Constitution Class Schedule week of April 4 through April 9, 2022

Constitution Class Schedule For the week of April 3 through April 9, 2022
Day	Date	Time	Location	Lesson
Sunday	4/3	---	---	---	No Class
Monday	4/4	6:00pm	Chino	3	Art. I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers)
Tuesday	4/5	11:00am	Fallbrook	FedEd	Alan Myers, Week 3
Tuesday	4/5	3:00pm	Online	8	Art. III (Judicial Branch)
Tuesday	4/5	6:00pm	San Juan Capistrano	18	Amendment 14 & 15 (Reconstruction)
Wednesday	4/6	6:00pm	Winchester	18	Amendments 14 & 15 (Reconstruction)
Thursday	4/7	10:00am	Beaumont	3	Art. I, Sec. 8 (Enumerated Powers Continued)
Thursday	4/7	6:00pm	Carlsbad	3	Art. I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers)
Friday	4/8	---	---	---	No Class
Saturday	4/9	9:00pm	Radio/KPRZ	11	Art. VI. (Federal Supremacy)

Attack on the word "Citizen"

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

America's government was never supposed to be a national government.  We are a federation of states, therefore, we have a federal government.  The United States is a union of states of which the original member states recognized that their individual sovereignty was essential to the concepts of localism and liberty.  On their own as individual and separate entities they were not strong enough to exist in a world of empires and oligarchies.  The former English Colonies, once they achieved their independence from the British Empire, decided to band together as a single force for the purpose of their "common defense" and so that the new central government could handle the issues that a national type of government typically faces.  It was an attempt to seek balance.  A central government is necessary for a country to successfully navigate the waters of a worldwide arena of nations.  But, fearful of having a national government because such centralized systems tend to become tyrannies, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 decided to make compromises that would enable the States to retain their sovereignty when it came to internal issues, while uniting together under the federal government for issues of an external nature, ones that concerned the union as a whole, and to ensure the preservation of the union through federal mechanisms that could settle disputes between the States and enable the country's citizens to remain in communication with each other (postal system).

At that time Americans became a part of a unique experiment that mixed the various systems of history into a mixed constitution.  The people on the Atlantic Coast of the New World would be both sovereign citizens, yet members of their States.  They were citizens of their States and citizens of the union called The United States of America.  Their States would also enjoy sovereignty, while simultaneously being members of the union, and as such would also have a voice in the law-making process (U.S. Senators were originally appointed by the State Legislatures) as a part of a network and series of mechanisms of oversight the States had over the new federal government created by the Constitution.

It has worked beautifully.  Due to the exceptional (exception to the rule) nature of the republican form of government in the United States the country expanded ultimately into a world power, and a shining beacon of liberty for those around the world to emulate.

Our American System has been under attack by those who support the presence of a ruling class and collective hivemind for over two hundred years.  The Constitutional provisions and principles in place have been chipped away, slowly turning our republic into a democracy with the ultimate goal of ushering in a centralized oligarchy populated by enslaved subjects.  In response to the slow journey of our system from that of a federal government to a national government a Sovereign Citizen Movement has been traipsing through our country.  I recognize the plight of our country, and the concerns of those involved in the Sovereign Citizen Movement, but I am not sure their aim is true, nor does it have the ability to be as effective as they claim.  Sovereignty can be a good thing, but taking it to the extreme of anarchy might not be.

At the center of the movement is their demonization of the concept and word "citizen".

To be a citizen, they teach, is to be subject to a high governmental power, which is, as they explain, "the antithesis of true liberty".

If you're sovereign, you are without a country, and all of the immunities and privileges that go along with citizenship is completely up to you.  While you may group yourself with other sovereigns for safety, becoming a sovereign citizen is much like jumping out of a vehicle and standing in front of it as it speeds toward you with the belief that if you are outside the vehicle and standing in front of it you somehow have a better chance of changing its direction or stopping it.  In the end, despite the best of intentions and the hard work of putting all of your calculations on paper, you will likely be just another statistic as the vehicle hits you and rolls over your body.  As a social creature we form groups, and for the purpose of strength and the ability to defend ourselves we have historically united into countries to achieve such stability.  The reality is, if you are going to have a country, the country needs a government.  It's a necessary evil that, once in place, can take care of the internal order of the country.  As a member of that civilization, one may possibly rise to a position of authority or power if the reigning hierarchy is one of a ruling elite.  Or, one may become a representative that consciously tries to adhere to the voice of the people or the rule of law, or some kind of combination of both if it is a democracy or a republic.  If one is not a holder of political office, then, depending on the type of system, one might be a citizen, a subject, a slave, an indentured servant, or possibly something else depending on the system in question.  On that list, the only non-office holder title that is not expected to serve the system as a serf, prisoner or someone who is enslaved would be that of "citizen".  

So, why would the word "citizen" fall under attack if it is the title of, according to a number of persons in history, the highest political office of the land?  If you live in a country, you essentially serve the government, or it serves you.  Citizen is the only title on the list in which the country's government serves the people.

In short, if one is to have a government, you are either a citizen, or you are a subject (or some variation, thereof).

I believe a bunch of well-meaning folks, like those of the sovereignty movement, have fallen for a PsyOp being perpetrated by the enemies of liberty.  They know that if you aren't a citizen, you are either an undefended sovereign, or an enslaved member of society such as "subjects" were in Europe as America was finding its way to liberty through revolution, The Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution.

It is true that the early citizens of the United States viewed themselves more so as citizens of their States, rather than that of the country.  The Constitution of the United States points out that people of their States was an important concept, but it also establishes citizenship of the union of states, known as the entity "The United States of America".  While one tended to refer to themselves as a Pennsylvanian, or a Virginian, or a Georgian before that of American, and while many believed themselves to be citizens of their States, and the States were the members of the union, American Citizenship was indeed established back then, and it was embraced and considered to be a uniting concept.

In Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution the House of Representatives was established to be the voice of the "People of the several States" in the new federal government that was being formed by that founding document.  Article I, Section 7 gives the power of the purse-strings to those representatives of the people in The House of Representatives.  Article I, Section 8 provides for Congress the authority to establish rules for naturalization so that other people may become citizens of the country.  Article I, Section 9 laid out that direct taxation by the central government against the individuals of the country was unconstitutional, and therefore, unlawful, protecting the citizens from unfair direct taxation.  That same section also disallows the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (being held without due process), Bills of Attainder (Congress using legislation as a way to target and punish the citizens), ex post facto Law (retroactive law), and disallows titles of nobility or foreign influence on our leaders (an attempt to squash the rise of any ruling elite).  Article II, Section I, after indicating that the President must be a Natural Born Citizen, recognizes that citizens of the country already existed: "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution."  

Yes, folks considered themselves citizens of their States, but the clauses I just mentioned also indicates that even as the Constitution was being adopted the people of the land were also citizens of the new country.  

The problem with the system is not the system.  The evil thing that is pounding down on us in a tyrannical manner is not the word "citizen", or the idea that we are citizens who are allegedly subjects to a high power (some might even erroneously say "a corporation").  The concept of a country, the concept of being a citizen, and the institutions in place like government and the media are nothing more than tools.  They, in and of themselves, cannot be evil.  

People are the problem.

A gun or a hammer, for example, are not dangerous by themselves; but, in the hands of a violent and evil person they can create quite a bit of destruction and mayhem.  Government, and being a citizen, is a wonderful thing if wielded by the right people, and in the correct manner.  They can be destructive, however, in the wrong hands.  So, rather than going after citizenship, or the institution in place as we have inherited it, why don't we work on putting the right people in place, and getting back to the original principles and mechanisms our republic was operating under before the tyrants grabbed the amount of power they currently have?  If we restore our republican form of government as it was originally laid out by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution the problems that are running rampant in our system would be incapable of surviving.  Liberty, checks and balances, free markets, and a set of rules established as the Constitution established them starves out and kills tyranny.  We just have to have the intestinal fortitude to fight for it, and reestablish our system as it once was.

That's why constitutional education is so important.  If we don't understand the U.S. Constitution we will not be capable of restoring the republic as it was originally constitutionally designed.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Enemies within the Church, Screening in Beaumont

 

Chino Constitution Class, Enumerated Powers

Chino Constitution Class, Monday

6:00 pm at Archibald's, 

15421 Fairfield Ranch Rd in Chino Hills (right off Central and the 71 Freeway)

Lesson 3, Art. I, Section 8 (Enumerated Powers)

For the Republic: Mr. Constitution, FedEd, and the Utah Legislature

 

 

Alan Myers and I are joining forces, today, and we are out to reach as many candidates as we can... For the Republic. 

For the Republic

Sunday 5:00 - 7:00 PM

Hosted by Alan Myers

Guest Co-Host: Douglas V. Gibbs

https://patriotssoapbox.com/

https://dlive.tv/psb (sign in to the chat!!!)

People who look like me...

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

While watching a sports program about historically black colleges and universities one of the four persons at the roundtable argued that a part of the reason there are not enough people who look like him in the job market when it comes to folks at higher levels of employment (such as head football coaches and corporate executives) is because there are not enough colleges that focus on the plight of black people in a country steeped in institutionalized racism.  Basically, without necessarily saying it, he was pushing the critical race theory argument, the Black Lives Matter version of alternative racism, and the Marxist idea that the only way for things to be fair is for government to force fairness upon the public square.

You can't make sure everyone gets a piece of cake with two or more sides of icing on it by mandating that everyone gets one, regardless of who they are.  In my house cake is first come, first serve, and usually the most aggressive people in the house get the pieces with the most icing.  There were complaints.  But, in reality, the only way government would be able to see, or ensure, that all of the pieces were equal would be to make a cake with no icing on it in the first place.  You may have been deprived of your icing, but at least all of the pieces are the same.

In a free market government is expected to get out of the way and let the market forces, and natural individual thinking take over.  Innovation then happens.  Someone, along the way, because they realize they can profit from doing it in such a way, may say, "Hey, everyone wants icing, so instead of making a huge cake with hundreds of pieces, or dozens of pieces, let's make a large number of them with four pieces so that everyone willing to pay for this new innovation can have a piece with icing on three sides (top, and the two sides of the corner).  Someone might say, "but what if someone only wants icing on the top, or no icing at all?"  The market then will provide.  Someone will see the need and begin baking cakes with no icing, or larger ones with only icing on the top, or perhaps not put icing on the sides so that all of their pieces only have icing on the top.  Then, someone else might come along and make one for a slightly less price.  It may not taste the same, but there will be folks who are willing to deduct a little from taste for the purpose of saving a little money.  Others might be willing to pay more for their pieces.  Some folks might not buy cake at all, but they are big fans of the pie guy up the street.

That's how the free market is supposed to work.  Ideas and innovation, without government interference.  Sometimes ideas don't make it, sometimes it's just a matter of timing.  But, whatever it is, it has nothing to do with race (and if it does, it's because of the people participating who make it about race, and typically in the end once word gets out, their business will either not thrive, or will only thrive amongst their racist brethren).

The cake market might be widespread, or it might be one battling in your neighborhood.  There might be large cake bakers who send their products to a large corporate store, or that small baker everyone knows has the best in the business with a special personal touch around the corner on Main Street.  Whatever it is, whether it is in a mixed neighborhood, a white neighborhood, a black neighborhood, an Asian neighborhood, a Hispanic neighborhood, or a neighborhood with some other label that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, the fact is the market itself cannot be racist.  It's not capable of it.  It is only a "thing".  People can be racist, and to be honest that is their choice.  The wonderful thing about liberty is you can be something that may not be acceptable, and that is okay.  It's your choice.  But, if you are convinced that you must be a certain thing, such as racist, you will probably appeal to a smaller share of the market.  The market, in the end, didn't make that choice.  You did.

Arguing that institutions like capitalism or due process are inherently racist because they've been used as tools to deprive people of their equality or rights as a person due to their skin color, ethnicity, sex, and so forth is an ignorant and dishonest argument.  As with anything we use in our society, capitalism, the marketplace, the job market, and due process are simply tools that exist in our system that is based on a set of rules and ideas set forth in our laws, and various documents like the U.S. Constitution.  Saying that capitalism or due process are racist parts of our institutions because there are evil people who have used those tools for racist means is like calling a hammer racist because a person beat someone with it with racial malice in their heart.  The hammer is not racist.  The person who wielded it was.

The problem in society is not racism, or the crazy ideas floating around that say our liberty-based institutions must be racist because persons of color struggle in that marketplace.  The job market is a brutal place to compete.  That's just reality.  It is nothing more or less than a simple part of the societal experience.  At tool.  It, in and of itself, cannot be racist.  Therefore, the problem must be that there are obstacles that may exist along the way that may be more pronounced for some people than for others.  In other words, the problem is not the system, it is the preparation that some people experience on their way to the system.  As children we develop through our experiences, what we are taught, and through what we see (among other things).  

Statistics reveal that things like not having one's father in the household, or living in a crime-ridden neighborhood have an impact on whether or not an individual raised in such an environment may gain the skills, as well as emotional and psychological tools, that may be necessary to compete in a system that is based on individualism, a skillset, innovative thinking, and free choice.  Yet, we put in place programs under the guise of good intentions that create those obstacles in the first place.  The enemies of the Constitution attack anyone who dares to be critical of government-sponsored welfare programs that become a way of life to the point that its policies drive dad out of the house.  They attack Christianity as being some non-science mystical hokum even though, whether you believe in God or not, teaches having a moral code that includes supporting the family unit.  In their rejection of the existence of God they figure they must stand against the value system offered by Christianity as well, which includes values such as preserving the family unit and living our lives with integrity.  Statistically, someone coming from a household teaching those values has a better chance at succeeding in the marketplace.  So, why would you doom society by demonizing those values?  Okay, fine, reject the existence of God, but don't throw out the values that make this country great in the process.

The economic system is a tool.  It is not racist, it is not unfair, and if it contains Christian values that really should also be basic human values that does not somehow make it some form of Christian theocracy.  Our System of Liberty, with a foundation that includes those values, has historically provided more opportunity for those with skills, those who work hard, and those who operate with integrity within the system, than any other system in history.  It has pulled more people out of poverty, and has brought people together more than any other system in history.  It is because of that system that America has the highest standard of living, and that even those who are below the poverty line according to American Standards live better than ninety percent of the people on this planet.

The argument that the American System of Liberty, its free market, and the U.S. Constitution are somehow racist, unfair, and unjust denies the historical path America has taken to become the best place to live on God's Green Earth.  The system has surpassed all expectations despite the fact that human nature and collectivistic forces have been attacking it since day one.

If the system is so great, I have been asked, then why is there inequality in it?  Why aren't everyone living as rich as the one percent?

A free market is a competitive market.  It's not based on a government forced "you all get a piece of cake with no icing on it" type of situation.  The sky's the limit.  As designed the only obstacles are naturally in place because of your decisions, your abilities, and certain forces in place due to human nature and the reality of how things happen in life.  The market is not the problem, external factors are.

A person from an environment that does not prepare the person for that kind of competition may find themselves struggling in the economic system America offers.  That doesn't make it racist, that means the person came from an environment that did not possibly provide the skills, values and/or integrity needed to succeed.  So, rather than blame the system, should not the goal to be to work towards providing those lessons and values during the development of young people in their community?  Rather than lowering scores to make sure everyone passes, the scores needed should remain as high as everyone else's to provide a bar for what is needed, to encourage working harder, and to provide a realistic example of what it's like to compete in the marketplace once a person achieves the age and skills needed to participate.  Rather than providing an entitlement system that removes rewards for achievement, the participants in the system should be challenged to meet a set of standards that will encourage growth that will ultimately give the participant the tools they will need to compete.  Rather than attack Christianity and the elements of what makes a family unit, we should be encouraging God's value system and how a family unit is supposed to operate and function.  If statistics show that dad not being in the house increases the odds for failure in the marketplace once a child reaches adulthood, then we should be promoting the things that keeps families together, such as the values that exist when a faith-based foundation is taught in the home.

Creating cultural institutions that matter, and are successful, is not achieved by separating a group away from society-at-large and filling their heads with ideas that are not going to contribute to their potential success in the system that exists.  Historically, thriving neighborhoods with active members, and one with opportunities that include jobs available and the ability to contribute by opening a business for one's aspirations occurs when liberty is in place with as little government interference as possible.  Regulations and policies pushed into the culture and our communities by an overbearing government takes away those opportunities.  Sure, we need certain rules in place, we need to make sure people aren't stomping on each other's basic rights, but that's it.  Otherwise, government institutions need to get out of the way and let individualism and a desire to achieve to the best of our capabilities take control of the market.  If you want more people who look like you to do well and to thrive in the marketplace and the job market the way to do it is not to force things into what one might deem "fair" through government intrusion, but for government to get out of the way so that the creativity and the ambitions of those who look like you may be unleashed and shared with everyone else in a free and naturally diverse market.

Sometimes, the numbers don't always seem to be what we'd like to see.  Factors such as how many people from your group actually seek that kind of position, may also be a part of the equation.  Let's not quibble after refusing to recognize the context.  Let's get back to liberty, and allow our culture to drive the markets.  Politically induced narratives of racism and unfairness only get in the way, and historically always run hand-in-hand with socialistic tactics, failure, starvation and death.

Personally, I chalk it up to the reality of existence.  There are so many factors involved, and sometimes the final tally doesn't quite meet our expectations.  That's not racism.  That's the reality of life.  In the end, if you let liberty reign, the potentiality is more up to us.  If you allow government to stick its nose into the equation the potentiality is then taken away from the average person, and the results are more up to some bureaucrat somewhere who has "good intentions" for the "common good", yet knows nothing about what they are trying to control through government mandate.

Evil exists not because of our system, but because evil people seek to manipulate that system in the name of change and "re-imagining" how we do things.

Re-imagining and tinkering with our system has been what has sent us in a bad direction.  We keep trying to fix our system in the hopes of changing a system that has proven to be successful without considering the possibility that it's not the system that's the problem when it comes to missteps along the way, but the evil people who keep tinkering with it claiming they have a better path and that to hand over our choices to government will somehow liberate us from injustice and unfairness.

Thanks, but no thanks.  I like my odds with liberty.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Switching Political Party Colors

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

Manipulating voters, the vote, and where the votes get placed is as old as humanity.  Language can be used (word magic), or other psychological games.  Sometimes it is as subtle as which color is used to represent a party.

Remember the old term "true blue republican?"  Okay, maybe you youngsters don't, but an old guy like me does.  Here's a map regarding President Ronald Reagan's near-unanimous reelection via the Electoral College back in 1984 (which was, by the way, the first election I voted in as an adult):

How about Ford's loss in 1976...

The color blue being associated with the Republican Party goes way back...

During the 1990s it seemed the color thing had been broken, twisted, and knocked around.  Suddenly, there was no uniformity in the maps on television or in newspapers or magazines to illustrate presidential elections. Sure, everyone embraced red and blue, but which color represented which party varied.

Some might suggest we were simply following Great Britain.  Indeed, our flag is a mixture of the British flag using the same colors, and our heritage is steeped in English colonization and history. So, why not follow the motherland?  Over the pond it's blue for conservatives, because that’s what the parliamentary system in London is, and red is used for the "more liberal party" (their description, not mine; personally I believe the word liberal was hijacked by the progressives from the constitutionalists a little over a hundred years ago, and they've refused to return it).

There's also the fact that red has always been more associated with socialism and the party of the Democrats seems to be clearly more socialistic of the two major parties.

I am figuring the original color scheme came from the War Between the States, where the predominantly Republican North was ‘Blue’, and the stand out color of the various confederate flags (which was dominated by the Democratic Party) was red.

Going all the way back to the beginning, the Jeffersonian Republicans were Blue, White and Red, and the Hamiltonian "big government" Federalist Party was black and white.

Two days after voters went to the polls in 2000 the New York Times joined USA Today by publishing color-coded, county-by-county maps detailing the election results between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Both papers used red for the Republican Bush, blue for the Democrat Gore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_71st_State_Assembly_district

“I just decided red begins with ‘r,’ Republican begins with ‘r.’ It was a more natural association,” said Archie Tse, senior graphics editor for the Times. “There wasn’t much discussion about it.”

Paul Overberg, a database editor who designed the map for USA Today, said he was following a trend: “The reason I did it was because everybody was already doing it that way at that point.”

After doing a little research, and reading about the various opinions, I don't like the fact that the colors were changed in the first place (if the motive was anything other than a good one)  I do think they did it to try to unconsciously get the voters thinking the Republicans are closer to being socialists which is a disingenuous ploy when you break down what the platforms are really all about.

But, in the end blue is cold and destructive, and red is warm and inviting, so I suppose the colors as they are is fine.

That said, I am a constitutionalist, first, not a party guy, per se, so to be honest, my color is not red, blue, white, black, green, yellow, orange or brown.  Like the Constitution, it's the color of parchment.

Then again, on a crime table using colors for types of crimes, I thought it was appropriate that on that chart, blue is the color of theft, and red is the color of firearms.  I found it when I googled "what is the color of fraud".  Fraud, it turns out, is orange.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio: Senate, Counties, and the Unorganized Militia

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs

Saturdays, 1:00 - 3:00 pm Pacific Time

KMET 1490-AM (www.kmet1490am.com)

KMET Show Page

Doug's Show Page

2022 Podcast Page

Classic Podcast Page on SoundCloud

Call in Live during the Program!

951-922-3532

Today Doug and Alan will not be joining the program due to other scheduled obligations.  Today's special guest host is G.R. Mobley http://reclaimingtherepublic.org/ who will be joining Dennis Jackson to deliver today's constitutional programming.

Topics on Today's program:

• Guest: U.S. Senate Candidate Mark Meuser
• https://markmeuser.com/
• The County Militia Plan
• http://www.reclaimingtherepublic.org/PDF_Docs/Structure_Chart_Mod_4.pdf
• Kamala Harris Lawsuit Update
• https://constitutionassociation.yolasite.com/kh-lawsuit.php

The patriarchy now wears a dress

Opinion by Allan McNew posted on Political Pistachio by Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

"Do your thing. Just do it among consenting adults and leave children out of it."

And quit bs-ing people.

After nearly 60 years of man hating toxic feminism ("Don't open that door for me, you sexist pig!!") a minority of men are appropriating womanhood and pushing women to the side on a national scale.

Years ago there was a place I frequented which had a broom closet between the men's and women's restrooms. I never did it, but was almost compelled to place a sign emblazoned with "transvestites" on the closet door. I hadn't a clue I was looking at the imposed future.

When I was a kid "you homo!" was a common playground insult, now it's "you homophobe!" and a man in a dress with ribbons in the hair and slathered in thick painted lady makeup conducts library readings to confused children.

I have asked myself would a man really have a sex change operation in order to make himself more attractive and more sexually available to women? Someone else might have a different take, but the answer is quite obvious to me.

I imagine some from the alternative pasture thinking "I'm tired of being a loser in competitive men's sports. Think I'll put on a dress and become a champion by beating down girls." Or for the prison bound, straight men who declare being a woman and consequently be surrounded by women with an itch that needs to be scratched for years on end. Charlie Manson said there's plenty of sex in prison, but he had to make do with men, consenting or not. Today he could be in the women's section, crazed eyes, greasy hair, swastika tat on the forehead and all.

Perhaps the better way would be to have boys, girls and "theys" sports leagues with separate "theys" restrooms / shower rooms / dressing rooms. That way biological men with implanted breasts wouldn't be parading their wangers around in front of objecting women and underage girls.

Separate "theys" jails, too. See how long that jail house scam to do time surrounded by women lasts.

But, in the end, no pun intended, "theys" can still say they've come out of the broom closet, and the competition in all corners will be fair.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Eyewitness/Participant Washington DC Convoy, Interviewed by Mr. Constitution, Douglas V. Gibbs

Douglas V. Gibbs

Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

https://rumble.com/vze07a-interview-convoy-to-dc-participant.html

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

It's not about the weather

Opinion by Allan McNew

Cervantes said that hunger is the best sauce, and since the poor have an abundance of it they eat their meals with great enjoyment. There's also the saying that when the farmers are hungry things change.

There's a lot to this, I can only skim over the subject.

The first I heard about global cooling was circa 1973, when most of the mainstream print magazines featured cover themes like "Get ready for the coming ice age" The apparent consensus was that America was going to be covered with glaciers by 1985. Didn't happen.

So, it became 40 years of climate change with innumerable changing deadlines anywhere from 6 months to 12 years in the then future with failure to act resulting in children in Denver drowning in scalding water. This is loudest proclaimed by rich leftists with the personal carbon footprint of small nations who are opposed to all petroleum products except for what goes into their own private jets and gas guzzling cars. They have a proclivity to buy high dollar houses on coastal shores, which suggests they don't believe what they're peddling. The first to come to mind are President Obama's mansion on the waterline in Martha's Vineyard and President Biden's vacation beach house in Rehoboth Beach, New Jersey. Bill Gates has a coastal mansion just above high tide.

But there is more to the story than climate change prophets who are nothing but consistently wrong and "98 percent of the world's (whomever) agree...", which has more the appearance of a contrived slogan than millions of credible witnesses produced. Repeat something loud and long enough and it magically becomes fact.

Saikat Chakrabarti, self made internet tech millionaire and consummate hypocrite, Chief of Staff and campaign manager for Representative Ocasio-Cortez, said that the "New Green Deal" has to do with taking over the economy along with implementing a giant socialist wish list. Former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer said that the goal of climate policy is to redistribute the world's wealth from wealthy nations to poor nations. In 2015, Christiana Figueres (long United Nations title about climate change) said that the goal is to change the productive world economic development model (capitalism) by obstructing developed economies. The idea is to reduce productivity and economic output in wealthy nations by restricting energy usage while letting developing nations burn all the coal and petroleum products they want. That blows the climate change argument out of the water, because it's not about eliminating global emissions. Furthermore, the technology for a petroleum free economy is neither advanced, abundant or affordable enough to be viable. It won't work under present conditions.

It's about modified class warfare in the name of "equity." It's what the United Nations derived Paris Agreement or Paris Accord is about.

But in the US it's also about leveling and controlling society. A society that's broke, travel limited and bunched together in population centers with limited speech rights is easier for totalitarians to control, and it's an old Marxist tool for induced inflation and high taxes mixed with societal chaos to destroy the middle class and make society to clamor for relief. Totalitarians are happy to provide their autocratic solutions for society's anguish.

White House Secretary Jen Psaki's gaslighting to the contrary, President Biden's war on domestic oil production and the blue state shutdown harm to local economies during Covid looks to further the stated goal of the far, far left to destroy everything and rebuild to their blueprint – which will result in an impoverished population ruled by an autocratic oligarchy which lavishly lives like sultans.

We need to revive domestic oil production. Now. Make America self sufficient again.

If the citizens don't wake up to this threat we may all be enjoying our meals with great gusto.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary