Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Pandemic Predictive Programming?

 2012 London Olympics Opening Ceremony

COVID Prediction?

Are they coming for our Children Next?

Is this all Biblical too?  Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:32,33

Monday, March 29, 2021

Biden Being Pro-America Might Be In Doubt...

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

 Meme of the week?  Year?  Century?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Lockdown and Mask Mandates Doubled-Down in Liberal States

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

As Red States (Republican-leaning) open up and the citizens shed their masked sign of oppression from their faces, the Blue States (Liberal-Democrat-Marxist-Communist-leaning) are doubling down on their Pandemic protocol madness.  In Southern California, stores that used to not mind me walking in without a facial armband on my face are now kicking me out, despite my cries that I have a medical exemption (face coverings more-often-than-not cause me to go into dizzy spells or long episodes of vertigo).  Aldi personnel actually escorted me out of the store, and refused to check-out my wife's full grocery cart despite the fact that, unlike me, she was wearing a face mask.  Signs along the side of the road are popping up all over California about adding some COVID Alert app on our phones (so they can keep track of our associations with other people ... you know, in case they are COVID positive).  What is alarming about all of this is that I live in what is considered a relatively conservative area in Southern California.  In places like Los Angeles County the mandates have gotten even stricter, and co-mingling with other people is being heavily discouraged.

We can't have those domestic terrorists getting together and planning another not-so-peaceful romp through the Capital again, you know.

This week my wife, and I, and three of our seven grandchildren, traveled north up through California to the Oregon Coast.  Our thirty-something son is holding down the fort at home.  Along the way, especially around the Interstate-580 approach to the 101 Freeway just north of San Francisco, we saw how bad it really is in California.  Despite making this trip half a dozen times per year (we plan to move permanently out of California in the near future to our cabin in the woods on the southern Oregon Coast; California's gotta be pretty bad if Oregon is a better alternative) it still does not cease to amaze me about how bad the liberal parts of California truly are.  In the Bay Area the number of people driving their cars with masks on, jogging with masks on, walking their dogs with masks on, and pumping gas far from anyone else with their masks on, was incredibly high in the San Francisco Bay Zone.  The signs for the CA COVID app were greater in frequency, and along the roadway as we passed through Berkeley and Oakland the homeless infestation was mind-boggling.  Entire encampments of homeless tents and cardboard structures lined the sidewalks, filled the parks, and breached the freeway underpass zones.

And, yes, the smell was pretty horrid, too.

The last time I was in Oregon was four times last summer; June, July, August and October.  Each of those times in the small coastal town our property lies near I never wore a facial condom, and not a word was uttered to me, except on the last trip at a Bi-Mart (where they actually kicked me out ... and I was shocked, because the same store on previous occasions had given me no hassle).  On this trip, however, deep into the Winter/Spring intersection of 2021, and during a time most believe is beyond the tail-end of the COVID-19 emergency, everybody in town are wearing masks, and even the Grocery Outlet shooed me off like I was some kind of irritating insect.  I literally can do nothing in town.  My wife has had to go to the store without me.  If I were alone, I would starve (not that a week-long fast wouldn't do me any good).

What is happening?  Florida is wide open from what I hear.  My friend in a small town in Tennessee said they are laughing at us out here for still wearing the worthless masks on our arrogant, virtue-signaling California faces.  While the Golden State's Governor, Gavin Newsom, has been backing off on the indoor dining mandates as a recall effort slams his administration against the wall, the oppressive masking of Americans has not only increased, but on the West Coast the dummies are happily doing it to themselves.

I even saw a dude on a boat in the Chetco River by himself ... with a mask on.  Was he worried he might infect the fish?

"The science," I am told.  "Follow the science."

How about following common sense?

Masks are about as effective of stopping a virus as a chain-link fence is when it comes to blocking mosquitoes.  Once the cloth gets moist, the air we exhale shoots out the sides, anyway.  States with more lenient lockdown rules, and lax mask requirements have the lowest infection rates, but in the liberal-left States where the edicts are tightest, we are not only seeing higher infection rates, but higher rates in other issues (suicide, domestic violence, pneumonia, face rashes) related to the pandemic protocols and tyrannical facial diaper wearing.

Could it be that the masks are making us sicker?

Could it be that killing our ability to be social animals make us unhappy, and even violent or suicidal?

Could it be that destroying economies over an illness with a better than 99% survival rate may have us on edge, unhappy, and through that stress it may be turning us into a bunch of folks descending into the pit of things like depression?

Could it be that the science is wrong, and the alleged cures are worse than the illness?

"Don't worry," I was told recently at the Veteran's Administration Hospital.  "We'll let you in to your physical therapy appointment without a mask if you're just willing to get the vaccination."

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Saturday, March 27, 2021

If you vote Democrat...

By Douglas V. Gibbs

... You have voted in support of:

● Abortion: Legalized murder of children in the womb and the industry that participates with the selling of body parts.

● Abortion: Forcing Insurance Companies to cover Abortions. S.B. 245 in California, if passed, would require insurance companies to pay for all abortion costs, and would exclude abortion from any co-pay plans.

● Black Lives Matter: A communist front organization eagerly participating in the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution.  According to Captain Joseph R. John the Goal of Three Marxists Founders of Black Lives Matter is to Overthrow the US Government.

● Child Abuse: Aside from brainwashing children and penalizing them if they don't admit to their white privilege, they are also committing child abuse with their policies regarding transgenderism and children.  In schools our children are being programmed to also give up their liberty.

● Communism: Today's Democrat Party has finally removed the veil to reveal who they really are, and they are following the communist plan for American Subversion to a tee.

● Communist Revolution: The actions by the Democrat Party mirrors the four step plan provided by a former KGB agent in the cause of changing America into a communist country.

● Death on Demand: In California, A.B. 705, if made into law, would require California's religious medical institutions to perform abortions or assisted suicides if the medical staff was so inclined.

● Department of Justice that is lawless:  The United States Constitution is based on the rule of law, which is virtuous law; The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, as the Declaration of Independence put it.  How do you circumvent laws, the rule of law, and morality in a society?  You turn the Department of Justice into the Department of Injustice with the Appointment of Merrick Garland (the same individual Barack Obama attempted to appoint to the U.S. Supreme Court).  Garland is specifically anti-Second Amendment, and pro-Open Borders.

● Depopulation: A party that supports killing billions to depopulate the planet.

● Discrimination Against Christians: California is actively trying to use legislation to ban Christians from an position in law enforcement.

● Due Process, the Elimination of for College Students: Biden’s “White House Gender Policy Council” is “beginning his promised effort to dismantle Trump-era rules on sexual misconduct that afforded greater protections to students accused of assault.” The subhead informs us that, “The Biden administration will examine regulations by Betsy DeVos that gave the force of law to rules that granted more due process rights to students accused of sexual assault.”

● Economic Failure: The COVID-19 issue from a political angle succeeded for the leftists in nearly shutting down the entire economy.  As States work to try to reopen, Biden is openly criticizing them for essentially trying to save their economies.

● Elections: Electoral College, elimination of - According to TruNews, H.R. 1 is an initial step in the Democrat Party's plan to eliminate the Electoral College legislatively.

● Elections: Freedom of Speech - The Institute for Free Speech has done extensive analysis of the bill and its team of experienced election lawyers, constitutional lawyers and free speech advocates have produced some of the best critiques of the bill we’ve seen.  The Institute for Free Speech recently sent a letter outlining their objections to H.R. 1 to the leadership of the House Administration Committee, one of the House committees that may hold hearings on the bill.

