DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Sunday, November 19, 2017

U.S. Helps Search for Missing Argentinian Submarine

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

Signals may be from missing submarine, Argentina's navy says

US Navy's new maritime aircraft to aid in search for Argentine sub and crew

Argentina steps up search for missing submarine

According to Fox News:

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Sexual Harassment Plague Spreading

Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

Ryan Seacrest Denies Harassment Claims...

Accuser 'wanted money to keep quiet'...

Dunham Apologizes for Defending 'GIRLS' Producer Against Rape Allegation...

Franken tells woman in letter he's 'ashamed' of himself...

#MeToo has lumped trivial in with legitimate sexual assault...

Inside celeb 'sex addict' summer camp...

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ridiculing Conservatives into Silence is all a part of the plan

By Douglas V. Gibbs
AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

“Make the enemy live
up to their own book
of rules. You can kill
them with this, for they
can no more obey their
own rules than the
Christian church can
live up to Christianity.”
~ Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

America's Constitution Authority: Douglas V. Gibbs, Author, Public Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

AuthorDoug's latest book has hit the stores.  Get 5 Solutions to Save America TODAY!  Doug's other books are also valuable additions to your library.

25 Myths of the United States Constitution: If the United States Constitution is the nation's "owner's manual," "25 Myths" is its repair manual.

The Basic Constitution - An Examination of the Principles and Philosophies of the United States Constitution: A Comprehensible journey through the pages of the U.S. Constitution, line by line.

Concepts of the United States Constitution: Uncovers the concepts (constitutional and unconstitutional) that exist, but are not specifically named in the U.S. Constitution.
Silenced Screams - Abortion in a Virtuous Society: Satan's greatest trick has been convincing the world that he does not exist.  His second greatest trick has been convincing an entire segment of the population that killing their own children is not evil.

Doug's other upcoming titles are listed here in order of anticipated release:

7 Worst Constitutional Liars: From Alexander Hamilton to Barack Obama, those who claimed to be defenders of the Constitution, but in reality were ardent enemies of what it stands for.
A Promise of American Liberty: Doug's long-awaited Constitutional Textbook.
A Tyrant's Guide to Killing Liberty: Doug takes Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky head-on in this revealing exposé of how leftism kills, and what we can do to use their own weapons against them.
Across the Gray Line - Ideologies Contrasted: In this book, using columns, Doug compares the Founding Fathers to the Republican Party, Democrat Party, and Karl Marx. . . issue by issue.
A Promise of Economic Freedom: Finally, a common-sense book on the free market economy, written in a textbook style that everyone can understand.
John Marshall and Nine Rulings That Changed the Constitution: Marshall was the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, but in his 36 years as ruler over the United States Supreme Court, he inflicted dramatic damage to our constitutional republic. . . of which we still feel, today.
50 Greatest Influences on the U.S. Constitution: Some names, like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, you will recognize.  But, there have been other champions, and villians, along the way.
Elizabeth Powel, Keeper of the Republic: My favorite Founding Father was a woman, and a very good friend of George Washington's.  It was she that Benjamin Franklin challenged, saying, "A republic, if you can keep it."
A Patriot's Guide to the United States Constitution: Doug's most ambitious, and detailed, project, yet.
Timeline of Liberty: From the Garden of Eden to Present Day, liberty, and the enemies of liberty, has always existed.
Madison's Notes - Understanding the Debates of the Constitutional Convention: James Madison took notes during the 1787 Convention, detailing each argument, and providing us with an insight to what the original intent of the Constitution truly is.
Workbook Companion to The Basic Constitution

As a Public Speaker regarding the United States Constitution, Doug speaks at various groups around Southern California, and outside the area when requested.  Doug's next event will be at the Westchester Republican Women's Federated on Tuesday, November 21 beginning at 11:00 am at the IHOP Restaurant, 8600 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles.  RSVP at 310-645-4345.

As an Instructor, Doug conducts Constitution Classes in Temecula and Corona.  The Temecula class meets on Thursday Nights (except the 2nd Thursday of each month), and the Corona Class meets on Tuesday Nights.  The class schedules will be changing with the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays upon us, so pay attention to this website or get on Doug's email list to receive reminders.

email me at constitutionspeaker at for more information.

