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

and --

(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

the shortest.

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

about.

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

get done.

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

shoot somebody.

(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

limits?

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.

Other words?

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

merit.

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

known atheist.

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.

Next?

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.

Q Factionalism.

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

other.

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.

Q 1789?

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.

Q 1791?

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.

Q 1787?

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.

Q Fascism?

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.

Q Hyperpluralism?

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.

Q Illuminati?

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

deceiving you.

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

groups.

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

heritage.

Q Radical?

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

by radical.

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.

Q Egalitarian?

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.

Q Elitism.

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.

Q Constituent?

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.

Q Marxism.

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.

Next?

Q Skokie.

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,

I guess.

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

own power.

Next.

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

themselves.

Q Right.

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

answer.

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

citizens.

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

do so.

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

being detained.

Q Incorporation?

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.

Next.

Q Martial law?

A Martial law usually refers to military rule. And the

military rules it's usually called Martial law.

Q Neo-Nazi.

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.