● Elections, Outlawing Voter ID Laws: A party that is actively doing what they can to not allow voter ID laws in the States, which is not only unconstitutional, but a position that allows an easier application of fraud into the elections.  While efforts are underway to try to investigate the fraud that existed in the 2020 Election, the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to not only stop such efforts, but legalize the cheating that went on by federalizing elections.

● Employment, Laws that disallow being an independent contractor: The Pro Act, a proposal in Congress that mirrors the disastrous California Law A.B.5, claiming to help independent contractors by forcing employers to hire them (of which often cannot happen no matter how much you wish it) essentially takes away the choice of persons to be independent contractors, which includes choices that employees do not have the opportunity to enjoy.  If this bill becomes law, the potential is a loss of 57 million jobs.

● False Flags: More and more evidence is emerging showing that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was instigated by infiltrators pretending to be Trump supporters.  One piece of footage has one of them admitting he was with antifa.

● Freedom of Speech policing: We have known since 2015 that the Democrats wish to silence anyone who voices an opinion that supports Donald J. Trump, a conservative message, or anything related to the Republican Party.  With the advent of the stolen 2020 Election, the silencing of speech has gone even further. Recently underground journalists from Project Veritas leaked shocking footage from an alleged Salesforce meeting. The video purported to show a meeting of high ranking employees vow that their services will ban messaging from former President Donald Trump and rhetoric questioning the 2020 election.

● Gun Confiscation: While H.R. 127 does not necessarily reach as far as confiscation, the wheels are in motion if this nefarious bill passes the U.S. Senate.  It basically would create a gun registry, force an $800 per year tax on gun owners with a federal insurance policy, and would turn the United States gun law regiment into something that echoes across the board the anti-gun madness in California.  That said, it violates the 2nd Amendment.  Every single federal gun law is unconstitutional.  "Shall not be infringed" doesn't have an asterisk next to it in the 2nd Amendment proclaiming, "unless...."

● Gun Control: Even if it means doing it illegally through executive orders.  Currently they are targeting what they consider to be "military style weapons," even though they know nothing about guns and are making these accusations on false assumptions.  The Ninth Circuit Court has ruled that carrying a gun in public is not constitutional ... in violation of our right to "keep" and "bear" arms.  In the 1828 Webster Dictionary "bear" is defined as being a firearm inside one's coat.  Since folks would keep their homes warm in the winter, the need for a coat would be to go into public, hence, the Second Amendment's "bear arms" language specifically means the right to carry in public.  See definition 3 in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary.

● Human Rights Abuses: Even China thinks Black Lives Matter is guilty of human rights abuses.  And that is not counting the human rights abuses going on because of Biden's immigration policies.

● Immigration Gag Order: President Joe Biden and his administration are making sure the American people do not know what is happening. They have ordered that US Border Patrol agents and leaders cannot share information with the media.  NBC News referred to the move as an “unofficial gag order” where agents were told to deny ride-along requests and ignore press inquiries. Any approval for press inquiries must come from Washington, in what is sure to control the information that is made available to Americans.  NBC News shared that requests for photos of overcrowded facilities have been denied. Requests for data about the number of people at the border have also been denied. Some of the requests have been denied under the excuse of COVID precautions, but this certainly seems more like a cover-up.

● Immigration: Illegal Alien Criminals not only being released into the United States, but them being released into conservative regions as a way to target those areas.  This includes conservative communities like Murrieta, California who stood against such activities in 2014.  If you dare question Biden's immigration policies, you will receive backlash as Stephen Miller did.  Amnesty is moving through Congress at this moment, and would grant citizenship to illegal aliens in the country (which I believe is over 40 million people).

● Inequality: The Equality Act, which adds homosexuality and Transgenderism to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, actually does the opposite of what they are claiming.  By giving preferential treatment to groups, it does not seek equality as much as a destruction of anyone's rights who is not a member of any protected group.

● Kangaroo Courts: Aside from the obvious kangaroo court style proceedings during the Trump impeachment hearings, the Biden administration is targeting college students, stripping some of them of their due process rights.

● Mandatory Vaccinations: President Biden Authorizes 4,000 Active Duty Troops to Mobilize Across United States to Push Vaccination Effort we are finding out may be deadly.

● Mass Shootings: While Democrats claim they wish to stop mass shootings, their gun control policies will not resolve the problem because the policies seek to take guns away from law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against mass shooters, thus, encouraging mass shootings.  They have also lied about who commits these shootings, saying that it's mostly white people (an effort to bolster their "the country is full of dangerous white supremacists" false narrative).

● Minimum Wage Increase: Though a federal raise of the minimum wage is both unconstitutional and would be devastating to the American economy, the Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have vowed that they will even break their own rules to make sure he leftist policy sees daylight.

● Racial Discrimination: Democrats' anti-white agenda includes hammering on "getting ahead" because using liberty to do well is white supremacist thinking; of which they also argue the Asians are guilty of.

● Restrictions on Travel: As gas prices shoot upward thanks to the bad policies of the Democrats in power at this moment, a mileage tax is apparently on the horizon.  This would increase the cost of travel, making it cost-prohibitive for most Americans who are already struggling to survive in this scamdemic economy as it is.  If you read their sustainable development goals, it fits right in.  They don't want you traveling, just like the communists in Russia didn't, and just like the communists in China push.  That said, a mileage tax is not only unconstitutional (there are no constitutional authorities regarding any federal involvement in internal travel or infrastructure), but ideas like this was once shot down by the Father of the Constitution James Madison with his veto of the Bonus Bill in 1817.

● Revisionist History: Democrats believe if they can destroy our history, or rewrite it with ridiculous things like the 1619 Project, it will make people wish to abandon liberty because of its alleged sinful founding.

● Slave Labor in Africa: To make sure the dream of the liberal left Democrats of no gas-powered cars comes to fruition, the rise of the electric car must be a paramount policy.  The Democrats are doing all they can to promise you a new future with electric cars.  In order for that to happen, cobalt is used as a necessary ingredient in the lithium batteries being used for electric cars and smartphones.  Aside from being very destructive to the environment, cobalt mining operations in Africa enslave children as young as seven.

● Spending Federal Funds Recklessly and without Limitations.

● Suicide: California's S.B. 380, if passed, would require physicians to endorse and refer for lethal action. Would reduce waiting time for assisted suicide.

● Thought Police: The Cancel Culture has society canceling people for what they believe, businesses firing people for what they believe, and what's next is government arresting people for daring to have an opinion contrary to the political party in power.

● Trump Derangement Syndrome: We are finding out that the witchhunt against President Trump was worse than we thought.

● War: Among the first actions by President Biden upon taking office was to commit an airstrike against Syria, after Trump spent four years working to pull America out of wars that would be considered foreign entanglements.

● Weaken the Military: through "woke" policies.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Newly Uncovered Documents Show The Pentagon's Plan is Targeting Conservatives in The US Armed Forces

By Capt Joseph R. John, March 26, 2021, Op Ed # 549


While Communist China, Marxist Soviet Russia, Communist North Korea, and Iran the World’s Largest State Sponsor of Islamic Terrorism are preparing for “Total War” with the US, the Biden Administration is destroying the “Combat Effectiveness” and “Unit Cohesion” of the US Armed Forces by having Obama Screened Politically Correct Flag and General Officers go on a witch hunt, to root out white conservative males from the US Military.  Those white conservative males are alleged to be “White Supremacists”, “Systemic Racists” and “Extremists” (slide in a US Army Training Manual classifies Catholics and Evangelical Christians as “Extremist”), and Biden/Harris/Obama’s woke DOD states “Extremists” must be removed from within the ranks of the US military. 