As a Radio Host, in addition to Constitution Radio on Saturdays at 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm (Pacific Time) on KMET 1490 AM, Doug hosts Conservative Voice Radio with the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs - Nehemiah Project

Doug with California Gubernatorial Candidate Travis Allen
Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs 

Host Douglas V. Gibbs is prepared, today, to take you on a two hour ride of political discussion through the lens of the United States Constitution.

As an Author, Doug's latest book has hit the stores.  Get 5 Solutions to Save America TODAY!  Doug's other books are also valuable additions to your library.

As a Public Speaker regarding the United States Constitution, Doug will be at the Westchester Republican Women's Federated on Tuesday, November 21 beginning at 11:00 am at the IHOP Restaurant, 8600 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles.  RSVP at 310-645-4345.

As an Instructor, Doug conducts Constitution Classes in Temecula and Corona.  Schedules will be changed with the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays upon us, so pay attention to this website or get on Doug's email list to receive reminders.

And, as a Radio Host, in addition to Constitution Radio on Saturdays at 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm (Pacific Time) on KMET 1490 AM, Doug hosts Conservative Voice Radio with the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party

For today's program, feel free to Call in Live at 951-922-3532 during the program.

Dennis Jackson and Alex Ferguson co-host Constitution Radio with Doug.

If you are not local, and cannot pick-up the program on KMET 1490-AM on your radio dial, Listen Live online at  KMET also has a phone app, and the podcast will be available if you miss the show live.

Miss the program? Podcast will be Here.

Today's Guest is Jon Matthews, founder of the Nehemiah Project.

Vision: The Nehemiah Project envisions seeing the Church as established by Jesus Christ "rebuild the walls of Jerusalem" by re-committing to its purposed commission to save the lost from the Day of Judgment and create disciples of all nations through the advancement of God’s kingdom on earth. This calling and purpose also entails understanding our responsibilities and duties as "dual citizens" of the kingdom of God and our great Republic. 
Mission: The mission of The Nehemiah Project is to provide guidance and resources to the Body of Christ as influential purveyors of God’s truth not only within its walls but subsequently in the public square.  This mission consists of three elements:

  • Reform: Endeavor to bring unification to the Body of Christ through instruction, encouragement, exhortation and admonishment that re-prioritizes the Great Commission as the purpose and goal of the Church. (Ephesians 4:3)
  • Rebuild: Re-empower the Body of Christ within its ordained calling as the sole means by which an unsaved world can be brought into God’s kingdom to “become fruitful and multiply.” 
  • Restore: Reclaim our Christian heritage as “the light on the hill,” re-establishing our Republic as “One Nation Under God,” influencing our culture, government and civil society.

CarStar/AllStar Collision Big Stories of the Week, November 18, 2017:

 Democrats Celebrate over Recent Electoral Wins

⬝ Governor Jerry Brown's Crusade Against the U.S. Constitution

⬝ Impeach 45

⬝ Roy Moore Accusations Fall Apart as Democrats Find Themselves in Sex Scandal Hot Water

⬝ The Fall of Chad Mayes, and the Rise of Andrew Kotyuk

⬝ 5 Solutions to Save America

⬝ Mental Illness of Sexual Perversion

⬝ How Socialism Killed Venezuela

⬝ Gorsuch Attacked for Being Constitutional

Conservative Voice Radio: Kotyuk

Hosted by Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host, and members of the Banning-Beaumont-Cherry Valley Tea Party Glenn, Jan and Diane.  On today's episode, Jan and Glenn were unable to join us.

Saturdays, 8:00 am, Conservative Voice Radio, KMET 1490-AM

Listen live at or listen later at the podcast page.

Today's Topics:
  • Repeal and Replace Chad Mayes
  • Gorsuch Attacked for Being Constitutional
  • Governor Jerry Brown's Unconstitutional Climate Change Trip to Europe
  • Virginia Election has Democrats Excited for False Reasons
  • Roy Moore
  • Senate Version of Tax Reform is Democrat Light

Friday, November 17, 2017

Six Democrats Introduce Articles of Impeachment of President Donald Trump

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

The Democrats hate Trump, not just because he's Trump, but because he claims to be a Republican who is willing to upset the apple cart of the establishment.  If, somehow, a different GOP candidate had won the 2016 Presidential Election, and he was also willing to challenge politics-as-usual, the treatment would be the same.  The accusations against Trump were planned against whoever the Republican would be a decade ago.  The Democrats were so close to creating a single-party socialist system with a powerful Clinton at the helm that they could taste it.

The strategy shifted from what they were doing (through creeping incrementalism), to "whatever it takes."  A part of that emergency procedure effort is to do anything and everything it takes to marginalize Trump, and any conservative Republican the Democrats see as a threat.  Roy Moore is being removed before he can even take a seat at the table.

Six Democrat representatives are going all the way when it comes to Trump, by introducing articles of impeachment against the president.

There's no crime.  No maladministration.  Trump has not committed perjury under oath like Bill Clinton did.  They just simply despise him, so they attack him with both barrels blazing.

“Given the magnitude of the constitutional crisis, there’s no reason for delay,” Representative Steve Cohen, D-TN, said in a statement regarding his co-sponsorship of the articles of impeachment.

What Constitutional Crisis?  If there is a Constitutional Crisis, it's not being caused by Trump.  It's a longer than two-century long crisis caused by the Democrat Party's allies throughout U.S. History in their use of unconstitutional concepts like "implied law" and "judicial review" to usurp the U.S. Constitution.  Trump's only crime is standing up to the Democrats in the kind of way that they have no reasonable response for.

They hate Donald Trump, not because of who he is, but because of what he is.  He can't be bought, he can't be shifted, and he is outside the system.  He is a wrecking ball, and he is slamming against the establishment.

The thing is, the Democrats know they won't succeed in achieving a removal from office of President Trump.  That's not what they are doing.  They are setting the stage.  Preparing for the onslaught of dirty politics against the man so that reelection is not only not possible, but to ensure that they are the ones able to grab the White House in 2020, and in 2018 grab at least the Senate (and perhaps the House) along the way.

It's not about the Constitution.  The Democrats use words like "constitution," but they actually see the original intent of that document as an obstacle to their ultimate Marxist plans.  The tactics we are seeing is all about their political power, and the fact that they are willing to obtain that political power any way they can, even if it is through deception, illegal means, and sinister ploys such as articles of impeachment filed for false reasons.

The top leadership of the Democrat Party is nervous about the call for impeachment.  While Maxine Waters is making the news often screaming "impeach 45," establishment Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez, have been quiet about it.  It worries them.  To the voters, it may look more like a negative for the Democrats.

Instead, the goal of the entrenched establishment Democrats is to force the Republicans to fail when it comes to major legislation like the repeal of Obamacare, or reforming the tax system - and then run on the claim that the GOP controlled Houses of Congress are a do-nothing Congress.

Then, if the Democrats could somehow gain control of the House, and the Speaker becomes Nancy Pelosi again, they would be in a better position to make Trump's final two years pure hell, and cripple him to a point that it neutralizes the conservative push the Republicans have somehow been able to manage since the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

In truth, what the Democrats have been doing in retaliation of the Donald Trump ascendancy to the White House has been downright Orwellian (George Orwell, author, 1984 and Animal Farm). Orwell, in 1984, wrote, "Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, and every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

The concepts of newspeak and doublethink that Orwell came up with in his novel warning us about socialism is now what we call political correctness.  Reality has been distorted through the manipulation of language, history is being twisted (or purposely forgotten) in the halls of institutions of higher learning and by the destruction of historical artifacts and statues that don't reflect the new truth as it is being put out by the Democrats.  The liberal left is calling the opposition to their narrative "sufferers of a mental disorder", and they are demanding a reconditioning of people's mental attitude so that they also will fall in line with the new reality.

Orwell wrote, "the whole aim of Newspeak and Doublethink is to narrow the range of thought."

Sound familiar?  Could that be what political correctness is all about?

The thing is, the Democrat thought-process goes way beyond politics.  Their anger and anguish over Trump's election led to a "scream at the sky" temper tantrum event on the one year anniversary of his election.  It is a religiosity.  They religiously believe in the leftist socialist garbage being fed to them, and are 100% convinced they are 100% correct. . . hence, the intolerance of any opposing point of view.

They have been convinced that they are stopping the next great dictatorship.

Sure, they agree with socialism, but from their point of view, that's not what the NAZIsm and fascism Trump supports is all about.  It's about white supremacy.

Actually, NAZI stands for National Socialist German Worker's Party.

Socialism is the control of the means of production through government ownership of the means of production.  Fascism is the control of the means of production through government regulation of the means of production.  In short, socialism and fascism are the same when it comes to the ends they are trying to achieve.  Only the path to get there slightly differs.

The Democrats have a lot more in common with NAZIs and fascists than the Republicans ever could.

Like the fascist Nazis, the Democrats and their minions are shutting down opposing speech on college campuses across the country, demanding that historic statues and monuments associated with anything they deem offensive be taken down, and they have been demanding that people with opposing views be silenced, fined or arrested.

A system with a foundation embedded in the concept of liberty cannot allow such madness to continue, nor allow that kind of oppressive leftism to take a hold of the reins of the American Government.  Advocacy for constitutional restoration must be at the forefront of the conservative agenda.  Otherwise, we will continue blindly along Tytler's Cycle, where in the end we will settle for the eventuality of complete bondage.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Allred Avoids Questions about Yearbook Forgery of Roy Moore's Signature

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

On CNN, Wolf Blitzer repeatedly asked Gloria Allred if the yearbook signature that is being considered a smoking gun regarding the sexual assault accusations against Judge Roy Moore is a forgery.  Allred refused to give an answer.
Embattled Attorney Gloria Allred, who is well known for trotting out women to confess to phony crimes against conservatives, held a press conference on Monday afternoon. Allred and her client accused Judge Roy Moore of attempted rape in 1977.
Allred and her client brought a yearbook with them to use as evidence during their press conference.

The signature was signed in two different colored inks.
That said, Gateway Pundit also reminds us that Allred was a Hillary delegate at the DNC in 2016, and she is currently under TWO INVESTIGATIONS for misconduct as an attorney.

In other words, she's a typical Democrat.
“Well, all I’m saying is, we will permit an independent examiner of the writing…We will allow all of this to be asked and answered at the hearing,” Allred said. 
“But that’s not a flat denial, Gloria,” Blitzer said. 
“Well, all I’m saying is, we’re not denying, we’re not admitting, we’re not addressing,” Allred said. “We will not be distracted.” 
Blitzer asked why Allred needed a Senate hearing and would not just permit an independent handwriting expert to take a look. 
“Well, uh, all I can say is we want it done in a professional setting to the extent possible, that’s the only setting in which people can testify under oath,” Allred said.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Moore Sex, Fight Fire with Fire

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The Democrats are convinced that Judge Roy Moore, who is now a threat to them because of his run for the U.S. Senate to replace Jeff Sessions, while Moore was still a Democrat younger in his life, may have been a little more than flirtatious with females younger than him (and in their teens), so they have launched an attack against him 39 years after it allegedly happened less than 30 days before the special election in Alabama.

Bill Clinton was/is a habitual pervert, and Senator Al Franken in his previous life as a comedian also practiced unacceptable behavior and has, as a result, been also hit with a sexual harassment allegation.

In the case of the Democrats, with them saying that Moore's sexual improprieties are unacceptable, they have to, so as not to look like hypocrites, Bill Clinton's past is under fire, and some Democrats are demanding Franken's resignation for his sexual improprieties from long ago, as well.

“Sexual harassment is never acceptable and must not be tolerated,” said Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “I hope and expect that the Ethics Committee will fully investigate this troubling incident, as they should with any credible allegation of sexual harassment.”

Talk show host Leeann Tweeden on Thursday accused Franken of sexually assaulting her during an overseas USO tour in 2006, three years before he became a Democratic senator from Minnesota. She said Franken forcibly kissed her, and later posed for a photo in which he groped her chest while she slept.

The Minnesota Democrat issued a statement apologizing to Tweeden and said he’d welcome a congressional ethics investigation into the incident. But the allegations had by that time already sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party. Democrats, who rely heavily on women for votes, regularly criticize Republicans for being insufficiently supportive of women on issues like abortion rights and gender pay equity.

Now, the party has been forced to scrutinize its own ranks.

The deluge of criticism for Franken not only comes while the Democrats are trying to fry Roy Moore for his alleged crimes of sexual impropriety from 39 years ago, but also during the sex scandals surrounding major Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein and comedian Louis C.K.

As the allegations against Franken spilled out, the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued a series of press releases calling on Democrats to return the campaign donations they had received from the Minnesota Democrat.  The money is pouring back towards Franken.

The question is, will the Democrats follow through with their claim that they will force Franken to resign?

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Temecula Constitution Class: Introduction to the Bill of Rights

Join us Thursday Night at 6:30 pm, Faith Armory, 41669 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA

Constitution Class Handout
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs

Lesson 12
Bill of Rights: Introduction to, and Incorporation of
Introduction to the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee your rights, nor was it designed to allow the federal government to protect your rights.  The language used in the first ten amendments is clear.  The 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law..."  The 2nd Amendment ends with the words, "...shall not be infringed."  The 3rd Amendment begins, "No Soldier shall..."  The key phrase in the 4th Amendment is "shall not be violated."  The entire Bill of Rights was designed to confirm what the first seven articles had already established.  The federal government was granted only certain authorities, and for the purpose of clarity, the Bill of Rights was written to reinforce the concept that the federal government has no business infringing upon the rights of the people.  The federal government is not charged with protecting those rights, or guaranteeing those rights, anywhere in the Bill of Rights.  The first ten amendments were written to tell the federal government, "Hands off, do not touch, thou shalt not."
The concept that the federal government exists to guarantee our rights, or protect our rights, emerged after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  The Civil War Amendment tasked the federal government with ensuring the newly emancipated slaves were treated fairly, and that their rights were protected - even at the State level.  In an effort to capitalize on that idea, the courts got involved to ensure that the former slave States behaved.  The southern States, the North was convinced, could not be trusted, and often the South confirmed the lack of confidence the Union States harbored with laws designed to get around the new restrictions placed upon them.
After the American Civil War, the three amendments proposed and ratified to protect the emancipated slaves were specifically designed for the purpose of ensuring the newly freed slaves were treated equally in the eyes of the law.  Statism, however, seized upon the ideas planted by Congressman John Bingham, and through the courts worked to weave an intricate tapestry that would change the culture of the United States from a union of voluntary members, to a nation of states joined in an unbreakable union.  The country no longer resembled the union of sovereign states it had once been, and instead became a nation held together by the statist consequences of the ravages of war.
The federal government telling States what they can and can't do regarding our rights opens a Pandora's Box the framers of the Constitution never intended to be breached.  By allowing the federal government to dictate to the States what they can and can't do regarding rights, even with the best of intentions, the precedent is established allowing federal control.  A federal government that can force a State to behave in an acceptable manner can later dictate to a State to follow a federal mandate designed to reduce your access to your rights.
As President Gerald Ford once wisely said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
A significant segment of the Founding Fathers believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary.  The first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution were written in such a way that the concerns of the Anti-Federalists had been addressed, but they still feared that the federal government would compromise the natural rights of the citizens if a Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution.
The Constitution was written in a manner that allowed the new federal government only the authorities granted to it by the Law of the Land.  Regarding arms, for example, the possession of guns was never an issue granted to the federal government in the first seven articles of the U.S. Constitution, therefore the federal government had no authority to restrict guns in any way, shape, or form.  The Anti-Federalists, however, did not believe the federal government would abide by the limitation of authorities placed on the United States Government, and demanded that a Bill of Rights be written.  Failure to provide a Bill of Rights, indicated the Anti-Federalists, would result in a failure of those States dominated by Anti-Federalists to ratify the new Constitution.
The Framers of the Constitution, understanding that without the critical approval of the Anti-Federalists, the new Constitution would never be ratified, agreed to include a Bill of Rights.  James Madison was asked to gather the amendments to be proposed and potentially ratified by the States, and use them to write a Bill of Rights.
Originally, there were a large number of amendments proposed, but the final proposal that went to the States for ratification was narrowed down to twelve amendments.  Only ten were ratified.  Of the remaining two, one regarding apportionment remains unratified, and the other became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992.
The debates over the adoption of the Constitution found the Anti-Federalists fearful that as drafted, the Constitution created a central government that may have the opportunity to become a tyranny.  These fears were based on the memory of the British violation of basic civil rights before and during the American Revolution.  With past British tyranny as a frame of reference, the Anti-Federalists demanded that a "bill of rights" be written that would clarify without question the immunities of individual citizens.  Though the amendments of the Bill of Rights were not proposed until 1789, several state conventions during their ratification conventions ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
One of the fears regarding the proposal of the Bill of Rights was that by trying to protect specific rights, it might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected.  It was believed by many that as a result, the Bill of Rights was actually unnecessary, for in the British system of common law natural rights were not defined, nor quantified.  Adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution may actually limit the rights of the people to those listed in the Constitution.  As a result of this argument, included in the Bill of Rights is the Ninth Amendment, which indicates that rights not enumerated would also be protected.
Another argument against the Bill of Rights is that the ten amendments muddy the waters of the Constitution, because the first seven articles were designed to grant authorities to the federal government, and if an authority is not granted, the federal government does not have that power.  The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it cannot do.  This enables those who oppose the Constitution to claim that the Constitution does not only grant express powers.  By focusing on the Bill of Rights, the opposition responds to constitutional challenges with the question, "Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can't do that?"  Considering the Bill of Rights was not even necessary, this provides unnecessary ammunition to those that oppose the Constitution.
Anti-Federalists - Opposed to formation of a federal government, particularly by adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
Arms - Weapons, firearms; a gun that may be used for protection of property or as part of a militia.
Bill of Rights - The first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution; a formal summary of those rights and liberties considered essential to a people or group of people.
Common Law - The part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes, able to be changed by the whims of the governed, or their representatives.
Enumerated - Counted or told, number by number; reckoned or mentioned by distinct particulars.
Questions for Discussion:
  1. Why does the Constitution offer the opportunity for both oaths, and affirmations?
2.                                                                                                               Why did some of the Founding Fathers consider the Bill of Rights unnecessary?
3.   What did the Anti-Federalists think of the creation of the federal government?  Why?
4.  Why were the Founding Fathers willing to add the Bill of Rights even though they believed the
      amendments to be unnecessary?
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
The Charters of Freedom: The Bill of Rights, National Archives and
Records Administration:
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights was originally intended to be applied only to the federal government.  Even the most ardent opponent to the originalist view of the Constitution concedes that it is commonly understood that originally the Bill of Rights was not intended to apply to the States whatsoever.  The text of the U.S. Constitution does not necessarily clearly exhibit that the Bill of Rights was only intended to apply to the federal government, but a deep study of the text of the first ten amendments, and the various writings of the Founding Fathers on the topic, reveals without a doubt that the Bill of Rights was indeed originally intended to only apply to the federal government.
Though even the most ardent opponent of the United States Constitution will admit that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to only apply to the federal government, the rule of inapplicability to the States was abandoned by statists after 1868, when it became argued that the 14th Amendment changed this rule, and served to extend most of the Bill of Rights to the States.
The section of the 14th Amendment that has been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to the States comes from the second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which reads:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Through a series of court rulings, the Supreme Court has changed the Constitution by applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.  The process over the time period since the ratification of the 14th Amendment which works to apply the Bill of Rights to the States through court rulings and written opinions is called "The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights."
The Bill of Rights was originally not meant to be a guarantee of individual freedoms at all, but a limitation of federal authority against our God given rights.  In other words, the Bill of Rights was not written for the people, but for the federal government as a means of telling the federal government what it cannot do in regards to our unalienable rights.
Why not apply these amendments to the States as well?
The States already had a Bill of Rights in their own State Constitutions (and those that did not have a constitution yet, did include a Bill of Rights later).  The Founding Fathers were confident that the people of the States could control their own State officials, and would be involved in their local governments.  The people did not fear their local governments acting in a tyrannical manner similar to the potential of a centralized government system.  Their fears were of the new and distant central government.
Originally, parts of the first amendments proposed by James Madison did in fact address the States, seeking to limit the State governments with provisions such as, "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."  The parts of the Bill of Rights that sought to be applied to the powers of the States, however, were not approved by Congress, and therefore were not a part of the proposed amendments to the States.
The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.  Prior to the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States by the courts as based on their interpretation of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, and was never intended to be fully applied to the States.
The argument used, despite original intent, that the Bill of Rights must also apply to the States is based more on philosophy, than historical evidence.  One of the philosophical standpoints used is that if the specific rights given in the Bill of Rights are based on the more general rights to life, liberty, and property which in turn are considered to be God-given and unalienable, then State governments do not have the authority to infringe on those rights any more than can the federal government.
The argument, however, simply suggests that the Bill of Rights ought to apply at the State level, not that it originally did.
If the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the Federal Government, and over time has changed to be something that was applicable on the State level through court decisions, the reality is that the Constitution itself has never allowed the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States.  The change was done by judicial means, meaning that the Constitution has been changed by judicial activism.  The problem, however, is that according to the Constitution, the only way to change the Constitution is through an amendment process.  Therefore, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States occurred unconstitutionally.
This returns us to the argument that the 14th Amendment is the source and authority of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States.  The Supreme Court's first ruling regarding the scope of the 14th Amendment, and if the amendment enables the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States, was rendered in the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.  A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause to be the authority they needed to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States.  Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.  During the early twentieth century a number of court cases, using the arguments referencing the 14th Amendment, began selectively incorporating some of the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights while rejecting the incorporation of others.
The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent.  As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted.  The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.
Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio was the primary author of the first section of the 14th amendment, and it was his personal intention the Bill of Rights be applied to the States as well.  His argument was that it was necessary in order to secure the civil rights of the newly appointed slaves.  However, most of the representatives during the five months of debate on the floor of Congress argued against incorporating the Bill of Rights to the States, and so when the amendment was agreed upon for proposal, the majority of those involved intended for the 14th Amendment to not influence how the Bill of Rights was applied.  In the beginning, the courts ruled that the Amendment did not extend the Bill of Rights to the States.  It was after the realization that Black Codes were emerging in the South that the courts decided for the purpose of protecting the civil rights of the emancipated slaves, they would begin to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.
Judicial Activism - When judges violate the Separation of Powers through their rulings; when a judge rules legislatively by modifying or striking down a law using the unconstitutional authority of judicial review.
Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.
Originalist view of the Constitution - View that the Constitution as written should be interpreted in a manner consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and            ratified it.
Questions for Discussion:
1.   Why is the originalist view of the Constitution so important?
2.   How have Statists changed the Constitution through the courts over the last two hundred years?
3.   What is the only legal way to change the Constitution?
4.   Why is the Bill of Rights not a guarantee of individual freedoms?
5.   From where do our rights come from?
6.   How did the Black Codes play a part in the incorporation of the Bill of Rights?
14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868), Our
Documents dot gov:
Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights (argument
supporting incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States), Constitution dot org (2000):
Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).
Philip B. Kurland and Ralph Lerner, The Founder's Constitution -
Volume Five - Amendments 1-12; Indianapolis: Liberty Fund (1987)
Richard L. Aynes, On Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth
Amendment (1993):
The Fourteenth Amendment and Incorporation, The Tenth Amendment
Center (2010):
To Whom Does The Bill Of Rights Apply?, Lew Rockwell dot com
What is the Bill of Rights?, About dot com Civil Liberties (argument
supporting incorporation of Bill of Rights to the States:
Copyright 2015 Douglas V. Gibbs

Dinesh D'Souza's Tweets about Judge Roy Moore say a lot

Douglas V. Gibbs, AuthorSpeakerInstructorRadio Host

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary