March thirty. Political Science
Welcome back. I hope some of you had a vacation. No?
Who went somewhere? Anybody go any place? I only have one
student that went down to Mexico to what's it called? Cabo
San Lucas. Why do we give you a break? I should have had
the exam today instead of being nice. I thought you'd want
to go somewhere. I didn't have a break either. In fact, I
had more of a busy week. I need a vacation now. I had
those 800 kids this weekend at the Santa Clara Convention
Center. That meant four hours at the most sleep all week
long so -- I'm in, you know, yesterday for the first time in
a long time I had to take a nap. I couldn't survive.
Always feels funny. Um, and then the phone kept ringing off
the hook anyway.
So, we are ready for review. Let me make sure I
completed in the lecture before we go into review. I also
note that a good portion of the lectures are up right now
because, um, they finally got it transferred to disk -- at
least the last few -- and that makes it so much easier. We
are missing about three lectures in civil liberties. One we
can account for because we know that the court reporter was
absent. Um, however, we're not sure about the other two so
we -- the civil liberties is not thorough up there.
However, the democracy is thorough. I also got a notice
that the head interpreter is going to come in to observe our
interpreter, which I'm waiting for. I want to see that
because it happens to be his wife that has to observe him
(Tom) She's tough on me, man. She is hard on me. She is
the worst for me.
(Instructor) It was funny yesterday -- I'm sorry. Just
stories but -- I was -- we were talking last night. I don't
know what it was we were talking about? Jobs? And this one
woman was saying -- girl, woman, she's, you know, your age,
nineteen, twenty -- that she had just gotten a job for her
mother and she was the supervisor for her mother. Would
that be something? Huh? I love it. She said thank God her
and her mother get along. So fun and games.
Where did we leave off in your notes because I don't
expect you to remember back to a week ago Thursday. Well,
somebody? I know you're looking at your notes. Bill of
rights? Bill of rights. Did we go through up to -- we went
through all of them based on incorporation. Based on which
ones have been the principles have been made applicable to
the states. Went through nine and ten? Well that's what I
was hoping and I thought I had because that finishes when we
need for the exam, but I want to make sure because I want to
make sure before I started the general reviews that that was
all covered. And I also -- did I last Thursday or Thursday
before last give you the six rules for writing an essay
question as well, right? So that prepares you for the
material for the exam.
So today is just straight review for as long as we need
for the exam. Okay? Now we also told you procedurally that
you will not -- that everything's a week put aside so the
interfaces that are for four are due next Tuesday, right?
And that the questionnaire is due next -- a week from
Thursday? Right. So we're all familiar. We're ready for
that. Okay. So is there anybody who needs another word
list for whatever reason? You all have your word list
available to you? All right. Let's talk about the
structure of the exam first.
There are two parts to the exam. Part one and part
two. Do you have any other questions? Part one is worth
fifty points; part two is worth fifty points. That adds to
one hundred points. Part one is identification. That means
that you will identify with a pen or pencil. No crayon.
Blood is acceptable. Without matching. Without fill-ins. It
is your words.
I will place on the exam twenty words, terms, names,
dates, whatever. They will be selected mainly from the word
list. However, you are also responsible for the words that
are in the text book. Most are, and any words that I may
have discussed in class that I felt were worth while enough
to spend time on and if I did that, there's a possibility
they will appear. If I can remember what they are. Most of
them I have tried to get on the list and updated. You will
choose ten of those twenty to answer.
Q How about any of the words coming from the interface?
A Words on the interface? Yeah. I guess some of them
were in other interface what we covered in class. In other
words, the Sierra club, for example, I could test you on
that and you're right, that was on the interface and not in
the book, but since -- yeah you would be responsible for
that. Yeah I didn't think about the interface, but yeah.
there aren't too much that didn't came from that weren't in
the text book. I usually suggest that you give me the
shortest possible correct answer. Some people see a
identification and decide to expand and show me their
knowledge there and too often they make one little error and
if you make one error I have to take a point off. I don't
care if everything else is brilliant. So the best answer is
For example, anarchy. You would only need to put
something like absence of government. For Athens: the Greek
industry in ancient times where we first have a record of
democracy. Or something like that. Very simple. Does all
that mean you're filling in Athens and anarchy at this
time? Any questions on the identification? Nobody's going
to ask me if we need a scan tron, right? Kind of difficult
to put identification on a scan tron.
Two. Part two of the exam, also worth fifty points, is
essay. You will be asked to choose between two essay
questions. In other words, I will put two on the exam and I
will ask you to write on one of the two. One essay question
I will try to direct more towards my lectures and my text
book. The other I will try to direct towards the other.
But both will be covered from both. However, I want to give
an opportunity for those of you who want to learn through
reading versus learning through listening to show me that
you've learned, which is what I'm more interested in, that
you have learned.
The questions will be very short and very simple. The
answers will be very long and very complex. I don't have to
write the answers. I only have to grade them. That's why
we call it open ended. It's open ended open mind. You
expand on your material. We point the things out in the
rules and regulations guidelines that I presented to you
weeks ago. The question could be do you believe in
democracy? Explain. Most could write an essay. Answer
with that question before coming to this class. I can't
grade you on your belief, I couldn't grade you then. I
can't now because what I'm looking for is that you show me
that somewhere from your readings in the text book and
candidly the other book doesn't have a lot of the practices
and principles of democracy, but the lectures and my book do
that you have done your reading and listening by showing me
what you've learned from the material. And that's what I'm
grading, not yes, no, or maybe. But what you present. Some
of you may be great B.S. artists, but not academic B.S. You
ramble on, but don't show me one thing new. If I feel that
you could have written that essay before coming to class you
will not get a high grade. Now, some of you may have been
able to write the essay before coming to class showing me
all the material I taught you in class either from your own
reading or from political science course before. I would
know that necessarily so I will believe that I learn it in
this class is give you credit for deceiving me. Which is
fine. Because at least you know the material and that's
what counts. Okay?
There is no time limit on the essay. Except that most
of you will be done within fifty minutes. By the end of the
period all, if not all, will be completed. It's an hour and
fifteen minutes. However, if any of you have the need to let
it out of your system to forget it all by writing it on the
exam you can continue to write. I am not picky as to how
much time you spend and I've said that before. Questions on
the essay part of the exam? None? We clear on what you
have to do? Okay.
Then what I'd like to do now is review. We'll do it in
two parts. The first section for review I'm going to ask
you to fill-in the answers in your notes and heads and that
does not mean words, specific terminology. We'll do in the
second part, but right now what I'd like is for to you ask
questions pertaining to questions that might be an essay
question and that material that you could find into an essay
question. So if there's something that you don't understand
or not sure of or feel insecure about that could appear on
an essay question, please ask it now or maybe we can help
you to understand here even though I don't intend to spend
the whole period lecturing on it. Maybe I can make it more
succinct. So are there any general questions that you have?
Q What about the referendum? I forgot what that was all
A Well that's more of a definition of a word referendum
than it is necessarily a concept but conceptually, we were
all dealing with referendum under direct democracy and the
means for the people to directly rule themselves. The
definition of referendum in California is different from
other states. In California referendum is the ability of
the people to remove a law that the legislature passes
directly. So if we don't like a law we can circulate a
petition and get enough signatures get it placed on the
ballot and then the people can decide whether they want the
law to stay or remove it, whether to ratify it or to remove
it. In other states the word is often used in the same
context as an initiative. But not in California. It's not
in California. Referendum is in California.
Any other questions?
Q Bureaucratic interpretation?
A We were dealing with that. We were talking about who
makes policy and that was -- please remember that although
the -- and I'll answer you in a minute. Let me just in here
probably I should have said earlier and it reminded me the
emphasis of course on the questions will be the bigger
topics which will be democracy and civil liberties.
However, there are other topics that let see into including
such as who does rule, who makes decisions, including the
five interpretations as to who rules and makes decisions.
The bureaucratic interpretation is one of those as to who is
actually making policy in the United States. Or anywhere
for that matter. The bureaucratic interpretation argues
that it is the bureaucrats that really decide what goes on
in the country, not the politician, not your elected
representatives, not the judges, but the bureaurocrats. Who
were the permanent employees of government. They are the
people who remain even when politicians leave because they
are permanent there and they really decide what's going to
Q Can you just briefly go over the electoral college?
A Remember, I hate the electoral college. With that, it
is a small number of people who were the real ones who vote
for president, right? And they are people elected in the
states so that each state has a certain percentage of votes
based on the number of senators and the House of Reps that
they have. So every state has at least three votes. The
larger the state was, more votes. So in November, when we
think we're voting for a candidate for president, we are
really voting for that candidates electors. If that
candidate but didn't vote forgets itself highest number of
votes in that state his electors get to vote in December.
They vote in December for him or her, if they want to, but
they generally do and then in January third, those votes are
officially counted and anybody who gets the majority of the
538 votes which means 270 or more is the president.
Further general conceptions? Questions? Any other
questions? Are we sure we don't have any other general
questions that could be part of an essay? I don't want to
leave you saying --.
Q How about civil liberties and civil rights?
A Well, they clash basically because in civil liberties,
you're asking for government to stay out of your lives. In
civil rights you're asking government to come into your life
and protect you. So if you say to hell with government with
civil liberties get out of here and civil rights, please
come in you can see the immediate clash because once it's in
then maybe you want it out again. Or maybe it comes in, it
interferes with somebody else because you've asked it to
come in. It may be therefore interferes with somebody
else's liberties. Translation, the person who's Jewish and
wants to eat in a restaurant and the restaurant won't serve
them because they're Jewish -- they say hey guys get in here
and help me. I want to eat and live my life. And then the
government says you got to serve this Jew and the restaurant
owner said I don't serve no kikes; this is my restaurant.
And so government is enforcing a civil right, but in so
doing, maybe violating the liberties of the person who's put
his money in and set up his own business.
Q So civil rights are things that are protected by the
government where civil liberty are not necessarily denied
but not protected?
A Basically. So if, you start heckling me and try to stop
me from speaking, you're interfering with my free speech.
But my free speech is there which is my right as a liberties
is also my human right and I say I have a right to talk and
I'm saying I'm not going to let you talk, so I go to the
police or government and say I have a right to talk. But
then look you say to the government you say to that police
officer government hey I have a right to talk too. Now the
government is taking away my right to heckle. So anytime
you ask government to come in, in a sense, you could be
creating a civil liberty violation and probably are.
Q So you said so a Jewish person wants to go in the
restaurant and the restaurant guy says no. So then you ask
the government to protect the Jewish person. So how does
the government decide which person to protect?
A That's a good question. Literally, the government
decides whichever way it decides to decide. Translation,
for many years the government didn't protect Jews and
blacks. Okay? 50 years it began to decide to do so. Um
why did it decide to do so? Well we know why. Because of
civil rights demonstrations, because of pressure, because of
campaign contributions, because of wanting to get votes.
But that is the whole question as to which civil rights is
the government going to protect. Martin Luther King had to
be assassinated in part. Sadly to say, but of course you
know before that he had to demonstrate and protest and
convince the government and the people who make up the
government that government should protect the rights of
blacks. So your question is one very difficult to answers
because it's one that has been the struggle throughout
ages. What is a civil right? What is my right? Is there a
God given right that we all agree with? Well, no,
candidly. There are many rights. Maybe agree with some,
but there are many rights that you and I might hold and then
others might not. And it may be a right that the majority
of the people feel has a right and yet government decides it
is not a right. And that's the confusion perhaps with civil
rights. I'm trying to think of something that we would all
agree or most of us would agree as a right and and yet maybe
the government would not come in to protect it. But right
off hand, my mind's blank. But I'm sure if I gave it some
time there's probably a lot of things that we all say hey
this is our right and yet we can't convince government to
protect us because the government and the leadership don't
think it's a right. Yeah I would think this is an
interesting one. I would argue it's a civil right for me to
protect myself in my home and it's my right to shoot them to
hell if they enter my home, but the government doesn't
adhere to that. The government says I don't have a right to
(student) You do in Texas. You have a right to shoot
anyone anywhere you want to if it's after dark.
(instructor) Is that what it is? So there's a limitation.
You can't shoot them if they come in your home. -- well if
they come in your home they can. Without threatening you in
Texas. Well in California they have to make a threat. You
have to show that you are fearful for your life before you
can physically restrain them or stop them. Now that may not
be true in Texas but.
Q I think technically most people if they saw an intruder
in their house would fear for their life.
A It's different with you're trying to say -- let's put it
this way. You may fear for your life, but you're going to
have to prove that.
Q They broke into my house.
A They're going after the TV, besides, a 96 pound kid and
you're going to have a hell of a time trying to convince
that this guy who has no weapon made you fear for your
life. Right? Well in Texas, I suppose, but 96 pound kids
are pretty tough. But California kids are wimps. No. I'm
serious. That's why some people have been charged and some
people convicted in California of firing a weapon or
injuring somebody who broke into their house. So the old
story is put a weapon in their hand. And then after you
shoot them, put a weapon in their hand.
Q And is it also illegal to fire a weapon within city
A Except within self protection and you couldn't go in
your yard and start shooting for target practice. It's
illegal to fire a bee bee gun and most people have. But most
of you do. It's illegal to speed. But -- that doesn't mean
that we can't be busted; we can be. We have gotten our
tickets. I seem to get one every two years right after the
other one goes. I've been pretty lucky that way. I'm about
due again, so I got to make sure I plug in my radar
detector. And some states radar detectors are illegal. New
Jersey, Connecticut, if you have one in your car, you're
busted. But it's my civil rights to be able to know that
the cops are there. That's where we get into those
questions as to what the civil rights are. You got me off
on a long one here.
Okay. Any other questions? On questions? Well, then I
think we can go on to the word list. I believe there may be
two word lists circulating. I'm not sure. One from the
semester before and one from this semester, except for a
couple words from -- they're identical. I think I may have
changed one or two. However, what I'd like what you can do
now is ask me to repeat the definition. However, a word or
define it I may not do it the same exact way. However, if
you're not sure of what I said I will accept you asking me
again. However, if after a couple of minutes somebody asks
me the same word, I'm going to very nastily say I answered
that one already. Which I think is fair. I know your minds
wander but I don't think I have to repeat it because your
minds wander. Right? Any words that you would like me to
try and define?
Q What's the 27th Amendment?
A That is the last amendment which was passed in 1992. If
you recall and this is not necessarily a definition although
it's acceptable. If you recall the 27th Amendment was the
one that should have been the 11th, but it was defeated or
not, but it never got passed in 1789. It was passed in 1992
as the 27th and it says that members of congress cannot
raise their salary during their term of office.
Q Double jeopardy?
A Well, when Alex Trebeck at the end of the show -- double
jeopardy is trying somebody twice for the same crime.
That's out loud, but during jeopardy is the trying of
somebody twice for the same crime.
Q Meritocracy is the concept of people who rule because
they merit it, because they've achieved success. Not like
teachers. They get salaries not based on merit, based on
the fact that they're warm bodies. There are those that
argue that teachers should have their salaries increased if
they prove they're successful. But how the hell do you
prove what's a successful teacher? If my goal is to get you
involved in the system after you get done with this
political science class and see politics around you, how are
we going to test that out? So meritocracy is also a
difficult one. Repeat it? Repeat. Basically the concept
that those who are successful those that have proved that
they can do the job they will be the ones that will rule.
They will be the ones making the decisions. Government by
Q Madalyn Murray O'Hare?
A Was the best known atheist in the United States. Now
that she's been desserected, we don't know who the best
Q Schenck versus US
A I'm just waiting. Sorry. That's all right. I thought
I asked to you put the vibrators on on the first day of
class? It's a lot more fun.
Schenck versus the United States was the court case --
did that get into the transcript?
Schenck versus the United States (1919) was the court
case that for the first time the court used the term clear
and present danger and then that civil liberties could be
suspended if there were a clear and present danger in the
particular case in Schenck for what details that you don't
need necessarily for the answer it was Schenck had been
talking to people about not going into the military. He had
been advocated not going in during World War I. He argued
he had the free speech to advocate not going into the
military. The court ruled no. That was a clear and present
danger. In wartime in peace time he may have the free
speech to do so but not in wartime. The clear and present
danger. The absolute interpretation would have said that if
he advocated not going into military in peace time he had
that same right in wartime. That would be absolute.
Q Gitlow versus New York (1925)
A That was the Supreme Court case that started the
incorporation of the principles of the Bill of Rights which
translates to it was the first case that used the 14th
Amendment to say that states could not ban free speech.
Remember the First Amendment that Congress wouldn't do. The
fourth doesn't say free speech but in Gitlow the people will
people had the right to free speech even in the states.
A The concept that already -- many groups who refuse to
compromise they just will not work together in any fashion
or means. They create factions. Groups fighting with each
Q Weber v Kaiser
A That was the court case which Weber sued arguing reverse
discrimination because he couldn't get into a program that
taught welding for minorities. The court held no because
blacks were being tutored and brought up to standards. They
weren't being hired until they were tutored and that whites
had had the ability before. So he lost.
A 1789 was the year I was born. Well, I'm glad you
laughed. My other class didn't laugh. I got nervous about
that. 1789 was the year the Constitution went into effect.
The Constitution we have today. It was also the year they
wrote the Bill of Rights.
A 1791 was my second birthday. 1791 was the year the Bill
of Rights went into effect. I mean obviously, many things
happened in those years, but you were asking how I was
related to it.
A That was two years before I was born. 1787 was the year
the Constitution was written. It was written in 1787 that
was the year of the Constitutional convention.
Q 1789 was what again? 1789 was the year the Bill of
Rights was in effect? And the Constitution was set up?
A Not in effect, the Bill of Rights was written; the
Constitution was in effect.
A Fascism. There are a couple of answers. I talked about
the context being any group on the extreme right. Because
they support usually one race, a dictator, authoritarian
rule, but it would also be correct to argue that Fascism was
the political philosophy of Mussolini supporting the
dictatorship of superior Italian race.
Q Hecklers veto?
A Remember earlier I was talking about hecklers? It is an
individual who disturbs, yelling things out. A heckler's
veto means I forbid. What happens with the heckler's veto
is the heckler is shutting people up or not allowing free a
system whether I or not forbidding it and something that
shouldn't be allowed. Heckling is free speech. Heckling to
the point of stopping is not free speech. Then you're
violating their civil right.
A Is like -- like -- there are so many groups they won't
compromise. Hyperpluralism argues that nobody rules.
Government isn't working because there are so many groups.
It's pluralism gone astray. Pluralism is democracy by
groups. Hyperpluralism is gone astray to the extent that
nothing happens. It's grid lock. Pluralism is the concept
that various groups compete and that because of their
competition, it leads to democracy. The government listens
to -- groups doesn't listen to us individually.
Q Abbey Hoffman?
A Abbey Hoffman was the individual who stated government
-- politics is the way you lead your life. It was the way
you lead your life, and finally decided to end his own
politics by ending his own life.
A Are all of those people walk can around in black dressed
like gothic. Although, the illuminati is believed to be an
organization of devil worshipers who were attempting to
convert you all to devil worshipers so you will all go to
hell. They follow Satan. It has never been proven to
exist. It is argued that they have been around secretly
Q Alexis De Tocqueville?
A He was the individual who I mentioned after visiting the
United States wrote the two volume study Democracy in
America in the 1830s that is still used today to understand
the American political character. He was the person who
argued that American democracy worked because we joined
Q Skin heads?
A Skin heads. We don't hear as much as we did a few years
ago, but it started in England as a working class movement
because they felt competition from this what they call
Pakies. They are anybody of Asian, east Asian descent, not
just Pakistan, it's a negative term. Those are the two terms
they use that's anybody that's black and they began to prove
the superiority of the white race by bashing them, beating
them up. It spread to this country and we had three groups
of skin heads. One that was culturally, one that believed
in bashing people, and one that believed in eliminating them
and killing them. So these were young men and women who
basically expanded and promoted racism in the competition in
the working class who were not of the white Anglo Protestant
A In chemistry -- no. Radical, we said in our society
tends to refer to somebody on the extreme left of the
political chart, but a radical is somebody who wants
immediate change now to something either new or old, but
they want it done right now. That's what we basically mean
Q Socialist workers party.
A Is probably and I think it is the largest communist
party in the United States larger than the as far as
membership is concerned. Who follow the principles of Carl
Marx the founder of communism, but have their own
philosopher who added to it or understood it. A man named
Trotsky. Who Stalin, when he took over the Soviet Union,
expelled and then had Trotsky asassinated a few years later
by having some fellow follower of his put an ice pick
between the eyes. While he was living in Mexico. Pretty
vicious way to kill somebody.
A I'm cutting Dejure. Cross it out.
A Is the concept that means are literally should be
treated equal or brought to literal equality. That people
are literally equal. That everybody is equal on all levels.
That there are little differences between people.
A Elitism is the concept that America has rule or any
country is rule by a small group such as the rich and well
born. Sometimes in our society we refer to the military
complex being the elite.
Well still got lots of time.
A Is anyone that a legislator represents. Anyone that a
legislator represents. It's probably the most popular word
used by politicians. Everybody constituent needs. This is
my constituent. Is it doesn't matter whether the person
agrees with them or not as long as they represent them. So
that everyone in the state of California is Diane
Feinstein's constituent. Everyone in the United States is
Bill Clinton's constituent and therefore he is trying
supposed to appease people in the United States. I guess he
does have a small majority -- against Serbia which surprises
me even more.
Q Due process of law?
A Is the procedures that are established so that justice
can be achieved. Which means procedures established so
justice can be achieved. A right to an attorney, to bail, to
a fair trial.
Q Ex post facto laws?
A Are retroactive punishment. They are laws where you're
being punished for something that was not a crime when you
did it, so it's retroactive.
Q John Locke.
A John Locke was a British philosopher who spoke about the
people's right to a social contract in a civil rights and
civil liberties. He wrote the English Bill of Rights. To
treaties on government at the end of the 17th Century. He
is also the person who Thomas Jefferson swiped the words
"life, liberties," and of course changed property to
"pursuit of happiness." that those are natural laws we are
all given. The consent of natural rights came from John
Locke. A 17th century philosopher.
Q Libertarian party.
A Is a political party in the United States that holds
that the government that governs least, governs best. They
believe in minimal government.
A It's synonymous with communist.
Q Reverend Martin Niemueller.
A Is the German who supported Hitler, later went against
him. He is famous for that statement "First they came
for... and I was not." translation, I mentioned him in my
book . Niemueller basically argued that if you don't stand
up for other people's civil liberties, you won't have any.
So that the only way you have civil liberties is why and the
only way you preserve is by standing up to others.
Q Christian coalition?
A On organization that holds that christians need and most
actually go into politics take over the American system that
is run by Satans, disciple, and make it a truly Christian
system so that gods will be done.
Q University of Cal Davis versus Bakke.
A The first reverse discrimination case to reach the
court. A white man arguing that he was being discriminated
because he was white. In this case, not being allowed into
Davis medical school because Davis had set aside a quota for
minorities. The court ruled in his favor and said that he
had been discriminated against. And ordered his admission.
Q The John birch society.
A An ultra conservative organization that wants to return
to the literal interpretation of the Constitution of 1789.
And fears any government involvement leading to socialism.
Leading to communism. Popular sovereignty. Meaning people
themselves determine their own destiny. People should be
allowed to be determining their own destiny. They have a
say over their own life and death.
How do you people time this musical chairs? You
actually look at a clock?
(Tom) Yeah. The off person looks at the clock and because
you'd never though.
(instructor) I hadn't seen any real motions. I tried to
figure out how you did it. My other class last time they
split it halfway because the other one had to go to lunch.
Q Prior restraint.
A Prior restraint means what the words actually say:
Prior, meaning before; restraint, to stop. So it is to stop
something before it occurs.
A That village outside of Chicago that the Nazis want to
march that was predominantly Jewish. A village outside of
Chicago where the Nazis wanted to march in uniform. A
village that had a large proportion of Jews. It was not a
Jew town. And they tried to stop it, but the court ruled
that the Nazis had the right to march. They never did. But
they had the right. They wanted to celebrate Hitler's
birthday to march in the town and spit in the face of Jews,
Q The Machiavellian interpretation.
A No. Argues that those people who rule, rule for their
own power. They don't give a damn about anything but their
Q True believers.
A I used in the context of those individuals who lack self
worth so that to get on identity they join an organization
and become fanatics. They get their worth their identity
their ego from joining an organization usually a mass
movement. Because they lack identity. Or believe in
A Okay, I'm right. The opposite of left. I'm referring
to the right part of the chart. Politically. Which
basically refers to people wanting to go back to something
the way it was. Poor guy, he's got to put up with me and
then go work with all these kids at the Y.M.C.A. Camps. I
was going to ask him which was worse, but I know the
Q Conspiracy thesis.
A Holds that there are certain people who get together to
defraud the democratic system to deceive us so that they can
get their way. They had ruled the small group by deserving
us by defrauding our system.
Q Corruption of forfeiture of blood.
A Is the concept that if you're convicted of treason
you're whole blood line is considered corrupt and they
forfeit both relatives past, present, future. They forfeit
something. Like their property or their right to be
Q Bill of attainder.
A It is a legislative punishment. A bill of attainder
means that the legislature can throw you in prison. Just
because they don't like you. That's not allowed. Bills of
attainder are outlawed by our Constitution, but what it will
mean if it were what it means is your ability of the
legislature to throw something in prison for free, make them
declare them well to punish them somehow. If they had -- if
the Congress had fined Bill Clinton that would have been a
bill of attainder. They couldn't because it was illegal to
Q Habeas corpus.
A Is something protected and that is the concept that you
have to be charged for a crime. You can't be held without
being charged. The judge's right to ask why that person is
A Is making the principle of the Bill of Rights applicable
to the states.
Q Power elite.
A Basically a book by C. Wright Mills but the power elite
argues that the people who were running America are the
military industrial complex that America is being run by a
military industrial complex by the elite the powerful the
wealthy, the rich.
Q Tri-lateral commission.
A Was organized by David Rockefeller's family. It was to
create supposedly benefit of trade between three areas tri
lateral. Western Europe, the United States and Japan. It
is seen by many conspirisists as an organization which was
designed to defraud us by making government work only for
David Rockefeller. To put people in government who would
support Rockefeller's millions, not the people.
Q Social contract.
A Social contract. John Locke talked about it. It's the
concept that people who have the right to govern themselves
turn over some of those rights to the government for general
protection. So people who were born with the right to
govern themselves agree to allow government to govern them.
Not to abuse them though.
Q Martial law?
A Martial law usually refers to military rule. And the
military rules it's usually called Martial law.
A Well, the simple definition will not get you full
credit. Neo Nazi. You have to identify what's new about the
Nazi. Is the new thing is -- is that they believe in
Christianity. The old Nazi did not. -- wanted to eliminate
Christianity. The new Nazis believe in an Arian Christ and
turning people who were blond blue eyed into christians, but
to eliminated all people who were not Christians, who were
not blond and blue eyed basically. Who were not white
people. Okay? Good luck. We'll see you on Thursday.