The Obama Screened Flag and General Officers are in the process of brain washing the entire US Armed Forces, including the Cadets and Midshipmen at all 5 Service Academies with the Marxist Black Lives Matter radical racist indoctrination of “Critical Race Theory”.  It teaches all military personnel that America is inherently a racist nation, that all whites suppress blacks, and so many more outright racist lies.  The follow-on article, after this Op Ed, reveals that the Pentagon is indoctrinating military service members in a program "packed with progressive ideology and misstatements about the US Constitution," and the Biden Administration’s has a radical transformative agenda for the US Armed Forces.  That was stated according to a former Department of Justice Attorney, J. Christian Adams, Esq, in which he reveals how radically racist and destructive for the US Armed Forces the Biden, Harris, and Obama transformative agenda is, and how it will degrade the effectiveness of the US military.


The plan is to replace white conservative males, with recruits who pass the new degraded Military Aptitude Tests.  The previous Military Aptitude Test was highly effective and had been used for many years.  It determined if an individual had the military aptitude to become a member of the US Armed Forces, especially if he was motivated to assimilate into a disciplined military organization, and was capable of operating today’s extraordinarily complex computer systems in a combat environment. The Biden administration, with the support of Obama Screened Politically Correct Flag and General Officers will also be forcing tip of the spear combat units to accept females requiring extreme fitness qualifications to be substantially reduced for them to qualify (SEALs, DELTA Force, US Marine Corps Infantry, Rangers, and Special Operations Forces).  It will degrade the “Combat Effectiveness” of those tip of the spear units and the US military in general.


They are also aggressively recruiting transgender recruits and changing the Trump Administration policy that prevented sex reassignment surgeries, now sex reassignment surgeries are permitted.  Military hospitals were already overtaxed with many serious combat related surgeries; those surgeries often had to be delayed because of the lack of capacity; the military could not deal with normal military related surgeries and also perform sex reassignment surgeries.  The number of therapists who deal with the heavy combat related PTSD and the military family therapies, makes therapy for sex reassignment surgeries unsustainable; the military just does not have enough therapists to support the US military and sex reassignment surgeries. 

Sex reassignment surgery require multiple genitals, breasts, and facial surgeries that would take nearly three years of continual military hospitalization, at a cost of more than $100,000 per transgender surgery, and a transgender patient would be off duty for over 3 years, then their enlistments would shortly be over.  In the past, the medical costs for 994 military personnel diagnosed with gender dysphoria increased by 300% to over $10 million and required 30,000 mental health visits---a totally unacceptable and unsustainable cost for only 994 personnel in a military force of 2 million personnel.

At the same time the Biden Administration is having Combatant Commands focus on housing hundreds of thousands of Illegal Alien teenage migrants from 57 countries on military bases, who have not been screened by the FBI to determine if they have terrorist ties, and they have not been screened by Health Agencies to determine if they have COVID -19.  In the past Illegal Aliens have infected US Border Patrol Agents with many communicable diseases because they had not been quarantined or inoculated for many of the infectious diseases, previously eliminated in the US by the US Public Health Service. 


Illegal Aliens have been interdicted and detained with influenza, measles, mumps, typhus, chicken pox, tuberculous, Scalia, rubella, smallpox, Leprosy, chicken pox, syphilis, and even malaria.  The Military the bases they will be housed at will be at risk for the breakouts of those communicable diseases and the spreading of COVID-19.  Communist China could not be happier with such a stupid decision by Biden, Harris, and Obama to house those Illegal Aliens on US military bases.


“Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton (an endorsed and elected Combat Veteran For Congress) is proposing a bill called Combatting Racist Training in the Military Act. He begins by citing that in America all men are created equal. He goes on to talk about equal dignity and protection for all people under the law. He calls for bans on teaching that some races are inherently inferior, and that America is an inherently racist nation.  If this was 1865 or even 1964 you might think this was written by and for black people. But Tom is white, and he is addressing training in the military that teaches whites and America are fundamentally flawed racists.


The training is based on Critical Race Theory (CRT) as are most government decisions today. Introduced in 1989, CRT is anti-American and anti-white. It is a conspiracy theory advancing that whites are obsessed with maintaining a superior position in society to ensure the inferiority of non-whites. It has strong ties to Marxism. As a conspiracy theory, it makes QAnon look like a featherweight.” (Henry P Mcintosh, IV March 25, 2021)


Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only be posted on another Web site or be distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author


Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108


Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” -Isaiah 6:8



Newly Uncovered Documents Show Pentagon's Plan Targeting Conservatives in The US Armed Forces

Show 'armed forces are to be integrated into the Biden racialist agenda'

By Bob Unruh
Published March 23, 2021

Warning of a sudden new threat of "extremism" from the right, the Pentagon is indoctrinating military service members in a program "packed with progressive ideology and misstatements about the Constitution," according to former Department of Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams.

In a column published by PJ Media, he said the Navy, for example, in a talk titled "Extremism Stand Down," presents "misstatements of the law and warped characterizations of fellow citizens who believe in constitutional principles" as fact.

Adams said he obtained copies of all the materials.

"Throughout the services, service members have been shocked at the Biden blitz to root out ideas and people who stand in the way of the administration's transformative agenda," he wrote.

Adams said one individual in the training told him, "The military is one of the last institutions left that hasn't been radicalized by the progressives. That's why it is being targeted now."

Adams said his review of the materials "makes it clear the armed forces are to be integrated into the Biden administration's racialist agenda."

The Navy contends, he said, that if "extremist behavior" is not eliminated from the ranks,  "then racism, injustice, indignity and disrespect will grow and keep us from reaching our potential."

But the materials "do not cite a single instance of racism, injustice, indignity, or disrespect."

He explained the "scripted training" tells officers what to say to the ranks.

"The 'Dos and Don'ts of Facilitation' ensure that dissent will not be welcomed," he noted. "'Do be alert to statements about Prohibited Behavior (Extremism in the Ranks) which [sic] rely on inaccurate or misleading assumptions, misperception or myth. ... Do Not allow only a few participants to domination the conversation.'"

Adams cited demands that no one be allowed to "stray off topics."

"What might that myth or prohibited behavior be? The Pentagon provides helpful talking points for officers forced to do the training. 'Anti-government extremists' are the focus, as proven by 'recent events,'" he said.

"In other words, Trump supporters. Political foes of the administration."

Service members have a "duty to reject" such ideas, according to the documents.

"And if you don’t, 'the full range of administrative and disciplinary actions' await, including being discharged," he said.


The material states: "Speech that incites violence or criminal activity that threatens to undermine our government and Constitution is not protected by the First Amendment."

"Actually, it is," Adams insisted. "Secretary of Defense Austin is flat wrong. Speech cannot incite criminal activity. The closest one can get to this idea is a criminal conspiracy. But even a conspiracy requires an act and speech standing alone cannot be criminal."

He said the Pentagon's characterization of the law is borrowed from "the criminal codes of dictatorships."

"In fact, the First Amendment would allow a person to stand in the town square and over and over again give a speech undermining the government."

Interestingly, he pointed out, neither Chinese communists nor Antifa rioters are mentioned, "despite ongoing acts of violence."

Adams said the Pentagon is clear that it does not want people to exercise their rights.

"A whole section is devoted to banning behavior such as 'liking any material that promotes discrimination based on … gender identity.' In other words, if you believe in biological sex, you might be involuntarily separated or court-martialed. Never mind that Congress has never passed any such law," he said.


Constitution Radio: The Democrats Are Trying to Kill the Constitution

Constitution Radio


Douglas V. Gibbs, 

KMET 1490-AM 


Saturdays, 1-3 pm Pacific

Podcast at

Call in Number: 951-922-3532


Political Purge of the Military

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

The extremists of the Democrat Party have decided that if you didn't vote for Joseph Biden, you are a white supremacy extremist, and your "whiteness" is not welcome in government offices, or in the United States Military.  They have decided we must prioritize diversity over effectiveness, aptitude, or merit.  America's governments at all levels, and America's military is too white, and too non-liberal, and that just won't do.

Matt Gaetz called all of this disgusting.

A tweet from the Pentagon has announced what they are up to, and that they even now have a "Chief of Diversity & Inclusion" of America’s Special Forces; Richard Torres-Estrada.

The website has provided us with their "diversity and inclusion strategic plan."  As a veteran, I am here to tell you the effectiveness of the military is established in each individual when you are in boot camp. Nobody stands out, you are a unit, all colors, doesn't matter who you think you are, those identities are gone.  In the military you cease to be black, white, Asian, Hispanic, quirky, cool, dynamic, funny, or different.  In the end, all you are is a member of the military, and around you are your brothers.  All other things no longer exist.

What the Democrats are doing is a) seeking to make sure their protected classes (minorities, homosexuals, transgender cross-dressing people) are celebrated and danced out into the middle of the circle so that everyone may be forced to accept them, and b) if you don't, you're gone.  Doesn't matter if you are the best rifleman in the company, if your politics don't fit the Democrats, and you dare to let them know about it, you're gone.  The best and the brightest is no longer what the military is looking for.  They want drones who believe what the Democrats are offering, or you are gone.

Tucker Carlson stated it would lead to a "dramatic lowering of standards within our elite ranks."  That's an understatement.  There are realities in life, and in war.  In the end it all boils down to, "though the training is specific, if you allow distractions, human nature will lead to a hiccup in the operations, and that hesitation or distraction will kill members of the unit.

As for the new guy running this garbage, Richard Torres-Estrada; he is a "defund police" kind of guy who supports the Marxist Black Lives Matter organization, and made comparisons of Donald J. Trump to Hitler on his Facebook page.

(sarcasm pump #1, engage...) You know, a patriotic American who we want in the mix defending our liberty way of life.

We are becoming weaker, and the rest of the world is like a dog who recognizes fear in a trembling visitor, growling, and ready to strike.

Tucker Carlson reported that the Suez Canal, one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, is blocked by a stranded container ship.  Is there something nefarious going on, there?  Probably.  But our military is more busy trying to decide if they should discharge personnel who disagrees with men putting on high heels, than to act upon this emergency situation.

Our military is under a "stand-down" order issued by the new Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, the defense contractor who is now running the military, because they haven't figured out exactly how to purge the military of non-leftist thinking personnel, yet.  Besides, shenanigans in the Suez Canal is not a threat to these people.  Neither is China, communism, or Islam.  The real threat is you, folks who don't agree with the hard left politically.  The political purge of the military, and of America, has taken the seat up front on the priority list.

Discrimination must be addressed by promoting discrimination.  Extremism must be addressed by promoting extremism.  Isn't that the message?  Disagreeing with them is somehow a big enough crime to have you kicked out of the military, but if you agree with their dangerous extremism, you are celebrated for it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tucker Carlson: Democrats' Anti-White Agenda Violates Civil Rights Act

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

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, March 25, 2021

Video: Douglas V. Gibbs on Scott McKay's Patriot Streetfighter

Did you miss me as guest on Patriot Streetfighter Radio with Scott McKay?  That's fine, we have it right here.  I am on the second hour...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Carlsbad Constitution Class: Progressive Era, Prohibition, Women's Voting, Elections


Health From Within Family Wellness Center
1818 Marron Rd., #103
Carlsbad, CA 92008
6:00 pm

For Zoom, has the details

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 19
Progressive Era Amendments
           16th Amendment: Income Tax
Income Tax is a direct tax. The Founding Fathers prohibited direct taxes in Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution.
The concept of an income tax emerged during the American Civil War as a means of assisting in paying for the Union war effort. In 1861, Congress drew up a bill to tax personal and corporate incomes. This first income tax measure in the United States called for a 3% tax on incomes over $800. The bill quickly passed in both the House and the Senate, but it was never put into operation.
In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes. The bill was amended in 1864 to levy heavier taxation on higher incomes. The 1862 income tax law was repealed in 1872 and was declared to be unconstitutional, in violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution.
Progressivism was on the rise in the United States around the turn of the 20th Century. Americans were concerned about the large national debt that remained with the United States as a result of the Spanish-American War, and the growing social inequality between the rich and the poor. The idea that there should be a tax that “soaks the rich” began to take root among progressives of both major parties. The Democrats took to progressivism more than the Republican Party, and the progressives of the Democrat Party were looking for a way to embarrass the conservative arm of the GOP so that they could gain some traction in the next election. 
With social unrest rising among the population, a Democrat proposed the Bailey Bill with the express hope the Republicans would reject it. The theory was that after the Republicans rejected the bill, the Democrats could then point a finger at the Republicans, claiming for political purposes that the Republicans were in cahoots with the corrupt wealthy corporate types. A Republican rejection of the Bailey Bill, which would have imposed an income tax on the rich, would serve as proof of such an alignment between the Republicans and the wealthy. The slogan used by proponents of the Bailey Bill was “soak the rich,” a direct call to tax people they considered to be profiteers, a class of plutocrats they claimed were in collusion with the Republicans.
The conservative Republicans knew what the progressives of the Democrat Party were up to, and launched a counter move. They proposed a constitutional amendment that would impose an income tax on the rich, and when the States refused to ratify the amendment, the Republicans would use that failure to ratify the amendment as proof that the people, through their State legislatures, were against the idea of a new income tax. In turn, that would defeat the Bailey Bill, for how could Congress approve an income tax against the rich through the Bailey Bill after the people and States rejected a constitutional amendment that would have done the very same thing?
The proponents of the 16th Amendment promised that if it were to be ratified (remember, it was fully expected not to be ratified) the income tax would only be imposed on the top 5% wage earners, it would be voluntary, and it would be temporary.
The progressives of the Republican Party, however, rallied behind the proposed amendment, and the Secretary of State announced the amendment was ratified on February 12, 1913.
Progressives, satisfied the 16th Amendment was ratified, hoped to use it to tax the rich. In the beginning, only 5% of the people were required to submit tax returns. Many of the rich, however, avoided the tax with charitable deductions, and other creative strategies.
During World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the income tax as a way to vastly increase revenue, and initiated a policy of withholding from “all” wages and salaries, not just the highest incomes enjoyed by the rich.  Rather than the rich paying the tax at the end of the year, the tax was collected at the payroll window before it was even due to be paid by the taxpayer. This style of collection shifted the tax from its original design as a tax on the wealthy to a tax on the masses, mostly on the middle class.
In addition to violating the original intent of Article I, Section 9 prohibiting direct taxation, the income tax also opposes the 4th Amendment which requires that a citizen’s privacy be protected. An income tax enforced by the Internal Revenue Service violates the privacy of the home, business, personal papers and personal affairs of the private citizen. Since the tax is based on income, the IRS has the task of making sure everyone pays his fair share. This task is physically impossible without prying into the private papers, private business and personal affairs of the individual citizens.
Since the ratification of the 16th Amendment, there have been questions about whether the proper number of State ratification votes were ever achieved. Despite the argument by some researchers that the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states, and that politicians of the day were aware of the discrepancy, Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently declared ratification. Some may suggest that he did so under the urgings of wealthy bankers like J.P. Morgan.
Bailey Bill - Income Tax introduced in April 1909 by Senator Joseph W. Bailey, a Democrat from Texas, designed to embarrass conservative Republicans when they voted against it. The introduction of the bill was one of the factors that led to the proposal of the 16th Amendment.
Direct Taxation - A government levy on the income, property, or wealth of people or companies. A direct tax is borne entirely by the entity that pays it, and cannot be passed on to another entity.
Plutocrat – A person whose power derives from their wealth.
Profiteer - A person who seeks exorbitant profits.
Progressivism - Philosophy that views progress as seeking change in approaches to solving economic, social, and other problems, often through government sponsored programs.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why did the Founding Fathers not allow direct taxation by the Federal Government?
2. What lesson can be learned from the story of the Bailey Bill and the passing of the 16th Amendment?
3. Why didn’t “soaking the rich” work as hoped?
4. Why did President Roosevelt extend the income tax to include all wages and earnings?
Bill Benson, The Law That Never Was:
Ethan Pope, America’s Financial Demise: Approaching the Point of No
Return; Dallas, TX: Intersect Press (2010)
W. Cleon Skousen, History of the 16th Amendment, National Retail
Sales Tax Alliance:
           Federal Reserve
The same year the 16th Amendment created the income tax, the Federal Reserve was also created. The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency, and is actually a privately owned corporation owned by a secret group of international bankers. The Federal Reserve holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United States. Whenever the U.S. Government needs money it borrows the money from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve gladly loans that money because doing so results in a good profit for the bankers. 
The Federal Reserve is not the first central bank, but it is the longest lasting. The First Bank of the United States in 1791, created by Alexander Hamilton, became a system of control over the American economy, and was, as described by Jefferson and Madison, “an engine for speculation, financial manipulation, and corruption.”
In order to properly function, a central bank needs a collection of large sums of money from the people to pay off the interest on the money the government borrows. The creation of the income tax provided that opportunity.
The Federal Reserve Act surrendered control of the monetary system to the international banking cartel and guaranteed the eventual abandonment of the gold standard. The Federal Reserve's debt-based money guaranteed the enslavement of every American under a crushing debt burden. The Federal Reserve guaranteed the ability of the international banking cartel to confiscate wealth through artificially created boom/bust cycles.
The result is that the U.S. Government, and the bankers in charge of the Federal Reserve, can manipulate the economy simply by the amount of money they decide to pump into the system. The more currency is pumped into the system, the greater the rise of inflation rates. A reduction of the printing of money then results in a recovering economy. Government spending, in relation to the national debt, has a direct impact on the economic cycles we experience. The more the government borrows, the more fiat money is pumped into the system. The result is increased inflation, and a stalled economy. Cutting spending results in less money being borrowed, which then returns value to the dollar, and in turn reduces the level of inflation while encouraging capitalism to thrive.
The welfare system was created to compensate for the damage caused by the Federal Reserve and the income tax.
The 16th Amendment allows for the taxation on income from whatever source derived, which gives Congress, for the most part, carte blanche to tax at will, while giving the IRS the power to do all of the things the founders specifically disallowed the federal government from doing. This invasion of privacy, without due process, will continue as long as the 16th Amendment remains in force.
The income tax is in line with the Marxist philosophy of destroying a capitalist society by steeply graduating taxes on income and applying heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die.
Capitalism - An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Carte Blanche - Unrestricted power to act at one’s own discretion; unconditional authority; derived from “blank cheque.”
Federal Reserve - A privately owned corporation owned by a secret group of international bankers. The federal reserve holds a monopoly on the creation of money in the United States. Whenever the U.S. Government needs money it borrows the money from the Federal Reserve, thus creating a national debt.
Fiat Money - Money that derives its value from government regulation or law, but is not backed by any tangible collateral; money that lacks any intrinsic value.
Inflation - A sustained, rapid increase in prices, over months or years, and mirrored in the correspondingly decreasing purchasing power of the currency.
Questions for Discussion:
1. What are the similarities between Alexander Hamilton’s National Bank, and the Federal Reserve?
2. How does the existence of Federal Reserve adversely influence our economic system?
Abolish the Federal Reserve dot org:
G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at
the Federal Reserve; Appleton, WI: American Opinion Publishing (1994)
17th Amendment: State Representation in the Senate
To comprehend the 17th Amendment, we need to go back in history to understand how our political system was originally established. The Founding Fathers included a number of checks and balances during the creation of the federal government in the hopes of providing enough safeguards to protect the people from an ever expansive, tyrannical, consolidated central government. The separation of powers between the three branches of government, and between the federal government and the States, were an integral part of these protections against tyranny. However, not all of the checks and balances put in place were obvious, nor are all of the checks and balances taught to us during our school years.
The dynamics of the federal government were set up to prevent any part of government from having access to too much power. Too much power in any one part of the system could be dangerous, and this includes too much power in the hands of the people.
The general population, just like the government, cannot be fully trusted with absolute power. To prevent the danger of too much power residing in any part of government, power needed to be divided as much as possible so as to keep it under control. Too much power in the hands of anybody has the potential of being a dangerous proposition, including in the hands of the voting public.
The United States is not a democracy. All of the voting power was not given directly to the people. The voting power was divided to ensure the Republic was protected from the mob-rule mentality of democracy.
The vote of the people, or the people’s full and unquestioned voice in government, was, and still is, manifested in the U.S. House of Representatives. Then, as now, the representatives were voted into office directly by the people. Each Representative represents a district. The members of the United States Senate were not voted in directly by the people during the time period immediately following the ratification of the United States Constitution. U.S. Senators were voted in by an indirect vote of the people.
The Senators were appointed by their State legislatures. The State legislators are voted into office by the people of the State. Therefore, during the early years of this nation, the Senators attained office by an indirect vote of the people through their State legislatures.
The people are represented indirectly by the States in the U.S. Senate, and by the States appointing the Senators, the method of appointment allowed State’s interests to be represented in the U.S. Congress.
Since they were appointed by the State legislatures, the Senators looked at the political atmosphere in a different manner than the members of the House of Representatives. Members of the House of Representatives are directly voted into office by the people, so their concerns are more in line with the immediate concerns of the people, no matter how whimsical those concerns may be.
The Senate functioned in a very different manner because when the Senators were appointed they were expected to abide by the wishes of the State legislatures. The Senators were expected to be representative of what was best for their States; State’s Rights, State Sovereignty, protecting the States not only from a foreign enemy, but from a domestic enemy, should the federal government become the potential tyranny that the Founding Fathers, and especially the Anti-federalists, feared a central government could become.
The federal government exists because the States allow it to. The powers derived by the federal government were granted to it by the States, so in a way the States birthed the federal government, making the States the parents of the government in Washington, D.C. The federal government is not supposed to be able to do much of anything without the permission of the several States. The Senate was the representation of the States so that the States could ensure the federal government remained within its authorities.
The States having representation in the federal government through the U.S. Senate was also another way that checks and balances were applied to the system. The House of Representatives represented the people, and the Senate represented the States. Through this arrangement, it gave the people the ability to check the States, and the States the ability to check the people, and together they checked the Executive. The dynamics of our government through this arrangement were a built in check and balance.
The States could not get too far without the people approving of a senatorial proposal. The people could not get much done without The States agreeing with a proposal that originated in the House of Representatives. The executive branch could get little done without both the people and the States approving of it. However, if the President did not like what the people and the States were trying to accomplish, he could veto the bill. If the people and the States felt the legislation was important enough, they could override that veto with two-thirds of a vote in both Houses.
Looking at it in another way, a bill would be approved by both the people and the States before it went to the President to become law. This gave the Executive and both parts of the legislative branch the opportunity to approve or disapprove potential laws.
In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment changed the originally intended dynamics of the American form of government. The amendment removed the States’ representation from U.S. Government proceedings. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the appointment of the Senators from that of the State legislatures to that of the direct vote of the people. As a result, the protection of State Sovereignty was removed, and in its place was inserted ideology, and the willingness of Senators to buy the votes of individual voters through gifts from the treasury in a manner that was already emerging from the House of Representatives.
           Vacancies in the Senate
The Seventeenth Amendment also provides for appointments should a seat in the U.S. Senate be left vacant for any reason. The governors of the States, should the legislatures allow such, may make temporary appointments until a special election takes place. The State legislatures may change these rules as they deem necessary, such as requiring an immediate special election instead of allowing the governor to temporarily appoint a replacement. This leaves most of the power regarding filling vacancies in the hands of the State legislatures.
Massachusetts, during the reign of Democrat governors, used the rule that if there was a vacancy in the U.S. Senate, the governor could appoint the new Senator to complete that term of office. When Mitt Romney, who was a Republican, was governor, the Democrat dominated legislature feared a Republican appointment should one of the Massachusetts Senators die, so they changed the rule to require an immediate special election, fully confident the people would put another Democrat into office should one of the seats be vacated. The Massachusetts legislature even overrode a veto by Governor Mitt Romney to accomplish their rule change.
Romney did not run for reelection in 2006, and his gubernatorial term in Massachusetts ended January 4, 2007.
The new governor of Massachusetts in 2007 was Deval Patrick, a Democrat. When Senator Edward “Ted” Kennedy passed away August 25, 2009, since the State of Massachusetts had a Democrat governor, the Democrat-led legislature hurriedly changed the rule to enable the governor to appoint the new Senator as had been allowed before Mitt Romney was governor, just in case the people could not be trusted. 
The appointed Democrat Party senator held the seat until a special election in January of 2010 that pitted Republican Scott Brown against Democrat Martha Coakley. To the surprise of the entire nation, Scott Brown won the election, sending tremors through the political establishment, which included the Democrats losing a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate. Brown was defeated in 2012 by Democrat Elizabeth Warren, returning the Senate Seat back to the Democrats when she took office on January 3, 2013. 
           More like a Democracy
In the end, the real damage caused by the ratification of the 17th Amendment was that State representation in the Congress was removed. Senators, after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, would be voted into office by the vote of the people, making the U.S. Senate more like the House of Representatives, eliminating a very important check and balance, and making the United States more like a democracy and less like the Republic the Founders originally intended.
The people, fooled by a relenting rallying cry of “The will of the people,” and a common belief that the leaders of the States could not be trusted, demanded that the federal government be changed into something more like a democracy. As the progressives desired, and planned, the American form of government moved closer to a democracy with the 17th Amendment.
Karl Marx once stated that “Democracy is the road to socialism.”
Progressivism was on the rise in the United States during those early years of the 20th Century, and the statists knew that one of their main obstacles to consolidating government power into the grasp of the central authority in Washington was the independent and sovereign voice of the States. The 17th Amendment was one of the vehicles the statists used to begin the process of silencing the States, with the ultimate goal of making them irrelevant in regards to the running of the federal government.
The statists did not reveal their true intentions. If they had proclaimed that they desired the ratification of the 17th Amendment so that they could proceed in their quest to change the United States into a socialist system, the people would have rejected it. Instead, they used a populist argument. “It is for the will of the people. You deserve a Senate voted into office by the democratic will of the people. If you directly vote for the Senators, they will be more apt to act in line with the will of the people. After all, the States are corrupt, and they can’t be trusted. You, the voting public, in the interest of democracy, deserve to be able to directly vote for the Senators yourselves.”
As a result, the whole American political system has been turned on its head. The entire dynamic of our government system as it was originally intended to function has changed.
The damage to the American form of government reached deeper into the dynamics of our Constitutional Republic than immediately meets the eye.
The Founding Fathers made the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate different from each other for a reason.  
If a President of the United States signs a treaty, before that treaty goes into force, it must be ratified by the U.S. Senate, which back then was the voice of the States. It was the Framer’s way of making sure the States could act as a protective mechanism against a President who might make treaties that were dangerous to State Sovereignty. However, now the Senate no longer represents the States, so that important safeguard is no longer in place. Senators more apt to defend an ideology, rather than the best interest of their State, are in office now. The ratification of treaties has totally changed in a way that could place State Sovereignty in jeopardy. The States no longer have a voice in that part of the governing process anymore, and as a result it has become easier for the federal government to enter into treaties that compromise State interests, or local issues over which the federal government would normally not have any authority.
Another point to examine in regards to the Senate ratification of treaties, is since the people, through their States, are the final arbiters of the Constitution, the Founders felt no worry about unconstitutional treaties being ratified. After all, the final arbiters of the Constitution, the States, were the ones in charge of the ratification of all treaties. Now, since ideology now takes precedence over States' Rights in the Senate, we are faced by a number of draconian treaties . . . and there is nothing the States can do about it.
The appointment of judges, such as Supreme Court Justices, has also been altered by the passage of the 17th Amendment. Imagine how different the hearings regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Justices would be if the Senators were appointed by the State legislatures?
Do you think it would be as easy for an activist judge to be appointed?
Do you think the nominees would be asked questions geared towards the Constitution, and protecting State Sovereignty?
The people were told that the States could no longer be trusted in their appointment of the Senators, and the States got lazy and didn’t wish to participate in that manner anymore. As a result, the 17th Amendment was ratified, and look at the mess it has caused.
Let’s return to the concept of “dividing power” for a moment. The Founding Fathers divided the voting power. By the States appointing the Senators, it divided the people’s voting power.
During the early years of this nation the State legislatures also appointed the Electors for president.
The people only directly voted into office the Representatives of the U.S. House of Representatives.
This division of voting power was put into place because the Founding Fathers knew that should the people be fooled while they completely controlled the vote, a tyranny could ensure that it was voted into the three primary parts of government: the Executive, the House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. Once tyranny had control of those three parts of government, the judicial branch would be sure to follow, if not already in collusion with the other two branches.
The Founders knew that should the uninformed electorate vote in a tyranny, while caught up in some kind of cult of personality, it would spell the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.
The Founding Fathers knew that democracy of that kind would destroy the system, so they divided the power of the vote. The voting power was divided so as to protect us from the excesses of democracy. 
Looking back on 2006, 2008, and 2012 we see an example of exactly what the Founding Fathers warned us about. A single ideology, one that is hostile towards the U.S. Constitution, and hostile to the American System, fooled the people, and took control of some of the most vital parts of government. The destructive reasoning by the statists of the Progressive Era for the passage of the 17th Amendment was fulfilled.
The 17th Amendment, combined with the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the implementation of an income tax, was all a part of a scheme to change the American System into a model of socialism through the guise of democracy.
We are not a democracy, and we were never meant to be a democracy. The 17th Amendment moved us in that direction. The Founding Fathers continuously spoke out against the dangers of democracy. They knew that democracies lead to mob-rule. As much as the government couldn’t be trusted with too much power, neither could the voting public. 
The Constitution is filled with checks and balances. Yet, the people of that time period were fooled so easily by the statists. James Madison five times in his Federalist Papers writings wrote, “We are a Republic, by which I mean. . .” and then he would explain what a republic is. He felt the need to do so because those who opposed the Constitution because they believed the political system should be one of nationalism argued that democracy and republicanism were the same.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those that are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
John Adams said, “While it lasts, Democracy becomes more bloody than either an aristocracy or a monarchy. Democracy never lasts long; it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Thomas Jefferson said, “A democracy is nothing more than mob-rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
James Bovard said, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.”
A friend of mine, the late Tim “Loki” Kerlin, added that a republic is “two wolves, and a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.”
Benjamin Franklin, after asked what the Founders created in the Constitutional Convention, replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
With freedom comes responsibility. It is up to us to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Activist Judge - A public officer charged with applying the law in order to administer justice, but also interprets the law, and modifies the law according to his opinion; a judge who legislates from the bench.
Checks and Balances - An internal system in government where each part of government can counter the actions or decisions of the other parts. This arrangement ensures transparency, and prevents domination of the government by any part.
Collusion - Conspire together.
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.
Democracy - A form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Such a system includes equal participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.
Direct Vote - Citizens vote themselves; popular vote.
Ideology - A set of political or economic ideas that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
Indirect Vote - Representatives of Electors vote instead of the citizens. The indirect vote may be based on criteria that includes the will, or portions of the will, of the citizens; before the 17th Amendment, United States Senators were chosen by an indirect vote of the people, in which State representatives who attained their office by a direct vote of the people appointed U.S. Senators to represent their State in Congress; the President is elected by an indirect vote of the people through electors who traditionally follow the popular vote of their State, but have the choice to change that vote if believed to be necessary, and a President may be elected based on an Electoral majority that does not reflect the national popular vote.
Mob-Rule - A government ruled by a mob or a mass of people; the intimidation of legitimate authorities; the tyranny of the majority; pure democracy without due process.
Nationalism - Political ideology which involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a political entity defined in national terms. There are various strands of nationalism. The ideology may dictate that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural or identity group. Nationalism may also include the belief that the state is of primary importance, which becomes the unhealthy love of one’s government, accompanied by the aggressive desire to build that governmental system to a point that it is above all else, and becomes the ultimate provider for the public good.
Republic - Form of government that uses the rule of law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Republicanism - Rule by law through a government system led by representatives and officials voted in by a democratic process. The United States enjoys a Constitutional Republic.
Separation of Powers - A division of governmental authority into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial; division of powers between the States and federal government.
Statists - Individuals that hold that government should control the economic and social policies of the system it serves.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why are the originally intended checks and balances so important to safeguarding freedom?
2. What was the concept of the separation of powers designed to protect against?
3. How does the Seventeenth Amendment add to the withering away of State Sovereignty?
4. How is socialism and democracy related?
5. Why would dividing powers include dividing the voting power of the people?
Allison, Maxfield, Cook, Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New
York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (1983).
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster
Devvy, 36 States Did Not Ratify The 17th Amendment: What Will States
Earl Taylor, Jr., The Seventeenth Amendment and the Destruction of
Federalism; National Center for Constitutional Studies,
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 45,
Jon Wolverton, II, J.D., 17th Amendment Mudslinging; The New
American (November, 2010)
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)
Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United
States; New York: Sentinel (2004).
Richard Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth
Amendment; Yale Law Journal (October, 1993)
Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs
Lesson 20
Prohibition, Women’s Voting Rights, Election Rules
Amendment 18 was ratified January 16, 1919, bringing the prohibition of alcohol to America. The amendment was repealed by Amendment 21, December 5, 1933.
Christian churches worked to bring about prohibition as far back as the early 1800s, largely through the campaigning by women and young adults who had been adversely affected by husbands and fathers who were heavy alcohol consumers. Alcohol was considered to be one of the most prevalent social problems in America. The concerns over the dangers of alcohol brought about the Temperance Movement. The American Temperance Society was founded in 1826, with the specific goal of outlawing alcohol in the United States.
Local organizations that encouraged abstinence from alcohol existed as early as 1808. It was not until 1826 that a nationwide temperance society was created. As the American Temperance Society gained steam, national and international temperance societies sprang up. Organizations like the Washington Temperance Society did not consider temperance to be a religious issue, while other groups felt compelled by God to proclaim temperance. Considering the involvement in the movement by a diverse menu of denominations, no one religion was able to claim to have been the originator of temperance ideals.
The most effective weapon of temperance was to advocate total abstinence from alcohol through personal pledges. The societies gave out pledge cards or medals with various types of pledges written on them. Not all of the pledges, however, demanded total abstinence, as indicated by the following pledge:
"We agree to abstain from all intoxicating liquors except for medicinal purposes and religious ordinances."
Concerned that being too strict may discourage many from joining their society, some organizations gave people the option to choose the extent of their pledge. One common practice was to have those who joined a society to sign a book indicating their commitment. If the person was willing to commit to total abstinence, they would place a capital "T" by their name. The "T" stood for Total or "Total Abstinence". Hence came the term "Tee Totaler" as one who has committed himself to total abstinence.
Through the use of pressure-politics the goal of nationwide prohibition was achieved during World War I with the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment in January of 1919.
Congress, in response to the new amendment, passed the Volstead Act on October 28, 1919, to enforce the law. Most large cities refused to enforce the legislation. As the federal government went after bootleggers, it became quickly apparent that the understaffed agencies were fighting a losing battle.  Meanwhile, though there was a slight decline in alcohol consumption around the nation, organized crime increased in the larger cities. Alcohol became a high demand cash crop that the criminal element could not resist.
As Prohibition became increasingly unpopular, and the element of organized crime had reached its height, the perceived need for tax revenue during the Great Depression also encouraged a repeal movement. The hope for tax revenue from the legal sale of alcohol, and the need to weaken organized crime, led to the 21st Amendment, which repealed the amendment that had brought Prohibition to America. The repeal returned the legalities of alcohol to the States. Though Prohibition was over nationwide, some counties remained dry counties, forbidding the sale of alcoholic beverages.
In our current society there are calls for the legalization of Marijuana, and other drugs. Existing federal drug laws enforce a prohibition of drugs. There is a movement in some parts of government pushing for the legalization of certain drugs, like marijuana. If at the federal level a number of politicians decided that the legalization of drugs is good for the nation, we could very well see such legislation pass through Congress. By studying the U.S. Constitution, and taking a lesson from the 18th Amendment, it is apparent that the federal government does not have the authority to ban, or legalize, drugs in America without receiving such an authority through the Amendment Process (as we saw with the 18th Amendment in regards to Alcohol). The regulation of drugs is a State issue, as per the Tenth Amendment. This means that all federal drug laws are unconstitutional, and laws in California legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and in the States of Washington and Colorado for recreational use, are completely constitutional.
Dry Counties - Counties in the United States whose government forbids the sale of alcoholic beverages within the county.
Great Depression - A severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II.
Organized Crime - Transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized enterprises run by criminals for the purpose of engaging in illegal activity, most commonly for monetary profit.
Prohibition - Period in United States history during which the manufacture and sale of alcohol was prohibited. Drinking alcohol itself was never illegal, and there were always exceptions for medicinal and religious uses.
Temperance Movement - A social movement urging the reduced use of alcoholic beverages during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Volstead Act - Officially The National Prohibition Act; the law that was the enabling legislation for the Eighteenth Amendment which established prohibition in the United States.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why were women a major factor in the temperance movement?
2. What were some of the factors that contributed to the growing popularity of The Temperance Movement?
3. What challenges did The Temperance Movement encounter, and how did they adjust (i.e. through the style of pledges, exceptions to abstinence, etc.)
4. What was the reaction of many local governments to the Volstead Act?
5. What happened to the presence of organized crime when Prohibition was enacted? Why?
6. What were the reasons for repealing Prohibition?
7. What did Prohibition say about individualism and personal responsibility from the point of view of the federal government?
8. In what form does Prohibition continue to exist in the United States even today?
9. What lesson regarding the legalization of other drugs does the 18th Amendment teach us?
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)
Kobler, John, Ardent Spirits The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, New
York: G.P. Putnam's Sons (1973)
The Temperance Movement, US;
Steven Mintz, Moralists & Modernizers: America’s Pre-Civil War
Reformers; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press (1995)
Women’s Voting Rights
The 19th Amendment established uniform voting rights for women nationwide. It was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Women, despite popular opinion, did vote in elections prior to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. In 1869, women in the newly created territory of Wyoming became the first women in the United States to win the right to vote. Colorado gave voting rights to women in 1892, and both Utah and Idaho gave women the right to vote in 1896.
The Constitution gives the States the right to determine their own rules for elections. The women's suffrage movement worked to bring about an amendment that would give women voting rights nationwide. The amendment was first proposed in 1878, and it took forty-one years before it was submitted to the States for ratification. It took about a year to receive enough votes for ratification.
Susan B. Anthony, already known for her crusade for the abolition of slavery, and the prohibition of alcohol, added women’s suffrage to her plate. By 1878 she was able to induce a Senator from California to introduce a resolution in Congress calling for an amendment to the Constitution which would give women throughout the United States the right to vote.
The drive for an amendment that would grant uniform voting rights for women was nothing new. Aaron Burr, the Vice President during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, was a fervent believer in women’s rights, and took personal charge of his daughter's course of study, insisting she learn Greek, Latin, and French, along with literature, philosophy and sciences. His proposals for the uniform voting rights for women, however, never gained traction.
John Adams, the second President of the United States, also supported expanding women’s freedoms. As a great admirer of his wife, Abigail, he often went to her for advice. In 1776, as the Founders put into full gear their drive for American independence, Abigail offered in a letter, “I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”
A challenge to the 19th Amendment (Leser v. Garnett, 1922) claimed that the amendment was unconstitutionally adopted, and that the rules for elections were implicitly delegated to the individual States because of the need to preserve State Sovereignty. However, the very fact that the change in voting rules was through amendment made the argument against the 19th Amendment a moot point.
Once the 19th Amendment was ratified, with this new power, women were able to attempt to elect those who shared their beliefs, hoping that other measures that would push forward the fight for women's rights would also emerge.
After the 19th Amendment passed, the percentage of women in the workforce increased to about 25%. Though some discrimination continued, and women rarely held decision-making positions, it was definitely a step in the right direction for the purpose of encouraging the rights of women.
During World War II, women were needed in all areas since many of the men went overseas to fight. The percentage of women in the workforce increased to 36%. The boom for women was short-lived, however. When the war ended, and the soldiers returned home, two-million women were fired within fifteen months after the end of the war to make room for the men.
Despite such setbacks, by the 1980s, the percentage of women in the workforce exceeded 50%. However, the percentage of women voting has not equaled the original push shortly after the ratification of the 19th Amendment.
Advocates for family values, though supportive of equal opportunity, often view these advancements as promotion for the break-up of the family unit. With mothers participating in the workforce, advent of women’s rights has also given rise to the emergence of latch-key kids.
The greatest right for women is choice, which includes the choice not to pursue the numerous opportunities available for the purpose of following a more traditional role, should they desire to make such a choice. Women in today’s society have the choice to pursue a career, be a stay-at-home mom and wife, or attempt to juggle both. For the purpose of protecting the family unit, and the traditional nature of the American society, wife and mother remains the more popular choice. 
Women’s Suffrage - The right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Were women allowed to vote in national elections before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment?
2. How did the abolition movement and temperance movement lead some to also support women’s suffrage?
3. On what grounds was the Nineteenth Amendment Challenged?
4. How has the drive for the rights of women changed to an opposite extreme?
5.  How has the Women’s Rights Movement affected the concept of the traditional family unit?
Aaron Burr Biography, Essortment;
Abigail Adams urges husband to "remember the ladies",;
Andrew M. Allison, K. DeLynn Cook, M. Richard Maxfield, and W.
Cleon Skousen, The Real Thomas Jefferson; New York: National Center for Constitutional Studies (2009)
David McCullough, John Adams; New York: Simon and Schuster (2001)
W. Cleon Skousen, The Role of Women in Healing America, Latter Day
Conservative and The Constitution magazine, November 1985;
Election Rules
Ratified in 1933, the 20th Amendment establishes the current rules regarding the beginning and end of the terms of elected federal offices.
The amendment moved the beginning of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms from March 4. Congress, under the new rules established by the 20th Amendment, convenes on the third day of January, reducing the amount of time a lame duck Congress would be in session. A lame duck Congress, no longer fearful of the effect their decisions may have on re-election, may be more apt to support otherwise unpopular legislation during a lame duck session.
The 20th Amendment moved the terms of the President and Vice President to begin on the 20th day of January.
Section 2 of the 20th Amendment begins, “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year.” The phrase is consistent with the language used in Article I, Section 4, though one wonders if the delegates debating the 20th Amendment viewed meeting one day a year as overburdensome as did the Framers of the Constitution, or if they considered themselves to be professional politicians who must be constantly legislating, as does today’s legislators.
The 20th Amendment’s Section 3 addresses vacancies to the presidency before the new President has the opportunity to take office. The clause assigns the presidency to the Vice President in the case of the death of the President, if the President dies before he can take office. Assigning the presidency to the Vice President was in line with Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, and the 12th Amendment assigning to the Vice President the Office of the President should the President die after he took office. In the case it turns out the President does not qualify for the office, this article grants to Congress the authority to declare who shall act as President. “Failing to qualify for office” refers to an occasion that the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President. A key point of this provision, and a critical protection against an outgoing faction attempting to retain some semblance of power, in the case that the candidates fail to qualify for office, is that the decision still devolves to Congress, but to the newly elected Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one. As established in Article II, Section 1, the decision for President would continue to rest upon the House of Representatives, and the choice of Vice President would continue to be the choice of the United States Senate.
Section 4 of the 20th Amendment addresses succession, giving Congress the authority to establish a line of succession, in the case of death of the President, or of the Vice President. The more astute student may recall that today’s constitutional protocols calls upon the President to appoint a new Vice President, should that seat be vacated, but that provision did not become law until the ratification of the 25th Amendment in 1967.
The final two sections of the 20th Amendment address when the amendment would take effect should it be ratified, and a time limit of the proposal should the States not ratify it in a timely fashion. Section 5 states that the first two sections of the amendment, the parts of the amendment that alters the date the terms of President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall begin, “shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.” If ratification reached completion during an election year, that would put the new amendment into effect a couple weeks before the next election. The amendment was ratified January 23, 1933, not in time for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s victory in the 1932 Election. FDR had to wait until March of 1933 to take office.
In Section 6 of the 20th Amendment, for the first time in American History, a limitation was placed upon a proposed amendment, requiring that the amendment be ratified within seven years from the date of its submission. The same stipulation would be added at the end of the 21st and 22nd amendments, as well as a number of proposals that failed to be ratified within the allotted time period (like the Equal Rights Amendment). The 27th Amendment, ratified in 1992, reveals that without a limitation, proposed amendments remain in place and can stay on the active list indefinitely. The 27th Amendment was originally proposed as a part of the original Bill of Rights, submitted September 25, 1789.
Lame Duck Congress - A lame duck session of Congress in the United States occurs whenever one Congress meets after its successor is elected, but before the successor’s term begins.
Line of Succession - The order in which individuals are expected to succeed one another in some official position.
Questions for Discussion:
1. Why did the framers of the Twentieth Amendment see a need to move forward the dates of Presidential and Congressional Terms?
2. In what way can Lame Duck Sessions be dangerous?
3. Why do you think the Amendment changed the duty of electing the President, should the Electoral College fail to do so, to the newly elected Congress from the outgoing one?
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)
United States Senate, Lame Duck Session Definition:
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs