Learning The Constitution | Introduction to the Bill of Rights

➡ Douglas V. Gibbs, a history enthusiast, recently completed a 32-day trip across the United States. He visited historical sites, met with friends, and attended events. He also collected antique books and other items, filling his car to the brim. This trip allowed him and his wife to achieve their goal of visiting all 50 states together.
➡ The speaker had a fun meeting with friends at a sports bar near the Pro Football Hall of Fame. They also discussed their love for baseball, particularly the Dodgers and the Braves. They then shifted the conversation to the Federalist Papers, explaining that these documents were not definitive definitions of the Constitution, but rather arguments from three individuals trying to convince New York to ratify the Constitution. The speaker also mentioned that the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had different views on the size and power of the government.
➡ The text discusses the Anti-Federalists’ concerns about the Constitution, arguing that the problem wasn’t the Constitution itself, but human nature. It also talks about the Bill of Rights, its preamble, and how it was seen as unnecessary and potentially dangerous by some, including Madison. The text further discusses the concept of judicial review, the separation of powers, and the issue of birthright citizenship, arguing that there is no law that guarantees citizenship just by being born on American soil.
➡ The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and its impact on the structure of the U.S. government. The speakers argue that the amendment has been used to give more power to the federal government, reducing states to mere provinces. They also discuss the concept of progressive taxation, viewing it as a form of punishment for success. Lastly, they touch on the topic of tariffs, suggesting that President Trump’s tariff policies are aimed at addressing global communism and creating a uniform tax rate among nations.
➡ The speaker discusses the complexities of business taxes and the limitations of claiming losses. They then transition into a discussion about the U.S. Constitution, its origins, and the debates among the founding fathers. They highlight the importance of the Bill of Rights and the unique nature of the U.S. Constitution as a written document, contrasting it with the unwritten English common law. The speaker also mentions that the U.S. Constitution is the longest-lasting constitution in history, with an average lifespan of 17 years for other written constitutions.
➡ Ho Chi Minh, a Vietnamese leader, visited Paris in 1919 to meet U.S. leaders and create a constitution for Vietnam, modeled after the U.S. Constitution. However, communism took hold in Vietnam, leading to U.S. involvement. The text also discusses the differences between capitalism, communism, and fascism, and how these ideologies have been misunderstood and misused throughout history. It suggests that the U.S. has elements of fascism due to heavy government regulation, and that communism has never truly existed as it is often defined.
➡ The text discusses how Hitler’s anti-communist stance attracted many followers, including those from other countries who volunteered to fight for Germany in World War II. It also highlights the importance of understanding different perspectives in history, as the commonly accepted versions are often influenced by those in power. The speakers propose studying the Federalist Papers to gain a deeper understanding of history. They also emphasize that history is not always written by the victors, but often by those who control information.
➡ The text discusses how history is often written by those in power, using the Romans and their portrayal of barbarians as an example. It also explores the idea that major historical events, like wars and depressions, may have been planned in advance. The text suggests that the American relief to Belgium during World War I was a strategy to keep Germany supplied and that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a British plot. Lastly, it argues that the focus on Hitler’s evilness may be a distraction from other historical wrongdoings.
➡ The conversation veered from the Bill of Rights to World War II, discussing the complexities of war and the hidden aspects of history. The speaker emphasized the importance of questioning everything and not focusing solely on one perspective. The chat ended with the speaker expressing his love for his home in Brookings, Oregon, and his enjoyment of fresh fish due to its availability in his area. The speaker also hinted at possibly reading a bit from Mike’s book about Japan in the future.

Hello, everybody. Welcome to the unsolved History Channel. My name is Ron Partain and it is Tuesday, meaning that it’s the Constitution. Time for the Constitution. And we are joined today for the first time in a month by Mr. Douglas V. Gibbs. He’s done making his trek around the country, looking up old ships and seeing fun things. So tell us a little about your trip. Well, first of all, I want to mention that the first person in the chat room to type something, Melvin. I got a chance to meet with him and real special ed in Canton, Ohio.

And Mel actually drove over a couple hours to. To make that visit. And I really totally enjoyed that time with those two gentlemen. Really, totally enjoyed it. So it was definitely a worthwhile part of the trip. But basically what we did was we spent 32 days traveling the whole United States. I had a couple of events along the way and one of them in Southern California and one in Minnesota. And then. Can you hear that buzz in the background? I cannot. Okay, then I’m not worried. My wife’s got like the dryer going off. I can hear the background.

But if you can’t. As long as you can’t hear my cats, like in the background. So in between laundry and cats. All right. But anyway. But basically what I did is I hit let’s see, Santa Cruz Independence hall down in Knott’s Berry Farm. Then I was shot across Arizona to see my brother and sister. It’s first time that all three of us been in the room together in over 10 years. My mom was thrilled by the pictures. What did some stuff in Texas, Arkansas to see my folks down into. Down into Alabama. Birmingham. Saw a UFL football game.

The Birmingham Stallions beat the Houston Roughnecks. Was totally fun. USS Alabama down there in Mobile, Alabama. I was battleship. Of course, I had to send Ron Partain pictures of that South Dakota class, the class before his class. Yeah, it was. It was a good time. Went out to Atlanta, saw the saw Stone Mountain, which is a carving to the side of a mountain of Jefferson Davis, General Lee and. And Stonewall Jackson and that the park around it is doing everything they can not to use the word Confederate. It was almost comical being at this Confederate and that monument and then watching everybody tiptoe around the world.

Word Confederate. They have completely changed it since last time I was there. 90 of history is gone. In fact, the Confederate house where they used to have a depiction, a big like panorama thing of the battle went on there is now basically about saving the planet from the environmental disaster. But anyway, and then from there we went up to North Carolina. Bill, who is a student of mine from San Diego class was there, got a chance to spend the night there with him and his gal and visit. And we went to Williamsburg, Jamestown, Yorktown. Saw the John Tyler’s home.

Nice. We actually stumbled upon John Tyler’s home. I was like, oh, I’ve got to go back, you know. So did you, did you go to, did, did you hit Philadelphia? No, we did not go that far north. We’ve been to Philadelphia before, back in 2002. But then we, we did go to Monticello and the Highlands, which is Monroe, Monticello being Jefferson’s house, Montpelier, which was Madison’s, and Mount Vernon, which is Washington’s. And then from there we cut across into West Virginia, then up to Canton, Ohio. Pro Football hall of Fame. My wife over the last couple years has become quite the football fan.

That was an amazing place to be. It was definitely worth the visit. And then across to Minnesota. We drove the entire distance from Canton to Ministries to Minnesota in one day. That was a long, long drive. 13 hours, something like that. Yeah, it was, it was the longest leg of the trip. And then we, yeah, we’re there a couple days, did an event there. Well, and, and, and I, I, I do not envy you driving across north or South Dakota or however you went. I love South Dakota. North Dakota is pretty bad, but South Dakota is pretty interesting.

Yeah, it’s just. Yeah, but I mean, it’s just. There’s just nothing there. So it’s, I mean, it’s pretty scenery, but. Yeah, I mean, well, maybe, I don’t know, maybe it’s not a state in Rapid City. So we drove from Ministry to Rapid City and then saw Devil’s Tower next day. I’d already seen Mount Rushmore, but it hadn’t been a. I’ve wanted to see Devil’s Tower for a long time. Yeah, it’s very, very, very worth the trip. And you know, it’s awesome. But that’s why on TV or whatever, but when you go there, it blows you out of the water.

Yeah, I can imagine. In Yellowstone, visited Old Faithful, who was not blowing its top when we got there. Before we left that. Okay, Yellowstone park stayed Idaho Falls, and it worked our way back home on the Oregon coast. It was. And what, what’s interesting about this trip is my wife and I have been to just about every state in the United States. There’s a couple states I’d been to that she had not been to, like Georgia and Florida, you know, of course, Florida Wasn’t exactly vacation. That was boot camp. That’s beside the point. You went to boot camp in Florida? Yeah, Orlando.

I didn’t know that back when they still had the boot camp there. Yeah, well, that. That was. I think that ended in 92 when they. When they condensed the bases. Yeah, it’s a neighborhood now. But anyway, so. But so we stopped into Pensacola next year we’re gonna do a bigger Florida thing. But anyway, by the time the trip was done, she had like four. Three or four states left to knock off her list. But now we have together been to all 50 states. So that was also kind of a fun. Fun part about. So there you go.

Yeah. Without taking up too much time, I wanted to tell the trip, but. Well, you know, while you were gone, I had my good friend Carrington McDuffie come on. And we used the hour to essentially go through several portions of the Federalist Papers and some of the key arguments that they had. And one of them that we did was the. Was like, you know, just the Bill of Rights. But really we probably should have devoted two. Two shows to that on the Federalist Papers because one show was just not enough. It was. Oh, yeah, it was like.

It wasn’t. It was scratching the surface of the surface, you know, And Warhamster and I and Alan Myers spent some time going through a bunch of the federals papers. We never did finish it, but. Mel, Doug, was your vehicle full when you got home? See, he’s. He’s laughing because Virginia and I, our arch nemesis is antique stores. Especially when it comes to old books and. And stuff like that. I love to get old books. Those three particular books that I picked up for 1 for 15, 2 for 20 each. Pretty good condition. Mars series by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

And. And I looked him up and they sell for like 370, 75 each. Nice. That’s what I love about antique. But I love old books and stuff. But also the. The research and the. The. I have old books that. You know, history books, stuff like that. But anyway. Yes, Mel, Our car was so full that on the last couple of stops, we were like shoving stuff in, trying to make sure nothing fell out. It was. Yeah, that poor little. Poor little car raining. And there was some. And we were restraining ourselves there because I’m getting ready to.

I’m kind of in the final phases of getting ready to build my office on this side of the house. And once I build my office, I get my bookshelves and stuff. A lot of the stuff’s gonna go into that office and and at the foot of the bed she wants to get like a trunk. We found one for like a really good price, but we didn’t have the room for it. But, you know, just so we didn’t get it. But yeah, we’re, we’ve been joking. We’re gonna go get a big giant moving truck and just go on an antique store tour around the country.

Yeah. But anyway. Oh, thank you, Mel. It was such, it was so good to see you in Real Special Ed. Well, I, I, so, so, you know, every Friday night I do a watch party, Right. Called Friday Night Watch Party. And what I do is I put the link out there for people to come and see the, you know, to come and participate in the live chat. Well, I inadvertently shared the link in the live chat to the back end of the stream yard. So the next thing I know, I’ve got Real Special Ed in my stream yard coming in to participate in the, in the, in the, in the discussion.

I had him and a couple of people and it was, but it was a lot of fun because I had never really gotten to interact with people like that, you know, you know, face to face. And I didn’t have, I didn’t know what he looked like until then. So it was, it was actually a lot of fun and I want to do that a little bit more. Yeah. But. Well, let’s end with this so we can get back to what we’re here for, Mel. And Real Special Ed and I and my wife met at a sports bar just out just like minutes from the Pro Football hall of Fame.

And we were there for three hours. Three hours. Just, just chatting. And we would have been there longer if we didn’t have the, the will to finally say goodbye. Got pictures a little bit. I’ll have to get them and put them on the computer sometime. But I didn’t think about that until just now. Well, that sounds like, that, that sounds like when, when they came on to the, to this, to the party after party where it was just like, I mean, we just kept going and going. It’s like Energizer Bunny. We couldn’t, we couldn’t leave, so.

But it was fun. I, I, I, I thoroughly enjoyed it. So thoroughly enjoyed it. Okay. I did, I did want to just. I forgot to put my hat on today and I put it on midstream, but I don’t know. Did you, I just wanted to show you something. You see the, the how the la is kind of, it looks like a little like tainted. Yeah, that’s because it’s Gold, right? I could tell. Yeah. Yeah, it’s gold because they just won the World Series. I didn’t know if you knew that or not. So I just wanted to, you know, let you know that Jo.

Hey, finally he won the World Series. You know, it’s funny because while we’re out there, we were this close to going to see an Atlanta Braves game. Oh, they weren’t playing. Almost did it. They. Were they playing the Dodgers? I can’t. No, it was. They were going to be playing the Washington Nationals. But we almost, I mean, we were this close and we’re like, we’re exhausted. We have the time, but you know, it’s going to be like midnight by the time this game’s over probably, you know, and we’re just. Do we do it? Do we not do it? Because tickets were available and at the last second we’re like, now we’re too dang tired.

But, but we almost went to a Braves game. I saw the braves back in 94, and I also saw the Atlanta Hawks, also 94. You know, I’m sure you remember this and not that I wanted you real too much, but. But you know, when we were growing up, we didn’t have cable. Oh, cable was just coming in and we, you know, for the local games, the only time you got to see him was the one they on the road. The rest of the time you had to listen to on the radio. Right. So. But then, but, but the Braves games, all of the Braves games.

And I didn’t get, for some odd reason, I didn’t get wgn, but I did. But I got tbs. Right, tbs, right. And so whenever the Braves, when we’re playing at home, it was like, you know, like their, their games are 7 o’ clock. We’re like 4 o’ clock on, on, you know, West Coast. So I get to watch the Braves and Dale Murphy and Bob, Bob Horner and you know, Phil Negro, you know, a bunch of those guys. So I, I have always liked the Braves just because I grew up watching them. There’s still a Dodger.

The Dodgers are obviously my number one team, but way back when they were in the Western Division. I know, right? Yeah. That’s insane. So that brings up a story real quick. And I was just. My wife and I were talking about. So in 94, the reason I was out there in the Atlanta area, Roswell, was his friend of mine lived out that way and was getting married and I was in his wedding and, and so we did stuff while we’re out there and he Loved the Dodgers. Huge Dodgers fan. And so all of us wanted to get together to go watch the Dodger games, even though Nacho and I were angel fans.

And so he introduced us to this place we had never heard of before called Hooters. And back then, Hooters was pretty much only out there. And so we went to the Hooters in Roswell to watch the Dodgers play Atlanta, I think it was. That’s. And then funny. And then like the next day we went out to Jacksonville, Florida for different Hooters just to watch the games, but to watch the Dodgers because. Yeah. And that’s what I was telling Virginia, my wife was. Back then. Yeah. You didn’t have. You couldn’t just go to the bar and have these packages where you get all the games and stuff.

So, you know, he, he was a Dodger fan. Same thing. He usually got to watch the Dodgers when they’re playing the Braves. Right. But anyway. All right, very good. But anyway, so we got. So, you know, again, I, as I was saying earlier, we, we, we got to play a little bit with the, with the Federalist Papers on the. But anyway, that was about the Federalist Papers. Let’s talk about that for just a second. Let’s do Federal Papers. People say, well, I understand pretty good because I studied the Federal Papers. Federalist Papers don’t help you understand the Constitution as well as people think.

They are not the definitive definitions of the Constitution. They are three people trying to convince New York to ratify the. The Constitution and the arguments from their point of view. You have to remember that two of them, John J. And Alexander Hamilton, felt that the Constitution didn’t go far enough creating a big government. They want. They wish it would have been bigger. And when you read the Federalist Papers, or at least Hamilton’s papers in particular, you could pick up on some of the big government kind of push in his writing. So while the Federalist Paper is important, understand there are certain edgy, there’s a certain edginess to Hamilton’s papers.

They’re not necessarily a good thing. So just understand that. I love Madison’s papers. And, and actually one of the reasons why Hamilton invited Madison to help with the papers because he wasn’t from New York. Jay and Hamilton were, was because he knew he had that reputation that he wanted a king and all that jazz. And he felt that bringing Madison in would bring balance to the essays. Right. But anyway, so. Well, you know, I found it interesting that all of the Federalists wrote in their own name, but the anti Federalists for the most part wrote in pseudonyms.

Federalist wrote in pseudonyms too. Originally we didn’t even know who wrote which one until they found the list after Hamilton had died in his desk that showed who wrote each paper. Even there still questions over one of them. Oh yeah, they wrote in pseudonyms as well. I did not know that. Okay, that’s interesting. That’s interesting. Yeah, but it had been for Hamilton keeping a list in his desk. We may have never known for sure who wrote. We, we kind of knew because of the writing style, but there was a few of them where there were questions and his list kind of clears that up.

That’s interesting. Well, I, I was just going to say that, you know, I have never really delved in embarrassingly. I must embarrassingly admit that I’ve never really delved into the Federalist Papers. And so the doing that with, with Carrington was, was eye opening. I did. I had no clue how, you know, in reading the Federalist Papers I, I believe that the, that the Federalists actually believed they were doing the right thing. And I, I don’t believe that they had malice and malicious intent of creating a. This monstrosity government. I don’t believe that. That. I do not believe that that was.

That’s very true. And the Constitution based on its original intent. That is true as well. Right. And we also have to be careful because the word Federalist has kind of a double meaning here. When people ask me, what do you think of the Federalists? Well, which ones you have? The Federalists who believed in the original Constitution were part of the Constitution, believed that Constitution was a good thing. Then you had the Federalists that were the Federalist Party members and they were big government minded. The Federalist Party was not Federalist. It called itself the Federalist Party. It was really should have been called the National Party or the Nationalist Party.

Right. They believe in nationalism, big overpowering government. So even using the word Federalist, there’s confusion there because of that. Well, the. But, but the point I’m making, the point I was trying to make is that the anti Federalists were not wrong in what they saw was what would have, what would ultimately come about. They were just. I think they thought it was going to happen immediately. And so, you know, so they were both proven wrong at the beginning or. Well, the Federalists were proven right at the beginning, but the anti Federalists were, are proven right today.

Well understand the anti Federalists were complaining essentially that the Constitution went too far. But in reality the problem wasn’t the Constitution. The problem was human nature. And what they’re really saying was the human nature. That Constitution is going to allow human nature to turn this into. Well, and it’s, it’s interesting that you say that because, you know, what’s the old adage is that the, the those who are those countries that are the freest ultimately end up the most despotic. Just because. Because if you have, if you have unrestrained freedom, then ultimately what you have is. You have.

You will. It really. It leads to apathy, which leads to. Well, it gets us back or. Yeah, right, exactly. Tyler Cycle. So anyway, enough about that. So we’re going to go into the introduction now to the Bill of rights. Yeah, 25 minutes in. It’s all right. We had to catch up. Well, it’s not just that, but we’re talking about things like federals papers instead of baseball. So it’s a good thing. All right, so inside joke, if you were listening right before I went on my vacation. But anyway, so that said, let’s understand something. When I get into the introduction of the Bill of Rights, I point people towards, first of all, the preamble to the Bill of Rights.

Most people don’t realize or even know that the Bill of Rights had a preamble or has a preamble. And that preamble lays out in the very first sentence, or I’m sorry, very first paragraph, which is actually the first sentence, I think too. It’s a big one sentence, what the Bill of Rights is all about. We also have to understand that there were those, and Madison being one of them in the beginning, who felt that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, it was redundant and maybe even dangerous. Not because our rights are not important or not because we shouldn’t have something in the Constitution that takes.

Takes on our rights, but because they. The Bill of Rights, the way it was worded, kind of went against the grain of how the Constitution was intended. What I mean by that is this. The Constitution was written to create a federal government and to give it limited powers and to do it in such a way that rather than telling the federal government what it can’t do, which then would open up the. The problem of it saying, well, then anything it doesn’t tell me I can’t do, I can do, right? It did the opposite and it said, this is what you can do.

If it’s not listed, you can’t do it. Right? But the Bill of Rights comes along and it does the exact opposite. It says, by the way, you can’t do this. You can’t do that. And so the fear was it would muddy the waters and create confusion and actually, in its attempt to preserve our rights, actually open up for the federal government to attack our rights. And which is exactly what has happened. Now, that said, a lot of this is not because of the language as much as it is human nature. Once again, tyranny. Those who have minds, of, of tyrannical minds, those who seek power, doesn’t matter how perfect it is, they will find a way.

Let me ask you a question, and this is not, this may or may not be relevant to the topic of conversation, but I think it’s, it is something that is on, it’s been on my mind to ask you for a couple days now. And that was when Trump had Bondi write that letter or whatever to the Bar association. And like they’re reigning in the, the bar or something like that. Am I, am I articulating that correctly? Do you know what I’m talking about? I know, Char, but go ahead. I’m just curious if that is like a, if that’s a, a move against judicial review in some form or fashion, in a way, part of the may add, let me set the stage.

For the viewers that are not totally familiar, judicial review is this idea that the courts are the final say when it comes to constitution, and that their job beyond applying law in the cases is to review law or to review the Constitution and decide what it means, what it says, if it’s valid, and so on and so forth. They are the final stop along that path, and it’s not true. And so what we have now to once again set up, my answer is a court system. Who has taken that to its fullest extent. So therefore, if we are the final say, we are the gods over everything government, we can micromanage everything, because it’s up to us in the end to decide.

And so this letter to the bar, and really to the judicial system in general by Bondi and, and really Trump through Bondi, was exactly that. It was an attempt to rein in all of the, all of the tendrils that have been created from this idea of judicial review. And so I agree, you’re right. Not directly, but indirectly, it is, it is addressing judicial review. We have become now in many ways a judicial tyranny, a judicial activistic, you know, with judicial activists, but a judicial tyranny in which the judicial system has become the monarchy that we are doing everything we can not to be right.

The problem with the judiciary in the beginning, though, when it came to Britain, was the judicial judiciary was expected to do whatever the monarch said. Now we have a monarch or president who’s required to do whatever the judicial says. So it’s the same thing with a little twist in it. Now, that said, the founding fathers recognize these dangers. They created the system to have a separation of powers. The legislative things belong only to the legislative branch. The executive things only belong executive branch. The judicial things only belong to the judicial branch. So for the judicial branch to dictate to the other branches is a violation of separation of powers.

It’s the President’s branch. It’s, it’s his executive branch. His job is to execute the laws and use his branch to do so. Right. And it is none of the judicial branches business how he does it. Now that said, the, if the Legislative branch Congress has a problem with it, then they can change the law. Change the law, then he has to execute the new law. It’s about executing law. And, and President Trump has been actually masterful because if you look carefully at what he’s doing, that’s what he’s doing. He’s executing law. And he’s. And he is.

What’s the right word? And he is administering his executive branch. So his executive branch, he could fire, he can hire, he could change the numbers, whatever. He cannot completely demolish an agency that takes congressional action because they created the agency. But he could take it down to two people if he wants to. That’s his business. It’s his branch when it comes to executing the law. A great example. And, and I think it’s also be a good lesson for everybody. Is the birthright citizenship? There is no law, not one in existence ever, that says if you’re born on America’s soil, you are guaranteed citizenship just because you’re born on soil.

Not a single law says that. There’s also not a single court ruling that says that. 1898, the 1898 Wong Kim Art case doesn’t say that either. And I’ll explain that in a second. And there’s nothing in the Constitution that says born America soil and that’s it, you’re a citizen. What the citizenship clause does say is born America soul and, or naturalized and subject to jurisdiction thereof, that subject to the jurisdiction thereof must be satisfied by something that shows a connection or an allegiance to this country. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, was satisfied by his parents being permanent residents at the time of his birth.

Therefore he was born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In other words, there was some type of allegiance or connection. Now what do you mean by an subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Ah, that’s where the law comes in. The Civil Rights act of 1866, of which the citizenship clause in the 14th Amendment drew a lot of its language or wording. The Civil Rights act of 1866 says that if you are born America soul and subject to a foreign power, you are not a citizen. In other words, the answer to jurisdiction is not. Is not satisfied because you’re subject to a foreign power.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then means not subject to a foreign power. That’s what it means. So when it comes to birthright citizenship, the President is doing as his job requires. He is executing a law that is on the books, the Civil Rights act of 1866. And he’s operating, doing that in connection. And in. And along with the language of the 14th amendment, there is no law that says otherwise. So now we have judges say, well, yeah, but that’s what that they meant. Well, we have congressional record that shows what they meant. We have actual congressional testimony, most of it in May of 1866, of what the guys Trumbull and Howard, two senators, meant when they wrote the citizenship clause.

But the judges are like, no, we’re such gods, we’re so high that we decide what they meant, not them. Well, that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Right. And so what we’re up against is judicial tyranny who have decided, no, their word is even more important than the actual congressional testimony of those who wrote the clause and of a law that does exist, despite the fact there’s no other law, there’s no law, period. I. I give you the task of finding it if it exists, that there is no law. There has not been a single law passed saying born America soul by itself makes you automatically a citizen.

Yeah, well, I mean, that’s. And that’s just interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which, again, goes back to what I believe where, you know, people talk about, oh, we’re the 1871 Corporation, the new queens, the new Constitution. I’m, I’m. I’m more and more of the opinion that that’s not accurate. But it. But I do see a change in how things have, you know. You know, and how things are structured. And I believe. And I believe that. That the, the majority of that change came as a result of the 14th Amendment, which, in a way, kind of restructured.

It was like. It was almost like a restructuring of the government in, in, you know, in very subtle ways, giving. Giving much more authority to the central Government. Well, in many ways, what the 14th Amendment did. Lincoln did not write the first executive order jabberjob. George Washington did. Well, they weren’t called executive orders yet. They called them executive orders. After 1900, when it came to Teddy Roosevelt. The first executive order, or among the first executive order, should I say, was the Thanksgiving Proclamation. But that’s. Sorry to go sidetracked there, but I saw that in chat room pop up.

And whenever I see something that’s not accurate, it kind of gets under my craw. But anyway. Well, when it comes to the shift of our system from a constitutional republic to this nationalistic thing that calls itself a democracy, but it’s really a national system, that really. That shift really did happen, not only through the war between the states, but more specifically the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment basically gave the federal government the authority to say states, you misbehave, therefore we must take control. Right. And that’s essentially what it is. And especially section three is especially egregious.

Now, section two and section three are. And, and now here’s the thing. Here’s what’s funny about it. If you really read the language, the 14th amendment is actually just fine. The problem is not the 14th amendment, it’s how they decided they wanted it to be interpreted, how they wanted it to be used. I agree with that. And that’s what. And now that’s where the interpretation comes in, is where the judges go, whoa, this is what it meant. And pushing this particular narrative, which ultimately did create. And when really it didn’t create, because, I mean, Hamilton was creating it from day one, but really institutionalized this idea that we have this one national umbrella government that controls everything.

And really deep down, the states are nothing more than provinces. Yeah, I, it was interesting. I played. I was doing a show last night with my buddy Ghost, and, and we played several. I played several different videos, but I played a, A clip of the Robert Welsh video from 1958 when he kind of went through like the 10. 10 different things. And I know which one you’re talking about. One of, one of the things he talked about was, you know, to basically render the state lines to be. No, no, no more significant than the county lines and, you know, within the states.

And that, my friend, is a part of the Communist Manifesto as well. Oh, it’s. It’s. You know what, it’s funny that you say that because I literally pulled up the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto and I, and I, and I went and I read through them and I’m like, yep, Check, check, Jack. And we had like. And you know, you could theoretically say that. I don’t even think. It’s not even theoretical. You can, you can make a, a, a valid argument in court that we have seven of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto in place now.

Well, and all of them are in play and some of them are fully in place, but yeah, absolutely. So foreign. Let’s see. I’m trying, trying to see where it’s at here because. Well, the reason why it’s funny that you brought that you’re bringing this up and then the comments manifesto came to mind is see, on Saturday from 1 to 3 Pacific, I am on KMET 1490am if you want to listen around the world on Saturdays, 1 to 3 Pacific to my show KMET, just go to KMET. That’s, that’s kilo, mike, echo, tango, k m e t.

1490AMcom to listen to the show. And we actually began going through the 10 planks communism on that show. We want the first four last Saturday. And so, and that’s the, the idea. One of the ideas is for there to be no difference between, you know, so number nine, here’s what it says. Combination of agricultural agriculture with manufacturing industries. Gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country. Well, that would include state lines as well by a more equitable distribution of the populace over the country. Now. And that’s exactly what that one is. It’s about blurring the lines between town, country, county, you know, states, all that.

Yes. And it just, it’s, it’s infuriating to me when I read that anytime I see any of the language that’s CRT stuff, you know, equitable, sustainable Internet. It just, it. Oh my God. My, my, like my blood pressure just. Well, my themes have been that Trump is fighting communism. The tariffs is a great example. Everybody’s freaking out about tariffs, not realizing what tariffs is. Now we get back to those chimpanz. Communism, progressive taxation. Progressive taxation. In the United States we have a gradual or progressive tax rate where the more you make, the higher percentage you pay.

That is a Marxist idea. It is to punish the successful for being successful. Pull them down to the level of the lowest class. That is correct. Well, well, that’s what the tariffs have been. That. Who pays the highest tariffs? United States. Who pays the lowest? Terrorists? Everybody else. Why progressive taxation? That’s the reason he’s actually addressing global communism against the United States and progressive tax rate through tariffs. Say no, they need to be equitable. You, if we’re going to pay, you know, 25 for yours, you’re going to pay 25 for ours, right? Yeah. Because the average, the average percentage prior to Trump taking office of our products, other people, other countries paying a tariff on our products was about 2.5%.

Our average to other countries importing their goods that we had, I’m sorry, vice versa was 25. And there were some goods, and I had it backwards, our goods going out is the higher tariff. There are goods coming in, it’s 2.5%. But there was some products, our products or us paying, should I say tariffs that went as high as 200%. Wow. Tariffs is all about. The reason why Trump is taking off the tariffs is it’s all about getting back to a uniform tax rate among the nations. The founding fathers is all about a uniform tax rate originally.

Although when it came to the States paying, it did have something population played a part or originally even you want to really get down to brass tax. Biblically, the tithing is also was for to take care of government and all that. When it came to Israel, it was 10%. Basically it was a uniform rate. This idea of something that’s not a uniform rate. Well, yeah, but the rich need to pay their fair share. They are in a uniform rate. 10% of a little bit is a lot less than 10 of a lot. Trust me, they’re still going to pay, quote unquote, their fair share.

But then to hire that, that percentage, it becomes, it becomes a penalty basically for doing well. And so what happens and, and this is one of the, one of the, pushes behind one of the many factors is if you’re a producer and you’re getting close to that next level, you dial down your production. Yes. So that you don’t have to pay and, and on. Not only that, but see what they do is, is businesses will carry a loss. Like when the, when the, when a business first starts, generally speaking, for the first couple of years, you’re operating at a loss.

Oh, yeah. And so, and if you’re operating a loss, that means you’re not profitable. And if you’re not profitable, then you don’t owe any tax. So what they’ll do, what businesses will do. And this is why it’s, this, this is why people, this is why business people and people who work for business people don’t know necessarily get it. When you own your own business and you are at a loss, then you, that business doesn’t pay tax. If the business is profitable, then what the business will do is then they’ll either do like, like disbursements out and then, but, and, and I don’t.

You know what? I, I wish if Brady were here, he could answer this because I don’t know. I don’t know if the tax, if the taxes are pre disbursement or post disbursement. So. That’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to that. I do know when it comes to my radio programs, I’m only allowed to have a loss three years in a row to claim it and get the benefit from it. After the fourth year, if I made a loss fourth year in a row, I don’t get some of the benefits I would get from losing money.

Well, then things have changed. So that’s an interesting. Yeah, I don’t know if that’s the case with all industries, but with my radio shows, that’s. I just remember that one. My, I remember my dad back in the, in the 90s, you know, I mean, he’d had that pharmacy for almost, you know, for, for 20 years plus at that point, and they’d carried a loss the entire time and to reduce their tax burden. Right. So, but anyway, so now all of this ties into what we’re talking about today, believe it or not. So you got this Constitution has been written and there’s all these different discussions over it.

Is it going to become too big of a government? Are we going to see this government become a national system? Are we going to see what we saw with the 14th amendment someday? This is a discussion before all that started happening among the founding fathers. And some of those founding fathers who believed it was dangerous, called themselves anti Federalists. And it’s funny because Patrick Henry, who’s one of my favorite revolutionaries. Yeah. Oh my gosh, man. As an anti Federalist, he was brutal. He was, he was, he was very outspoken and, and almost in a way, honestly, I don’t want to say radical because I think that’s, that’s, that that’s a.

It’s almost detrimental to this country, though. Yeah, almost. But anyway, so, and so they’re screaming and Federals are screaming and three of the attendees at the Constitutional Convention and actually more. But, but the ones, but three of them that were there the whole time refused to sign it. George Mason being the leader of that crowd and really the head anti Federalist in many ways, who, A, had a problem with the Constitution because didn’t abolish slavery and B, had a problem with the Constitution because it didn’t have a Bill of Rights. Right. And so. And now how did they know what a Bill of Rights or rights were.

They are Englishmen. They come from the old Saxon system. This is what they were taught in schools. The old Saxon system of natural rights, that your rights are divinely dispensated to you. In other words, God given. And in Britain, after the Glorious Revolution, they had their English Declaration of Rights. We need to have something like that as well. And George Mason had actually written a Virginia Declaration of Rights years before. And so there was a demand for this Bill of Rights. And Madison’s attitude was at first was, wait a second. There’s nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government authority to stomp on your rights.

So it’s already in the Constitution that they have no authority over your rights by it not being in the Constitution, because the Constitution was designed that the only way they have an authority is if it’s there. Now, is that where the. Is that where the whole idea of a constitution came from? How do you mean? Okay, so that was. Okay, so the British. Did the. The British had a constitution or did they have their Constitution? Was. Was it called common law? Was it called. So. So it was known. It wasn’t written except for the Magna Carta and then the Declaration of Rights.

So Declaration of Rights was really the first truly written, like, form of government protection of rights. The problem with English common law was that it was understood by everybody, but it could be changed by the whims of society and by the judgment or rulings of judges or the king or the king, which made it living and breathing. In other words, it. It. In other words, it. As it got older, it changed with the times. And the founding fathers are looking at this and they’re saying, wait a second, that’s dangerous. We need to write it down so that it is in ink, so that easily change.

And we need to neuter the court so they can’t just change it through their opinion. Of course, by 1803, they’re already doing that. You’re giving me, like. Like, like really horrific pictures in my brain of. Of. What was her name? Who. Who was the. The. The. The female judge, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Oh, wow. She was a b. Living, breathing document, right? Yeah. And the whole idea was for not to be a living, breathing. Not to be like English common law. We’re trying to get away from English common law in that sense. And I know a lot of people talk about common law being important, and it is.

We’re not English common law, but common law. And there is a difference between the two. But anyway, and we can get into that some other time. So we’ve got this system that’s been created. It’s on paper, it’s a pretty good system, but there are still fears. And one of the ways the fears were, were neutralized in Britain was that Declaration of Rights. So we need a Bill of Rights. We need a document that goes out of its way to make sure this federal government, this new government is not going to stomp on our rights. Well, and that was what I meant by did they, did, did the English call that a constitution? No, there was their Declaration of Rights.

Their Constitution was unwritten. So like for example, Samuel Adams has a quote about the schemes of leveling, which is a redistribution of wealth and he called it unconstitutional from the British Constitution part. But there was no written constitution. But everybody understood what the constitution constitution was because it was based on English common law. And I’m curious, and through the past case law and all of that and the understanding of what natural law is, which is what everybody understands to be right and wrong. Yeah, they never, they never had an actual written constitution like we did. They had documents that were a part of that overall constitution.

But the English Constitution was really more common law. Common English common law and things like that. And like I said, the courts had a heavy influence of what was considered constitutional. The Founding Fathers wanted to get away from that. So that’s why they wanted it written. So the judges couldn’t just arbitrarily change it with a ruling like they were doing with the English Constitution, which was not written down and was very dependent upon rulings when it came to making decisions of what was or wasn’t constitutional. So this idea of the courts being the final say goes way back.

But the thing is, what the Founding Fathers realized was the courts having the final say was really the king, the dictator having the monarch having the final say through his rubber stamp called the courts. Now I just, I was curious when, just when we were going through this and I was curious and I went in and I asked, I asked the AI, I said, what was the first country in the world to have a written constitution as a stated form of government to be set for perpetuity? And the first country in the world to adopt a written constitution as a stated form of government to be set in perpetuity was the United States of America.

I did not know that there are written documents that could be considered like a constitution, like the 10 tablets in Rome. But yeah, no country had ever actually written their constitution like we did. All right, Right. Because it was English common law or Was this common law? Was this understanding? There were documents that added up to be a constitution, but they didn’t have an actual constitution. But the thing is, is that not only did they do the constitution for the federal government, they also did a constitution for each state. Yes. So. Well, when things are set to writing and it’s a contract, remember these are social contracts, they are harder to change.

Right. It’s, that’s, that, that’s just, that’s crazy to me. I, I didn’t, you know, I’m. And then on top of that, ours is also the longest lasting constitution. On top of that, the average life of a written constitution throughout history is 17 years. That means every 17 years on average, a country is totally changing its system. Well, do you know, this is, this is, this is a, this is kind of an off the wall question, but just curious, do you know what country wanted to do, you know, what foreign leader wanted to model his country after the United States Constitution was a number of them, but I’d say the number one would be Mexico.

Well, there’s that one. Yes. 1825 Constitution. Right. But the one that, that really gets most people is Ho Chi Minh. Oh, really? Yes. I’ve not heard that before. Ho Chi. Ho Chi Minh actually came to Paris in 1919 to go to the delegation because he wanted. Meet with, he wanted to meet with the leaders in the, of the United States is. He wanted to create a constitution in, in Southeast Asia and Vietnam. I don’t know, I don’t remember what, what, what the nation was called at that time, at that moment, if it was Vietnam or what.

But he wanted to model, he, he wanted to be, he wanted to be modeled their country after the United States Constitution. Yeah. At the time, from the European point of view, I don’t know what they called it, but from the European point of view, it was French, French, French Indonesia. Right. And that’s. Yes, it was, yeah, French Indonesian. Yeah. But anyway. Yeah, no, I’ve not heard that. That’s interesting because they wanted to get rid of the French. I think that was the, that was the whole point. They wanted, they wanted to get, they wanted to throw the French off and have, you know, and have independence.

And they wanted to model their country after the United States Constitution. And somewhere communists got their hands into the pot and then somewhere France realized they couldn’t hold it off. That’s. The United States decided to take over the problem. And well, as I’m. Domino’s fell. And domino’s fell. And to stop more dominoes from falling, we decided Hey, I got an idea. Let’s have a war there. But the problem is we didn’t have the will to really do it or spoke if they really said they would do. As I, as I’m coming to understand, you know, doing all the stuff with the colonel and Gladio and stuff like that with the CIA and strategy, attention and those things, what I’m coming to understand is not everything that is labeled communism is communism.

And not every despot or leader of a country around the world is necessarily communist. They were labeled as communist to be, to be labeled as enemies of the United States to justify, you know, going to war or doing whatever. And if you want to get real particular with language, communism’s never existed. There’s been, never really been truly a communist country. Communism is socialism realized. And it’s not possible for it to get to the point where basically government fades away and everybody’s just sitting around in a giant communal system. And, and, and you know, it just, it’s not humanly possible because of, because of human nature.

Do you know who came up and do, do you know who came up with the term capitalism? Yeah, Karl Marx did. It was a way to turn the free market system into just another ism. Right, exactly. So and it was, it’s interesting because in Marx in the manifesto, he essentially says there’s very little difference between the, the only real difference, as I understand it, that between capitalism and communism was that capitalism was you had the ownership of, of the means of production was in the hands of the people. Whereas in communism, the ownership of the means of production was in the government’s hands.

But in the United States, we may not have the ownership of the means production in the hands of the government, but if the means of production is controlled by regulatory agencies of the government, then that’s almost like, do you own your house or does the government own your house? And then you own your house because you’re able to transfer the ownership but don’t pay them. Don’t pay the property taxes. See what happens. Yeah, don’t pay your property taxes and then see who owns your house. So, so now, but now the form of government that controls the means of production by heavy regulation, which is what you’re talking about, it’s been going on in the United States.

You know what that form of government’s called? Fascism. Fascism, absolutely. We were fascist all along. Well, and, and we, we really stepped it up into, into fascism after, you know, post war of Northern aggression and, and interpretation of the, of the 14th Amendment because essentially what that did Is it gave the, the federal government a lot more control. And then fascism and nationalism are alike, not the ways we’ve been taught. So nationalism and fascism, because, you know, you, you believe in your country too much. That’s not it. Nationalism. Fascism are a strong central government dictating. Right.

That’s what they both do. Yeah, but the fascism, the, the difference between nationalism, Fascism and nationalism still allows the private market to be a private market, even though it. There’s the regulations. In a fascist government, if the private market really is an illusion because it is so strict, it is such a heavy regulatory system. But also what happens is then you have your favors and your favorites and those who are really being controlled by the government directly, just not on paper. Right. There’s, there’s a. I want to find something here real quick. Are you familiar with the, with the book Icebreaker by Victor Serverov? I am familiar with some of what came out of it, but I have not read the book.

Yeah, it’s. I mean it’s, it’s, it’s a long read. Let me see here. Let me see if I can find it because I want to find the, this, this one. There was a, a very interesting. Where is that? The. I can’t find it, but I thought it would be easier to find anyway. There’s a, this guy does like a book review of it and in the, towards the end, he talks about how. Well, Icebreaker, first of all is about how the Soviet Union was, was preparing an invasion of Western Europe and that Operation Barbarossa was not Hitler’s desire to overtake the world.

It was his desire to save Western Europe from communism and from the Soviets. And that was why he attacked. That was why he, he did a preemptive attack. Because they had about, it was about a 10 depending on, depending on what type of. If it was either men material or whatnot. There was a, it was an overwhelming majority, but I think, I think the average was like a 12, 12 to 1 what the Communists had versus what the Germans had in terms of men and weaponry and whatnot. So when the, when the Germans preemptively invaded the, you know, preempted their, their invasion by three weeks roughly.

That was why they were able to capture so many men because they’re all, they were all bunched up at the border anyway. The, the, the point of the matter is, is that in the book, when the, when, when, when the wall fell and the Soviet Union became kind of like a wild west and then you had all these. Basically what you had was you had the, the 1990s versions of the 1860s,’70s versions of the carpetbaggers who went over to Russia from the west to like and, and essentially what they did was they really became a bunch of mob.

That’s exactly what they did. They, they, they got, they hired all the, they, they. All the people that were in the government. They basically made them mafia mafiosos and to run everything. And the, and the people of the. Of Russia literally is like, is like the attitude towards communism is like they, they would have rather had communism back because that what, what they saw with unbridled capitalism was what Marx talked about was there’s very little difference. Well, and the thing is too is communism is very dependent on capitalism. They’re parasitic in that sense. But yeah, that’s where you get back to the founding fathers and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was.

It was a desire to find a balance because the founding fathers are looking back in history and they’re seeing reactions to reactions to reactions. And communism and fascism is interesting because when it comes to Hitler’s response to communism on certain aspects of it, he was correct. But you don’t, but you don’t correct the situation. You don’t, you don’t fix a problem of holes in your wall by creating a bigger hole in the wall. Well, there now I don’t have those small holes in the wall. No, you have a larger on the wall. You still have the problem.

He was trying to correct the problem with a different problem. So he was not wrong about communism. He was not wrong to try to defend the country and the west from communism and his armies. Understood that part of it. Yeah, I mean, this goes back to, you know, I can’t remember his name. I’ve got my head. You have the book where, you know, the discussion where hey, the army’s like, we’ll give you Hitler but. But under the condition that you join us to stand against the Soviet Union. Right. And, and it was too late because Roosevelt was practically Stalin’s lap dog and he wouldn’t agree to it.

And so, you know, but anyway, my, my problem, my, my point is that the Germans recognize the danger of communism and that’s part of the reason why they fell for what Hitler was offering because he was offering who stand against that foe, who’s to protect from that possibility? And that we have been screwed by communism and the, and the communists in the country, by the way, most of them are, well, it turned out were Jews, so there’s that aspect to it. So, so he was right in the sense of wanting to protect against communism and all that.

But like I said the way, the way to, the way to fix the holes in the wall is not with a bigger hammer. And that’s essentially what he was doing ultimately in the long run possible without getting into a long, another two hour show. Right, I know, I get it, I get it. And the, the little fun fact. Do you know what country had the most people volunteer to fight for their side in World War II? And by percentage or by number? By number. Well I thought it would be the United States and Germany but I have a feeling I might be wrong here.

Go ahead. It’s Germany. Germany. Yeah. Well I knew the top two would be US and Germany. Yeah. Over 1 million or over 1 million foreign volunteers and conscripts served in the German military. 300,000 Russians or Cossacks, 7 to 11,000 French. And actually you know, in the final battle for Berlin the last troops that were defending the positions there were French troops believe it or not. Ukraine had 80, like 80,000. And again the idea was well yeah, but we’re fighting against communism. That was kind of part of the idea. And that gets lost in history. That’s right.

And that’s one of the things that people just really don’t understand. And again I’m, you know, as a student of history it’s, there’s, there’s, there’s so many things that I have come to realize and I do try, I do pride myself in being open minded to new concepts and ideas but by just not reading something and just categorically rejecting it because the History Channel repeated it a thousand times saying that, that you know, something was a certain way. So. Well, as I like to tell people all the time, we always have to have this mind there’s always three sides to every story.

What he said, what she said, what really happened. Exactly. Abso freaking lutely. Now, now we will continue with introduction the bill rights and maybe even get an amendment one next week. But I want to suggest something based on a conversation we had earlier today because you’ve always wanted after we’re done with the Constitution to do something slightly different sometimes to just go back to the Constitution. Yeah. So what do you say? And we might want to invite Warhamster if he’s able to, to be a part of this when we’re done with the Constitution. Let’s go through the federals papers.

Oh well it’s funny that you say that because now my friend Carrington, who she will, that’s what we wanted to do was do the Federalist Papers where. You know, we go through the Federalist Papers when she, you know, because she’s. She’s a. She’s a voice actress. Like, she, she’s literally gets hired to read like audiobooks and stuff like that. So she is. She’s. She reads and she’s very, very. She’s pleasant to look at and very. And soothing to listen to. So. But so then that definitely. Maybe even have her on board too. Exactly. Well, that’s kind of what I was thinking because.

Because I think the four of us would make that. That would be. That’d be a hell of a. Hell of a team to go through some of the Federalist Papers, Alan. And, And Warhamster and I went through quite a few of them, but we didn’t finish Jabberjaw. I’m gonna now put out a correction again. He says history is written by the victors. That is how the good guys always seem to win. No, history is not written by the victor’s. History is written by the left. If history was written by the victors, the story about the Mexican American War would be very different.

That’s. You know what? That is a very interesting point. And you’re right. You know, it’s. Have I ever read to you that little. That. That clip from Rule, Rule by secrecy? No, I don’t think so. This is. This will be worth your time. One second here. Yeah. While you’re doing that real special Ed. I agree. He said, I watched the HBO Max TV series John Adams. I must see. If anyone are interested, go to my old blog. There’s a link there to go to a page with all of my videos that actually Ron set up and it’s there.

So if you go to my old blog, political pistachio.blogspot.com and on the right hand side, there’s a link where my video. All of my videos are. And John Adams. If you haven’t seen it, it’s there. Why is this thing. It. I think it. I. I put into too broad of a search term, but I mean. Oh, here it is. I, I got it. All right. So in rule by secrecy. Let me just do a control. Fine. All right, sorry. This is. This is in the introduction of rule by secrecy. Okay. And actually, you know what? I’m gonna.

I’m gonna go. I, I don’t normally do this, but I think for the, for the purpose of the conversation, I think it’s important to understand. Thank you. The columnist Stuart Alsop wrote, knowledge is power, and power is the most valuable commodity in government. So whoever knows the secrets controls the knowledge and therefore holds power. Many people today feel that a mere handful of persons and organizations control much of the global knowledge. This knowledge is jealously guarded by secrecy. It turns the old adage of what you don’t know can’t hurt you right on its head, because what you don’t know can hurt you.

The issue of conspiracy also lies at the heart of how one views history. Here there are only two views, accidental or conspiratorial. The former, accidental, is that history is simply a series of accidents or acts of God which leaders of world, which leaders in the world are powerless to alter or prevent. One adherent of this view was President Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor, Zigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski today, a member of the executive committee of the Trilateral Commission, said in 1981, History is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy. Increasingly, policymakers are overwhelmed by events and information.

Another supporter of the accidental view of history was journalist and self described secular humanist George Johnson. He wrote that the notion of conspiracies has been pushed by right wing extremists since the beginning of the century, indicating that the paranoid style of American politics did not die with Joseph McCarthy. The conspiratorial view, on the other hand, could be more accurately called the cause and effect view. Obviously accidents occur. Planes trains, cars crash, ships sink. But in history it is clear that human planning most often precipitates events. So why haven’t we heard much about this secret planning? According to conspiracy researchers Jonathan Venkin and John Whelan, the American public’s attitudes are shaped by a sanitized Disney view of both history and current events.

The Disney version of history could just as easily be called the New York Times version, or the TV news version, or the college textbook version. They write, the main resistance to conspiracy theories does not come from people on the street, but from the media, academia and government. Those who manage the the the national and global economy of information. And this is where, this is where it gets to what you just talked about. Anthony C. Sutton, a London born economics professor who was a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, agreed that an establishment history dominates textbooks, publishing, the media and library shelves.

During the past 100 years, any theory of history or historical evidence that falls outside a pattern established by the American Historical association and the major foundations with their grant making power has been attacked or rejected not on the basis of evidence presented, but on the basis of the acceptability of the arguments to the so called Eastern liberal establishment and its official historical line, woe betide any book or author that falls outside of these guidelines. Foundation support is not there. Publishers get cold feet, distribution is hit or miss or non existent and then just all this is a bonus paragraph.

This refrain was echoed by President Bill Clinton’s academic mentor, Dr. Carroll Quigley. His 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, A History of the World in our Time revealed his insider knowledge of a modern, of modern secret societies. Quigley said that it was withdrawn suddenly by a major New York publisher. I’m now quite certain a tragedy and hope was suppressed quickly wrote in the mid-1970s. I have a copy of that by the way. Yeah, quick. And the, and, and, but, but the point that he’s making there is in my opinion is exactly what you just said. It is, it’s the, it’s the people who want you to believe a certain way.

And that’s how history for the most part is taught. Now it was much harder to do that in the 1817 and 1800s. Well see that establishment’s always been and it has influenced our history even today. Why do we believe what we believe about the era around the Roman Empire? Because the Romans said it. They were the establishment at the time. And so, and, and we’re only now starting to find out we were lied to by them, for example. They told us and so we believe them and we’ve been teaching this forever. That the barbarians to the north, more specifically the Saxons and some of the other barbarian tribes up there, written language which ultimately became Germany.

Well, well, some of it, and some of it ultimately became the foundation behind the economic movement that, that wound up in Amsterdam and the British system and all of that. Right. But my point is one of the things, the word barbarian even has become savage. That’s a savage. And because that’s what. Who created that word? Who created that meaning Romans. Because they want you to look down upon those tribes. Right. Not that I’m saying those tribes walked on water either because there’s things came out of them that were not so good. But sure, ultimately they were trying to push down these ideas of a free market and liberty that, that the Saxons push that the, that the Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic but the Roman Empire stood against.

And so one of the things, once again we’re told they had no written language yet about. Over the last 10 years, archaeologists have, have learned they had a written language. But it’s just an example of the establishment, whoever the establishment is writing the history. The left, strong power, you know, establishment Writing the history. So this is why being a historian is, is kind of interesting because it goes way beyond a whodunit and a Sherlock Holmes type situation. I mean, you really are a detective when you’re in a historian because even the evidence needs to be in question.

And so one of my favorite books. Let me bring up one of my favorites is called. And, and I know you have a copy of this, the Unseen hand. It’s a 1982 publication by a Ralph Epperson. And, and what it says in his book is that major events of the past, the revolutions, the wars, the depressions and all of the other things have been planned years in advance. Yes. Well, and it’s funny. And building on that point, there’s a book by Gary Jerry Doherty and there’s a Jerry Doherty and Jim McMahon or McClanahan maybe. I don’t, I’m drawing a blank, but whatever.

How about Brian McClanahan? No, no, these are, these are guys that are, these are Scotsmen and they little, they got together. Funny story how they met, but they met and they, they discovered that they both had a passion for looking, you know, for, for World War I. And what they discovered was that the, that the American relief to the American was, I guess it was called the Belgian Food Relief or whatever that they, that the Americans were running. That was, that was, that was ran by Herbert Hoover at the time that they, what they did was they, that was, that was kind of a, basically a, that was a mechanism that they used to make sure that the Germans had enough food to prosecute the war because the Germans were going to starve.

And so they made sure. Because of the British blockade, they made sure. I mean, they didn’t give them a lot, but they gave him enough to make sure that the war could continue. And, and that when the war was ultimately over and that the war was all The World War I was planned by the British in Petrograd. The, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was, was what was a British plot using the Black Hand, which was a kind of like a, an Al Qaeda group of their day. Right, right. And. And it was, and it was, it was planned in Petrograd and which is modern day, of course, the I.

And then the point that it was with the Black Hand was pushed down by, oh, students. And they covered that up best they could. But. Yeah, right. But so, so anyway, the point, the point being is, is that when the war was over, Hoover was over there and he was hired by all of the, he was hired by these governments and he, he got like a Thousand guys that were American or British, of American or British, like historian guys. And they went all through Europe and, and found every single document that they could that would ultimately point to the fact that the British were the ones responsible for starting the war.

And they brought, and they brought almost all of those documents to Stanford University. And you got to remember, to the United States was the people especially was opposed to even being involved in that. And it really took a lot of. Did you hear what I just said? That they brought it to Stanford and they still to this day use Stanford as a document repository. Right. A lot of the documents that came out of World War II and whatnot, a lot of those stuff is still up there, and you can’t go access that stuff. And that was why Anthony Sutton wrote the.

He wrote three books, Wall street and the Rise of Hitler, Wall street and the Rise of the Bolshevism and Wall street and fdr. And he said that when, when, when he found out, based on the documents, that he, he was looking through the documents and in 1944, he found documents of the United States shipping heavy water, aluminum tubes and graphite to the Russians. Now, this is 1944, not 1945. Trinity hadn’t, Trinity hadn’t even been detonated, so they didn’t know if it would work. But in 1944, they were already. The United States was sending materials to the Soviet Union to make a nuclear device.

Right. And when, and then when he, and then he found out that they were, that they, they were showing the Russians how to MIRV their missiles. When we say they. Certain segments. Once again, there’s always segments of our system. Right, but. And let’s, let’s end on this note, because I’ve got. Now. But, but Jabberjaw made a very good point. Hitler’s motives. We’re not even, we’re still debating Hitler’s motives. World War I, World War II, all of these things. It wasn’t very long ago, relatively speaking. Correct. And we still don’t know. Right. Well, what we do know is that every time you turn on the History Channel and every year they’re making another movie or something about how evil that man was, and every year it comes out and there’s.

And they just add to probably the thousands of other programs or books that have been written as, you know, sub, you know, you know, unflappable, absolute, the, the, the quintessential work about, about that, about Germany. And, you know, as somebody who is, who loves history and who sees the kind of. The hidden hand behind things and pushing. The more, the more I am pushed in the direction that Hitler was evil, the more resistance I, I have towards it. Not. And I don’t know, I wasn’t there. I didn’t see it. And you know, and I’m not, I’m not saying that they’re weren’t bad things that happened over there.

Not at all. That’s. I believe it was evil. But there’s more to the story. There’s not fully there. That’s right. That’s. And that’s, and that’s the point that I’m making. But, but, but. Well, actually the point that I’m making is that the more they shove me into the corner to, to, to force me to believe that he was this just monstrous evil, the more resistant I am to that concept because it’s, because who’s feeding me the information and why are they feeding it to me now? I don’t think that the reason is to make him more evil for the sake of him looking evil.

I think the reason they do that and he was evil. There was a lot of evil things about the guy. There’s a lot that. I’m not going to argue that. But the reason why it’s done the way it’s done is not to convince you of how evil he was. You, you’ve, you’ve already been convinced of that. It’s continued to cover up the fact that there were other evil actors so that you don’t look at the other evil actors. You don’t notice the pain in your toe when you hit your thumb with a hammer. You keep hitting that same other things don’t get seen.

The last thing you notice is, is that FDR prolonged the pro. Prolonged the Great Depression, you know, you know, increasing the, the suffering of the, of the Americans and ultimately putting us into a war costing the lives of, of a, of a million. And you know, then you don’t see the, the, the evils that Stalin perpetrated on his people. You don’t see the evils that Winston Churchill was involved with. You don’t see all those evils because you’re, you’re singularly focused on, on, on Germany. So you focus on throbbing thumb, so you don’t notice the knee ache, the toe wake, the elbow wake, because that thumb keeps getting hit over and over and over and it’s throbbing.

Yeah. So chat room, Mel. Evil on both sides during that war. Yes. Hitler didn’t want war. I don’t know about that, perhaps in the beginning, but it definitely got pushed in that direction. Dog and pony show. I agree. Jabberjaw. Well, I will say. Well, that’s a discussion for another time. Yeah, I will say, I will say this. I’m just going to ask you a question and then I’ll let you. And then I’ll, and then, and then we’ll, we’ll, we’ll leave it alone. But do you know how many times the British bombed Berlin before Hitler retaliated? No.

8. I think that’s a pretty, I think that’s a pretty see you later. Solid. I think that’s a probably pretty solid clue of what the intention and what the desire was. Amazing where this conversation went from the Bill of Rights. I know, but that’s a good thing. This is all. Because it all, it all is connected. It’s, it’s, it’s, it is all Internet. It is all interconnected. And I, and I, forgive me because I wasn’t trying to go, I wasn’t trying to put push this. And I’m, and, and I’m, and guys, I don’t want you to misunderstand.

I’m not, you know, I’m not taking a pro Hitler stance here. I’m just saying there’s things out there that we don’t know. And I just, you know, question everything. And it’s not because Hitler wasn’t the evil man. He wasn’t. It’s because they’re, it because the other evils are being hidden. Right. Once again, you focus every, all your sight on one thing. You don’t see anything else. Peripheral vision gets blurred. That’s 100 true. So. All right there, Mr. Gibbs. Well, it’s always a pleasure, sir. Always a pleasure. And we went, we went a little bit longer, guys.

For those of you who were here to see Mike tonight. Mike. Mike had to cancel on me. So he had, he was, he’s, he was off doing something today and he had to cancel. So I, I, and I didn’t have anything planned. It was kind of a last minute thing. So anyway, Sapphira, welcome me back. Thank you. I’m glad to be back. Trust me. It was a wonderful vacation and tour because we also did some events, uh, and uh, enjoyed every minute. My wife says best vacation we’ve ever taken. We, we really enjoyed. We saw some really neat stuff along with history, but man, we’re glad to be home.

Hey, there is no place like home. Absolutely. And, and where I live in Brookings, Oregon, I’ve seen the whole country before. I get to see a lot of again. It’s beautiful. It’s awesome. It’s nothing like Southern California, that’s for sure. But there’s still no place like Brookings, Oregon, where I live. In my opinion, this is paradise. So I. Once again, it’s beautiful. I love where I’m at. I’m envious of the fact that you can go down to the wharf every day and buy fresh fish. Yeah, well. And my wife being diabetic, that’s a big deal. Yeah.

So. And all I’ve got to say is I cook a lot of fish and never once does my kitchen smell fishy because it’s so fresh. It’s so fresh. Yeah, well, I. You’re right. All four to the story. Exactly. There’s all always more to the story. Always, always, always. All right there, Mr. Gibbs. Well, thank you so much for. Glad you’re home safe and. And today was fun. And we will. We will pick this conversation up with the. You know, actually, you know what I. You know what I think I’d like to do if. You know what? Actually, let’s do that offline real quick, guys.

I’m going to go ahead and say. Say adios. I think I may come on and. And read a little bit of that, of. Of Mike’s book about. About Japan. So. But if that. If I do that, that’s probably being about 10 to 15 minutes. So anyway, you guys have. Have an enjoyable evening, and maybe I’ll see here in a few minutes. Or not. So. All right. All right. See you guys.
[tr:tra].