump Supporters who heard Trump speak had arrived at the Capitol, yet, which means none of them were among the protesters who stormed the Capitol Police on the steps of the Capitol, which means those who stormed the Capitol were people other than those who attended Trump’s speech).
  5. 1:41 pm: Likely arrival of first Trump speech attendees, which would be those who did not stop to use the restroom, grab a bite to eat, or go to their hotel first, but walked immediately to the Capitol at the pace suggested as the average time it takes according to Google Navigator.  Understand, it likely took longer since so many people clogged the streets.  This time is only provided due to what Google Navigator provided as the average time to walk, unencumbered, to the Capitol from where Trump spoke.
  6. 2:15 pm: Interior of the Capitol building breached by protesters.
  7. 2:50-3:00 pm: Likely earliest arrival time of Trump supporters from rally who heard Trump speak if they lingered, or grabbed a bite to eat, or went to their hotel rooms before proceeding towards The Capitol, or did not walk at a brisk pace that was likely only achievable by younger persons, persons in athletic shape, and unencumbered by crowds (most of which do not typically describe the average Trump supporter).  My friend, Derek Kennison, who was convicted just a few days ago by all counts against him for his participation on January 6 arrived at the Capitol at 2:45 pm, after all of the “insurrection” events had transpired.  He also never set foot on the steps or inside the building, never confronted any Capitol Police, and remained on the West Side of the Capitol, which is the grassy area where, for the most part, no alleged confrontations with law enforcement occurred.

So, if the people who heard Trump speak, even if hypothetically the “Capitol Riot” was an insurrection (by unarmed, mostly elderly Trump supporters) weren’t even on the grounds yet because they were still walking there when the “insurrection” happened, how is it that Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection?

As for the definition of insurrection, in the Fourteenth Amendment it is given that insurrection is against the Constitution.  But, the Electoral College was originally designed to only be Electors voting for President, not the general public.  The public’s vote was originally intended to be for their Elector, not for President.  The unconstitutional practice of Electors voting based on a democratic popular vote by the people for President did not emerge until the 1820s when Andrew Jackson demanded change based on his argument that he was popular among the people, and in order to save the Constitution the country needed to operate in a more democratic manner.  So, the Electoral College is not operating in line with its original constitutional expectations.  Second, according to the 1860 American Dictionary of the English Language, and the 1828 Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, Insurrection is defined as being: 

A rising against civil or political authority; the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of a law in a city or state. It is equivalent to sedition, except that sedition expresses a less extensive rising of citizens. It differs from rebellion, for the latter expresses a revolt, or an attempt to overthrow the government, to establish a different one or to place the country under another jurisdiction. It differs from mutiny, as it respects the civil or political government; whereas a mutiny is an open opposition to law in the army or navy. insurrection is however used with such latitude as to comprehend either sedition or rebellion.

But, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”

The Declaration of Independence states, “…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…[and when government] reduce[s] them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government.”

What we deduce from the Fourteenth Amendment, the dictionaries of the time, the First Amendment, and the Declaration of Independence, insurrection is something that is committed against the Constitution, not a government that fails to follow the Law of the Land; insurrection tends to be violent, peaceful gatherings and protests are not insurrection; and if government is acting in a despotic manner in violation of the Constitution as it does today, to stand against it, even violently, is not insurrection, but rather is a right, and a duty, of the people.

No guns, or other weapons, were found to be present on January 6, 2021.  No violence was committed, except by perpetrators who were acting in a destructive manner prior to the arrival of those who heard Donald Trump speak.  If the argument by Trump and the protesters is accurate that the 2020 Election was indeed performed in an illegal manner, or that fraud was somehow a part of the election, the people standing against the government on that day had the right and the duty to do so.  The protesters were not acting against the Constitution, but against a governmental system that has been operating against the Constitution, therefore it is the political officeholders who are participating in unconstitutional actions, therefore, it is actually the officeholders claiming that the pro-Trump protesters were insurrectionists who are the actual insurrectionists.  

Donald Trump, therefore, cannot be refused the opportunity to hold office based on the Fourteenth Amendment because he has not been convicted of insurrection (and of the 91 charges against him in the current court cases being held, not a single indictment is for insurrection), and because he could not have incited insurrection because a) his supporters had not arrived yet at the Capitol when the alleged insurrection activities were being performed and b) because his supporters did not commit insurrection, they were instead exercising their First Amendment enumerated rights and protesting against a rebellious governmental system what is operating outside the legal limits of the United States Constitution.

So, no, Mr. Raskin, you cannot keep Trump out of office by merely accusing him of insurrection.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary