Saturday, June 23, 2018

Conservative Voice Radio: Invasion, from without and within

Conservative Voice Radio
Saturdays, 8:00 am Pacific
KMET 1490-AM

Conservative Voice Radio is hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, with members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party (Glenn, Jan and Diane) on KMET 1490-AM every Saturday at 8:00 am Pacific Time.

Podcast available at

Today's topics:

- Immigration and the Children

- China's American Hostages

- Will Travis Allen help John Cox?

- Utah Primary and the danger of Mitt Romney

- Steve King Targeting Paul Ryan Removal

- Hate Trump Campaign Increases

- U.S. Withdraws from U.N. Human Rights Council

- Liberals Hate Free Speech

Friday, June 22, 2018

List of 45 Communist Goals in Full Swing in America

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

Cleon Skouson, founder of the National Center for Constitutional Studies, wrote a book titled The Naked Communist. In my copy of the book the List of 45 Current Communist Goals is presented on pages 259-262, and follows a section Skousen uses to explain the "Importance of the Psychological War."

Communism, or at least the attempt by communism to bring down America, did not vanish with the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the dismantling of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  The war continues to this day.  Now, however, the invasion has turned internally.  The communists have decided they must change the state of mind of Americans, to get them to accept communism and raise the red flag of socialism themselves.

Recent polls have shown that most young people are fine with socialism, and think negatively towards a free market economy.  Communist slogans and phrases fill our lexicon, and a war against the Constitution is in full swing.  The liberal Democrats have adopted a position of being against freedom of speech, against the right to keep and bear arms, against a free market economy, against liberty, and against the traditional and moral values that have made this country great.

In short, they are closely following the List of 45 Communist Goals for the Takeover of the United States.

As you read the list I have provided below from more than a half of a century ago, notice how many of the goals have been accomplished, or are currently in play.  Spoiler alert: All of them have either been accomplished, or are currently in play. . .

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman’s request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following “Current Communist Goals,” which she identifies as an excerpt from “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen:
[From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen]
  1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
  2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
  3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
  4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
  5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
  6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
  7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
  8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
  9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
  10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
  11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
  12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
  13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
  14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
  15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
  16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
  19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
  20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
  21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
  22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
  23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
  24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
  25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
  28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
  29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
  31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
  32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
  34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
  35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
  36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
  37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
  39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
  40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
  41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
  42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
  43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
  44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
  45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Public School Indoctrination regarding Climate Change

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

I have a joke I often tell people.  "I believe in Climate Change.  It's called the four seasons."

Historically, the planet has warmed and cooled on its own without human interference.  In fact, we are actually colder than normal, so a warming trend is definitely on the horizon.  The thing is, the latest warming trend, of which the Democrats say we are catastrophically only experiencing the beginning of, ended over two decades ago.

The man-made climate change hysteria is a politically motivated ruse.  Humanity doesn't even spew enough carbon into the atmosphere to make a dent on changing temperatures, and that's if carbon is the actually culprit in the first place.  Carbon Dioxide, as with other gases, are a necessary part of our environmental makeup.  Plants, who provide oxygen, need carbon dioxide to begin that oxygen-making process.

Real scientists have explained that global temperature changes are a natural phenomenon that's been going on a lot longer than the day man first figured out how to make a fire.

That all said, I am not saying we should be careless with our environment.  If there is gunk in the local skies or water, I have no problem with us being good stewards of the planet and cleaning it all up.  However, when environmentalism takes on a magnitude that belches out hysteria and authoritarian control, I've got a problem with it.

I have an even larger problem when theories and false models are proclaimed as the dead truth, and then are used to frighten children into believing the hysteria on a religiously insane level.

Here's a conversation I had with my first-grade, soon to go into second-grade, granddaughter.  She's sharp, has always had a great handle on language, and was reading basic sentences before she even started kindergarten.  However, with only two years in public school, she has already been convinced of the liberal left climate change dogma.

She said to me, "On Earth Day you have to turn off all electronic devices."

"Why?" I asked.

"We have to save the planet.  It's the law.  You have to turn off everything.  Even the TV.  Nothing is allowed to be on, or else you hate the Earth."

"What if," I asked, "I decide to keep on my lights, my computer, my TV, and then later take a trip to have a campfire and cook some marshmallows on the smoky flames."

"Then we will all die, and I would have to tell the police you broke the law on Earth Day."

"Did you know," I added, "That every year on Earth Day I turn on every light in my house, turn on all of the televisions, and do as much as I can with my devices as a form of rebelling against them telling me what to do about this?"

"You do?"

"Yep," I said with a grin, "and the planet is still here."

She gave me a wry look, and then trotted off to play with one of the dogs.

A few years ago when some students, with their teacher guiding them, gave the City of Murrieta a speech about how Murrieta should lead the way with making a law to force people to use reusable grocery bags, I so happened to be at the dais next and killed her argument with some simple facts about the dangers of reusable bags, which includes the chance for them becoming a health hazard if not properly washed, and how the energy it takes to create them is greater than the energy that will be saved by using them.

A friend of mine, Harry Ramos, was on the council at the time, and afterwards he said that as I was laying out the facts, the girl who had given the presentation was crying behind me, with her teacher consoling her.

Think about that.  The dogma is so solid with these kids, and their inability to participate in civil discourse so damaged by the liberal left's way of going about all of this, that she was in tears and was emotionally distraught over this.   Over a myth.  Over a hoax.  Over a politically motivated crock of garbage that the Democrats are utilizing for the sole purpose of control, and political power.

The real frightening thing is that the indoctrination regarding environmentalism is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what they are teaching our children.

The Marxists want good little proletarians.

If you love your children, take them out of public schools.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Democrat Policies Equal Death

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

When the Affordable Care Act was first enacted, and the price of health insurance began its sojourn upward, it took away my access to health insurance. My wife and I make too much to qualify for subsidies, but too little to afford the increase in cost. As a partially disabled veteran I was thankfully exempt from the penalty of not having health insurance, but my Veteran's benefits only cover my injuries. All other health services for myself, and all health needs for my wife, disappeared for us, as a result. Had we have had a medical emergency, would our inability to cover the cost led to our bankruptcy? Or worse?  How many people died due to losing their health insurance coverage as a result of Obamacare?  Before Obamacare, those who the Democrats claim had no insurance did have services available through various State programs, all of which vanished with the emergence of Obamacare.  In other words, the folks at the bottom of the economic ladder would have received care whether Obamacare existed, or not.  Folks like me, however, were placed in a dangerous, and potentially fatal, place, when Obamacare was enacted due to the vicious rise in premiums that we could no longer afford.

Democrats constantly put into place policies like that, where they say they mean well, but what they cause is destruction, and sometimes, death.

Thankfully, despite the inability to repeal Obamacare legislatively, the Trump administration has taken action regarding eventually removing Obamacare. The Justice Department has informed a federal court it would not defend the government in a lawsuit against the health care law.

My California Assemblymember Melissa Melendez recently told me about an initiative on the ballot in November that is sponsored by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), among the most powerful unions in California, and an organization that runs hand in hand with the liberal democrats. The idea by the initiative is to force employees at dialysis centers to unionize. They tell you it is simply an attempt to cap revenue at dialysis centers (because, remember, all liberals think any kind of profit is bad). By trying to back dialysis center employees into a corner with the threat of a ballot initiative, what will actually happen is that it will force many of these treatment centers to close. For patients, most of whom must get dialysis 3 times a week for about 3 hours each visit, this is life or death. If they don’t get their dialysis, they will die. The democrats are not concerned about those lost lives, as long as they can force employees to start paying dues to the union, so that they can feed that money into the Democrat Party for the purpose of strengthening their political power.

A prominent Republican told me yesterday that the Democrats are also proposing a service tax. For example, when you get your car repaired, you already pay a sales tax on the parts, but now the Democrats want you to pay a service tax on the labor.

Sticking to the car repair example, for many people the added tax will hike up the cost enough where many folks will no longer be able to repair their vehicle. The cost will be too high. With a vehicle on the road without those needed maintenance repairs, the likelihood of vehicular accidents goes up.  If the vehicle is no longer functioning, those folks who are already living on a shoe-string budget won't be able to get to work.

More lives destroyed by Democrat policies.

How about immigration?

While the liberal left is trying to target Trump as an unfeeling racist, and are even throwing around images of children in cages that actually were taken in 2014 (during the Obama administration), the reality is, it has been Democrat Party policies that have been inhumane, and a risk to the lives of Americans.

Last week, a U.S. Border Patrol agent was shot along the Arizona-Mexico border. It was difficult to find an article on the incident. The mainstream media is not reporting about the incident, and the search engines, when I entered "border patrol officer shot at border" all came up with articles about when "immigrants" got shot by the border patrol, with most of the stories over a year old.

How many people have been killed by illegal aliens because of Democrat Party policies on the issue? Kate Steinle is the most well known case, where a young girl was shot and killed, and then a liberal jury in San Francisco let the illegal alien who committed the crime off scott-free.

What about the ranchers near the border, and the fear they live in because illegals are swarming through their property, causing property damage, and sometimes death to their livestock?

You want to stop the deaths? It's easy. Eliminate the problem.
  • Build the Wall 
  • End chain migration 
  • Terminate catch-and-release policies
  • Eliminate the diversity lottery 
  • Defund Sanctuary Cities States because their policies are unconstitutional 
  • Require E-Verify 
The grim reaper of the Democrat Party is especially active in the Democrat Party's gun control policies.

Almost all mass shootings have been at gun-free zones (98%) . . . a liberal left policy.

All mass shooters except for two of them have been by youths whose fathers are not in the household (statistic presented during recent American Freedom Alliance event, verbalized by Warren Farrell, PhD) . . . a result of liberal left welfare policies and anti-traditional family policies.

Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead.

Meanwhile, those same anti-gun politicians have no problem using good guys with guns to protect their own children.

How about the deceptively named Healthy Homes and Schools Act, of which even the Los Angeles Times has a problem with?

Aside from being a taxpayer ripoff, the Healthy Homes and Schools Act, if put into place, would allow California officials to inspect your homes (and of course increase the size of bureaucracy in order to administer the new mandate).  The surface argument is they are looking for lead paint in homes built before 1978.

Noble, you say?  Remember, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The Times says it's an attempt to allow the paint companies off the hook due to a court ruling, and that they are putting profit over people.  That may or may not be true.  But, what it does do, as I said before, is allow State officials to snoop around your house to see if you have lead paint on the walls, and then if they notice anything else they don't like, nab you for it.  The average home owner in a home that old will not be able to afford the change in paint job, anyway.  So, they wind up out on the street.  As for the rest of us, as a Democrat told me, "it's only for older homes, you have nothing to worry about.  Besides, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem with allowing the government to inspect your home?"

Spoken like a true authoritarian.

Such good intentions is how it all starts.

In Nazi Germany it began with only the trade unionists.  Then the communists.  Then the Jews.  Then the Christians who refused to offer support to the Nazis.

The Democrats even sought to tax drinking water.  While the initiative died before it got off the ground, it shows you how low these people will go in their attempt to squeeze every penny out of you in taxes.  They have a limit on water usage in place, due to go into effect in a couple years, too.  Rather than work to increase water storage, they'd rather pass restrictive authoritarian laws telling you how much water you are allowed to use.  For some, those limitations, and increased taxes, and increased water rates once the lower usage results in less revenue, will all cause deaths throughout the State due to simply unaffordability by some people.

The Gas tax does the same thing.  How many people, as the gas prices go up, are no longer able to afford commuting to work?  My efforts as a constitutionalist are now in serious jeopardy due to the gas tax.  If the cost to do what I do goes up any more, I will probably have to cease all of my efforts.

What's worse, is that while some infrastructure projects by the State have emerged (of course they have, an election is coming up), for the most part the gas tax money is not going where the Democrats promised.  Meanwhile, people are suffering as a result of the increased tax. . . and the bulk of it hasn't even kicked in, yet.  How many people will die because they lost everything due to the fact that they could no longer afford to live because of the rise in the gas tax?

The grocery bag tax is another killer.  In fact, the grocery bag tax has been causing a severe health hazard situation.  In California the flimsy plastic grocery bags have been outlawed.  You must now pay a ten cent tax for a thicker "re-usable" bag that takes much more energy to create (a person in the industry told me it takes 26 times the amount of energy to manufacture the thicker bags, as opposed to the thinner bags - so unless each bag is being reused at least 26 times, they are actually worse on the environment in terms of energy used in production), and much more time to decay, but most people I've talked to still use them once as they did with their flimsy brothers, making the "save the planet" argument not only a false one, but now the impact on the environment is worse than it was before.  On top of all that, the homeless, who previously used to get their flimsy bags for free, now must also pay a dime for a bag, of which they can't afford to do.  They used the flimsy bags to take a crap, and then would tie up the top of the flimsy bags and throw them away.  Now that they can't get free bags, and the thicker bags are near impossible to tie at the top, they crap on the sidewalk or the bushes in public areas.  They used to use the bags to throw away their needles, too.  Now, in some cities in California, we have an epidemic of needles and human feces in the public right-of-way, and the Democrats can't figure out why we suddenly have these problems.  They are unable to recognize the consequences of their own policies.  How many diseases will emerge from these hazardous conditions created by the Democrat Party's grocery bag policies?

Among the problems with illegal aliens is the diseases they are bringing across the border.  That, too, is yet another deadly problem that we are experiencing due to liberal left policies.  How many people have to get deathly ill as a result of liberal left sanctuary state policies before they are willing to admit that those policies are deadly to Americans?

California is dead last in quality of life due to Democrat Party policies who have run this State for generations.  But, it's not just Democrat-dominated California that is in the crosshairs of the Democrat Grim Reaper.

How many Islamic terrorists are in our midst due to federal Democrat policies regarding immigration and refugees?  How many people must die before the Democrats realize that Islam is anti-American, and a violent ideology that seeks only the death of those who oppose them?  In Michigan a massive raid of terrorist activity just occurred, and of course the Democrats and the liberal media is not even talking about it.

What is worse is that the Democrats know that their policies are deadly.  That's why they twist the truth, and report deceptively to get what they really want . . . political power.

They would rather defend MS-13, whose motto is "kill, rape, and control," because they want the votes.

They would rather be purveyors of deadly problems, than seek solutions, because for the Democrats, they believe deadly policies results in votes, political power, and more wealth for the Democrat Party.  In short, their lust for political power is more important to them than your life.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Judge Steven Bailey: Politicians Placing Police At Risk

Communications Director
(951) 501 9944
Judge Steven Bailey (Ret.) Calls on Californians to Defeat Legislation to Restrict Use of Force by Police Officers
California - Republican Attorney General candidate Judge Steven Bailey (Ret.) is calling on Californians to contact their legislators to express opposition to AB 931 (Weber), a bill that would, among other things, limit use of deadly force by a peace officer to "those situations where it is necessary to prevent imminent and serious bodily injury or death to the officer or another person."

"Police officers are required to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. Use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not the 20/20 vision of hindsight. That is language straight from the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor (1989) but California legislators think they know better."
"Without consulting law enforcement, Sacramento politicians who have never worn a badge colluded with special interests to write a bill that must be soundly defeated in the State Legislature. California legislators are not only defying common sense, they are proposing an unprecedented departure from the standards of criminal and constitutional law." 

"I am calling on all Californians to contact their State Legislators and express their opposition to this radical, misguided proposal. Together, we can beat the special interests and ensure first responders are heard first in Sacramento."
AB 931 passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on a 5-1 vote. Among those who oppose its passage are most California law enforcement organizations: 
Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs; California Association of
Highway Patrolmen; California Association of Code Enforcement Officers;
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations; California College and
University Police Chiefs Association; California Narcotics Officers Association;
California Peace Officers’ Association; California Police Chiefs Association;
California State Sheriffs’ Association; California Statewide Law Enforcement
Association; City of Oakley; City of West Covina; Cloverdale Police Department;
Fraternal Order of Police; Law Enforcement Managers’ Association; Long Beach
Police Officers Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Los Angeles
Professional Peace Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of
California; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’

Judge Steven Bailey is honored to have the endorsements of three county sheriffs; four county DAs, and several law enforcement associations representing more than 15,000 police officers throughout California: Los Angeles Police Protective League; Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; Deputy Sheriffs' Association of El Dorado County; Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Roseville Police Officers' Association; Rocklin Police Officers' Association. 

For more information on Judge Steven Bailey, visit 
For a full list of endorsements, visit 

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Don't Believe Immigration Children Controversy Message

Turns out Shaun King was wrong. . .
The pic was taken in 2014
during the Obama administration
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

I oppose amnesty.  If a family commits an illegal action, such as breaking into an amusement park, and they are discovered, would the police arrest and expel from the park only the parents and allow the children to remain in the park?  Would the whole family be put into the same jail cell, or would the children be placed under the guardianship of a family services agency until due process has been fully navigated?

Democrats know that while they oppose the family unit (as revealed by their stances that have targeted traditional family values), Americans have a soft part in their heart for families, and children.  So, the Democrats, for no reason other than political expediency, have pulled out a full all-string orchestra to play a sad tune.  The reality is, the whole "children separated from their family" controversy is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to stir your emotions on an issue they have been losing on badly, and the issue that launched Donald J. Trump into the presidency.

President Trump is no pushover, and he is using a strategy that is essentially forcing the Democrats to double-down on what beats them.  He is herding them into screaming for an even more extreme position than the Ryan Amnesty plan calls for.  In short, Trump has positioned the Democrats into admitting they are in support of open borders.  Senator Feinstein out of California, for example, has all of the Democrat Senators as co-sponsors on a bill that would push illegal aliens upon 80% of the States.  This bill, alone, could cost the Democrats a few seats in the U.S. Senate in November.

Horror stories, pinning mistreatment of illegal alien children on the Trump administration, are being hysterically painted on the liberal left's journalistic canvas.  The problem is, it is all a bunch of lies, and a desperate attempt to use their losing illegal alien position as a weapon against the current administration.

The Democrats would rather have a campaign issue, than a solution.  They are trying to pin down Trump not because they care about the children, but because they are desperate for votes in an upcoming election that is beginning to look very bad for the Democrat Party.  They are not the party of solutions.  They are the party of problems.  They need crises, and they never let a crisis go to waste.  If there were no problems, what would they run on in the election?

The Democrats weren't willing to seek a solution for immigration when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress while President Obama was in office, so, why would they seek a solution now?

There was never a solution offered by the Democrats then, and there is no solution being offered now, because they would rather use the immigration issue as a political weapon.

The liberal media went nuts when the Associated Press reported that over the six weeks from April 19 through May 31, federal officials separated about 2,000 children from their families at the U.S.-Mexican border.  The Trump administration shot back that the procedure separating kids from their families exists because of the Democrats in Congress.  The reality is, the policy is encased in a law that was put into place under the Clinton administration, then slammed into what it is now by the Democrats in Congress during the Bush administration, and by the courts under the Obama administration.
In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into something called the Flores Settlement Agreement, which ended a class action lawsuit first brought in the 1980s. 
The settlement established a policy that the federal government would release unaccompanied minors from custody to their parents, relatives, or other caretakers after no more than 20 days, or, alternatively, determine the “least restrictive” setting for the child. 
In a separate development, in 2008 the Democrat-controlled Congress approved bipartisan legislation to combat human trafficking and President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed it into law. 
Section 235 (g) in that law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, states that unaccompanied minors entering the United States must be transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement rather than to the Department of Homeland Security. 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit expanded the Flores settlement in 2016 to include children brought to the country illegally by their parents. 
For consistency between the provision of the anti-trafficking law and the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the Flores agreement, children who came into the country illegally with parents had to be taken into HHS custody, said Art Arthur, former general counsel for Immigration and Naturalization Services (now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as well as a former federal immigration judge.
My thing has always been that if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't break the law in the first place.

Jeff Sessions agrees.
“If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law,” Sessions said. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that.”
The reality is, there are only a few choices when it comes to our legal response to illegal aliens breaking federal law by breaking into the United States.  We can release the whole family into the United States (open borders), send the whole family back to where they came from (of which the Democrats claim is cruel), or we must give them due process, treat the case as a legal case that is associated with a crime committed, and in the process the family may be separated during processing and the procedure for various reasons (of which the Democrats are complaining about).  Therefore, from the liberal left's point of view, the only solution is open borders.

Never mind that many of these people are not children or innocent little families, but are gang members, criminals, and worse.

The solution is to stop illegal entry into the country in the first place, and ensure that the immigration procedures and vetting process are used as established by law.  Build the wall, tighten security, increase personnel available to handle incoming legal immigration cases, and in turn discourage the breaking of federal law by entering the country illegally.  This will stem the flow, and discourage frivolous asylum cases.  Isn't that what we want?  Stop the abuse of the system, and let's tend to legitimate refugees who truly need help, and are willing to go through the process in place.

As for the idea that children are being separated from parents and then detained in concentration camps, the idea is false.  An image of children in a cage has circulated through the Democrat ranks, but the reality is that the image was snapped in 2014, during the Obama administration.

The Daily Signal reports:
The Department of Homeland Security rejected the comparison, noting that most children caught crossing the border illegally are not detained by federal officials. 
“We have high standards,” Nielsen said during the White House press briefing Monday. “We give them meals and we give them education and we give them medical care. There are videos, there are TVs. I visited the detention centers myself.” 
In the last fiscal year, 90 percent of apprehended children were released to a sponsor who was either a parent or close relative, according to the department. 
Homeland security officials also say they work with HHS to improve and ease communication between detained parents and their children in HHS care. 
Sponsors may be “a parent, adult sibling, relative, or appropriate home that meets criteria for the safety of the child and continuation of any immigration proceedings,” according to DHS. Also, a parent who is prosecuted and later released can be a sponsor and ask HHS to restore custody of the child. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement has dedicated a facility to operate primarily as a family reunification and removal center. ICE staff who interact with parents will receive training in trauma-informed care, and the agency will assign staff trained in mental health care to detained parents who have been separated from children, according to DHS.
Some of what is being reported is straight out fake news, but the liberal media thrives on sensational stories, even if they are false. CNN, for example, reported last week that an illegal immigrant from Honduras claimed her nursing daughter was pulled away from her before she was handcuffed. CNN cited a lawyer from a liberal legal group called the Texas Civil Rights Project.
In a conference call with reporters last week, a senior Department of Homeland Security official said this was not the case. 
“We do not separate breastfeeding children from their parents. That does not exist. That is not a policy. That is not something that DHS does,” an official told reporters Friday. “We believe that that is false.”
The immigration reform law calling for mandatory E-Verify died.  Now the less desirable bills are moving through Congress.  I am guessing none of them will pass.

The true stories are never told, however.  While the Democrats work on bringing tears to your eyes because criminals may be separated from their children (and remember, many of these children came unaccompanied), what about the MS-13 members posing as children?  What about people like the ranchers along the border who lives with shadows moving across their property, some of those shadows causing damage to their property, or death to their livestock?

The Democrats want entry for all.  Even the animals of MS-13.

While President Trump is doing what he can to stop the separations the Democrats claim the separation of children from their parents by immigration authorities is an endemic problem.  In response, protesters are out in force with violent demands.  While federal officials are working to uphold immigration law, California is not the only location doing what it can to put in jeopardy public safety by blocking federal immigration efforts.  In Atlanta the mayor signed an order blocking the city jail from being used to accept new illegal alien detainees.  Greyhound is being criticized because they "let" the Border Patrol search one of their buses.

Rush Limbaugh says that the opposition to President Trump on this issue is going to wind up getting people killed.  In fact, Limbaugh specifically fingered the media and their fake news on the issue, that that is will be the media who is 'going to get somebody killed'. 

Through it all, Trump has a handle on all of it.  In the end, I believe he is using their game, and their issue, to expose the Democrats for who they really are. The reality is, they don't care about the children, nor do they care about your safety. All they care about is votes, and power.  Trump is using all of this to expose the liberal left for who they really are on this issue. . . supporters of an open, undefended border, and they support such policies specifically for political power, and no other reason.

I think the Republicans should write a bill that is so conservative that not a single Democrat would even consider supporting it.  Let them vote against it.  Let them tell us who they are.  And then, use that information to fuel a Republican insurgency at the voting booth in November.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Paul Joseph Watson: Sex War

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Corona Constitution Class: Slavery Abolished

Corona Constitution Class, Tuesday Night, 6:00 pm
AllStar Collision/CARSTAR, 522 Railroad St., Corona, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 18
The Civil War Amendments 13, 14, and 15
The End of Slavery
Prior to the Civil War, any federal legislation related to slavery dealt with the importation of slaves. Aspects of slavery inside State lines were considered a State issue.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 abolished the Atlantic slave trade, and the United States Government intervened militarily to ensure the law prohibiting the importation of slaves was enforced. The Framers of the Constitution believed that in order to ensure the southern States did their part in ratifying the Constitution, while remaining consistent with the concept of the federal government only having authority over external issues, and disputes between the States, they could not abolish slavery nationally through the articles presented by the Constitution. A large number of delegates at the federal convention in 1787 desired the immediate abolition of slavery, but the fear was that the southern States would not only refuse to ratify the Constitution, but that they would refuse to remain a part of the union, eventually succumbing to attacks from Florida and absorbed into the Spanish Empire.
A proposed amendment to abolish slavery during the American Civil War finally passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, but the House did not approve it.
When the proposed amendment was reintroduced by Representative Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role in working for its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections. Lincoln's efforts, combined with the result of the War Between the States, ensured the House passed the bill on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.
The 13th Amendment was ratified into law on December 6, 1865.
Atlantic Slave Trade - Started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, the Atlantic Slave Trade was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic Ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century.
War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America. The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States. The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States. The war found its origin in the concept of State's Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation. Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed. After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why wasn't slavery abolished at the founding of this nation?
2. Why did the House of Representatives not originally approve this amendment?
3. How has the abolition of slavery affected this nation since the ratification of the 13th Amendment?
Congressional Proposals and Senate Passage Harper Weekly. The
Creation of the 13th Amendment. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Citizenship, Civil Rights, and Apportionment
            Citizenship Clause
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution failed in 1866 after the southern States rejected the proposed amendment. After a second attempt to ratify the amendment, it was adopted on July 9, 1868. The ratification of the 14th Amendment occurred after the federal government began to govern the South through a system of military districts. Some historians question the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment because it is believed by these historians that the southern States ratified the amendment under duress, and pressure applied by the northern governorships in each of the southern States during the early part of the Reconstruction Period.
The first clause of the 14th Amendment is known as "The Citizenship Clause." The clause was intended to ensure the children of the emancipated slaves, as well as the newly freed slaves, would be considered citizens without any room for argument. The clause reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This clause has been misinterpreted to mean all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens, which is not the case. The defining term in this clause that enables the reader to recognize that citizenship needs more than just being born on American soil reads: "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof."
To understand the term jurisdiction, one may go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment. In those debates, and in articles of that time period written to explain the intent of the language of the amendment, one finds that "full jurisdiction" was meant to mean "full allegiance to America." The intention was to protect the nation against persons with divided loyalties.
The writers of the 14th Amendment wished to follow the importance of "full loyalty" as portrayed by the Founding Fathers. As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided allegiances. They expected citizens to be fully American.
Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been. The former slaves were present in the United States legally, and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem. Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring, but not having any allegiances to any foreign government.
Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
Senator Howard's responses to questions regarding the language he used in the Citizenship Clause were recorded in The Congressional Globe, which are the recorded transcripts of the debates over the 14th Amendment by the 139th Congress:
Mr. HOWARD: "I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127."
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
"The 1st Amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Senator Howard even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.
Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.
The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
The full quote by Senator Trumbull:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.
The courts have interpreted the Citizenship Clause to mean other things, but we must remember that the Constitution cannot be changed by the courts. Changes to the Constitution can only be made by amendment (Article V.).
It was through the progressive actions of the Lincoln administration in the American Civil War, and the actions of the courts to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, that America ceased to be "The United States Are," and became a more nationalistic "The United States Is."
            Privileges and Immunities Clause
The next clause, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," was expected to protect the newly emancipated slaves from local legislation that may treat them differently. This clause was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed in the States that were designed to limit the former slaves from obtaining all of the freedoms they thought they had been guaranteed.
The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of the proper due process of law. The right to a fair trial was to be extended to all persons, including the emancipated slaves.
            Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause
The Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection clause, have been the subject of debate since the language written by Congressman John Bingham, the principal author of the later part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, was first penned. Bingham believed the federal government should use all national tools available to ensure the southern States behaved as instructed. Bingham repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the States, but the majority of the members of Congress present did not concur with his muddled and inconsistent argument.
Author Raoul Berger, in his book Government by Judiciary, discussed whether the 14th Amendment should be construed to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Relying on the analysis of Professor Charles Fairman in his published article, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, Berger concluded that Bingham was a "muddled" thinker whose views should be discounted. Berger agreed with Fairman that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend it to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States. Berger rejected even selective incorporation, arguing that the Amendment's framers did not intend that any of the first eight amendments should be made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment
Antislavery activists largely supported Bingham's conclusion that that Bill of Rights must be applied to the States, and such application must be enforced by the federal government. Though the Bill of Rights was originally intended by the Founding Fathers not to apply to the States, and with less than a centuryt since the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution behind them, Bingham's supporters contended that local jurisdiction over cases regarding an individual's rights could no longer be allowed because the southern States could not be trusted to be fair to the newly emancipated slaves.
Bingham's call for an incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States established the concept that all people's rights are supposed to be protected by the federal government. The Founding Fathers did not apply the Bill of Rights to the States from the beginning because giving that kind of power to a potentially tyrannical federal government carries with it many pitfalls. As the quote by Gerald Ford goes, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Nonetheless, despite the dangers of a central government dictating to the States regarding their laws regarding individual rights, because of the mistreatment of the former slaves by the Southern States, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, have been commonly interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States.
Since the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not take hold as a result of the 14th Amendment, as the statists that supported Bingham's position had desired, the federal courts stepped in and took pursuit. Pursuing a nationalist agenda, the courts disregarded the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, as well as the conclusions of the Congress regarding the 14th Amendment, and began to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868. A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the authority to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States. Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent. As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted. The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
The attitude of the southern States, and their refusal to treat the former slaves fairly led to a perceived need for clarification and enforcement by the federal government, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and eventually to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
A separate but equal doctrine existed for more than fifty years, despite numerous attempts to ensure blacks enjoyed full rights and privileges of citizenship.
In modern politics, laws continue to test the limits of the Equal Protection Clause. While the clause was intended to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, politicians supporting the Affordable Care Act have handed out exemptions to members of Congress, and some individuals or corporations, allowing those that receive the exemptions to be treated differently under the law.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment altered the rules for the apportioning of Representatives in the Congress to the States. The enumeration was changed to include all residents, while also calling for a reduction of a State's apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote.
For fear that the former slaves would support the Republicans, southern Democrats worked feverishly to dissuade blacks from voting. Section 2 addressed this problem by offering to the southern States the opportunity to enfranchise black voters, or lose congressional representation.
            Consequences of Insurrection
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason. A two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress could override this limitation. The interest was to ban the service of any members of the Confederacy that refused to renounce their participation in the Confederacy.
            Public Debt as a Result of the War
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by Congress. The clause also indicated that neither the United States nor any State would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy. This clause was to ensure that all States recognized the validity of the debt appropriated by Congress as a result of the war, while bonds secured by the Confederacy in order to help finance the South's part of the war "went beyond congressional power."
Political battles over the debt ceiling in 2011 and 2013 encouraged some politicians to argue that the "validity of the public debt" clause outlawed a debt ceiling, because placing a limit on federal spending interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (such as Social Security). The clause in the 14th Amendment addressing the validity of the public debt, however, was never intended to be a general clause to be used by future administrations, but a specific clause only addressing the debt accrued as a result of the American Civil War.
The final clause of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Federal intrusion upon the States, however, has been a long-time fear by those that support the concept of State Sovereignty. The question regarding enforcement was addressed in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, where the opinion of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to mean that "the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation".
In a more recent case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's enforcement power according to the last clause of the 14th Amendment is limited to only enacting legislation as a response to a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's 14th Amendment rights and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.
Court interpretation of the Constitution can be a dangerous practice, and we must remember that any interpretation of the Constitution offered by the courts in a ruling are merely opinions. The final authority regarding the definitions of Constitutional law resides with the people, through their States. Any allowance of the courts to fully define the Constitution at the whims of the judges opens up the opportunity for the courts to change definitions for ideological purposes, resulting in a judicial oligarchy, rather than a constitutional republic driven by the consent of the governed, and the self-evident standards of Natural Law.
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
Constitutional Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of the principles of a constitution. A representative government that operates under the rule of law.
Equal Protection Under the Law - Laws must treat an individual resident or citizen in the same manner.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
Jurisdiction - Full loyalty, a condition in which all foreign allegiances have been released; not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Military Districts - Districts created in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union), headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials.
Nationalist - An advocate of Nationalism.
Natural Law - Unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct; observable law relating to natural existence; birthright law.
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
Public Debt - National debt; the financial obligations of a national government resulting from deficit spending.
Reconstruction Period - Period following the American Civil War during which the United States government began to rebuild the States that had seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy, lasting from 1865-1877. During Reconstruction, the federal government proposed a number of plans and committed large amount of resources, to the readmittance to the union, and the rebuilding, of the defeated Confederate States.
Separate But Equal - Various laws designed to undermine the 14th Amendment requirement that former slaves be treated equally under the law, contending that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate. The result of these laws was a generally accepted doctrine of segregation throughout The South.
State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.
United States are - These States that are united; a group of sovereign member States in America voluntarily united into a republic.
United States is - Nation of the United States containing a number of States similar to provinces ruled over by a centralized federal government.
Questions for Discussion:
1. How might have the governors of the military districts influenced the ratification of the 14th Amendment?
2. Does the Citizenship Clause have anything to do with Natural Born Citizenship? Why?
3. Why was Congress concerned with the threat of divided allegiance?
4. Did the 14th Amendment eliminate laws like the Black Codes, as intended?
5. How is it that despite the original intent of those that voted for the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights not be applied to the States most of the first ten amendments have been applied to the States anyway?
6. What pieces of legislation since the ratification of this amendment have been passed in order to ensure that the Equal Protection Clause is properly enforced?
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890: Senator Jacob
Howard States the Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866.
Civil Rights Act, The - April 9, 1866,
Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)
Frank J. Williams, Judging Lincoln; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (2002)
John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier's Passion for Order; New York:
Vintage Civil War Library (1993)
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)
William S. NcFeely, Grant; New York: W.W. Norton & Company
Voting Rights
The 15th Amendment was designed to protect the voting rights of all citizens, regardless of race, color, or if the voter had previously been a slave or indentured servant. As stated in the amendment, this article applies to both the federal government, and the States.
As the third reconstruction amendment, the 15th Amendment faced another challenge that was unexpected. In some States the requirements were that all voters and candidates must be Christians. As originally written, the amendment would require these States to change their rules regarding the manner of elections. Realizing the ratification of the amendment may depend on the support of the States with Christianity requirements regarding elections, the amendment was revised in a conference committee to remove any reference to holding office or religion and only prohibited discrimination based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.
Democrat Party created militias, like the Ku Klux Klan, continued to try and intimidate black voters and white Republicans. The federal government promised support, assuring that black and Republican voters could both vote, and serve, in confidence. When an all-white mob in the Battle of Liberty Place attempted to take over the interracial government of New Orleans, President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to restore the elected mayor.
President Rutherford B. Hayes narrowly won the election in 1876. To appease the South after his close election, in the hopes of gaining their support and soothing angry Democrats, President Hayes agreed to withdraw the federal troops who had been occupying the South since the end of the Civil War. The hope was that the southern States were ready to handle their own affairs without a need for any interference from the North.
In the process, President Hayes also overlooked rampant fraud and electoral violence in the Deep South, despite several attempts by Republicans to pass laws protecting the rights of black voters and to punish intimidation. Without the restrictions, voting place violence against blacks and Republicans increased, including instances of murder.
By the 1890s many of the southern States had enacted voter eligibility laws that included literacy tests and poll taxes. Since the black population was normally steeped in poverty, the inability to afford the poll tax kept them from voting in elections.
It took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to finally take hold. The ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated poll taxes, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, served to ensure that blacks in the South were able to freely register to vote, and vote without any obstacles.
Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for         voting.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why was the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment changed to not include discrimination based on religion?
2. Why do you think the Democrat Party played a part in forming the Ku Klux Klan?
3. Why did President Hayes withdraw federal protections against racial discrimination in the South?
4. How did poll taxes enable the Southern Democrats from keeping Blacks from being able to vote without violating the Constitution?
5. Why do you think it took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to be realized?
Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess (1869) pg. 1318
Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished
Revolution, 1863-1877; New York: Harper Perennial Modern
Classics (2002)
Gillette, William, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the
Fifteenth Amendment; Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (1969)
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs