Tuesday, June 28, 2022
Monday, June 27, 2022
Sunday, June 26, 2022
Saturday, June 25, 2022
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Dobbs v. Jackson Ruling Constitutional (view on Rumble)
Roe V. Wade has been overturned. That does not mean that the federal government banned abortion. It means that the authority over the issue has been returned to the States. Douglas V. Gibbs, Mr. Constitution explains...
Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs
Saturdays, 1:00 - 3:00 pm Pacific Time
KMET 1490-AM (www.kmet1490am.com)
Call in Live during the Program!951-922-3532
Topics on Today's program:
- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
- NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.
- The Right of Babies to Not Be Murdered
- DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THEMISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v.JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL.
- Voter ID Law Upheld
- Evil Rage
Friday, June 24, 2022
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
I was driving when I came upon a couple of disturbingly inaccurate signs attached to the fence of a couple overpasses over Interstate 580. I could not snap a picture (since I was driving) but the signs in the Oakland, California area confirmed much of what I believe regarding the hard left's thorough brainwashing.
One was a sign that read, "Democracy Needs All Of Us," and the other was simply GOP, but with a hammer and sickle in the place of the letter "O".
Years ago a commenter on my Political Pistachio blog, a critic of my views named Tom, in reaction to an article I had written about the leftwing's Soviet connection when it came to ideology, responded that communism in the Soviet Union (Russia) was "rightwing".
If 100% government is the far left, and anarchy is at the far right, communism is hardly "rightwing". In fact, the Constitution is dead center, and when it comes to our political parties and various ideological factions in America, aside from pure democracy and anarchy, nothing is to the right of the Constitution. The Constitution is dead center, and everything else, including the Republican Party, resides to the left of it. So, one could say that for the most part there truly is no right wing.
But, as bad as the Republicans are, they still reside to the right of the Democratic Party, and every oligarchy one can imagine, including the now defunct Soviet Union. When it comes to policies, and support for a centralization of the general government, it's the Democrats who are hovering near the hammer and sickle ideology, not the GOP.
Projection. That's what the enemies of original constitutional liberty are best at. Well, that, and constantly being terribly wrong.
As for the "Democracy Needs All of Us" sign, the reality is that democracy doesn't actually need all of us. It only needs a few misguided, misled leftist radicals, and they've been doing a pretty good job of growing the disease of democracy in America. If allowed to continue to grow into a pure form, in the end democracy will destroy all of us.
Democracy is not mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, nor the Constitution. Being a republic is. In a democracy it becomes mob-rule where the majority who control the system can vote away the rights of those who oppose them. Not exactly a sustainable system. The Founding Fathers knew of the dangers of democracy, which is why they did not design the United States to be one.
The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book, The 1607 Project, to help illuminate what I mean:
The ideology that stands in opposition of the U.S. Constitution has been working to change the American System since the moment the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was completed, September 17, 1787. Perhaps even sooner than that. The problem for them was that the American concept of liberty, and its articulation in the United States Constitution was so magnificently constructed that in order to change America away from such a system the people would have to be convinced that the system is somehow broken. After the Era of Good Feeling during the years of domination by the Jeffersonian Republicans the first change to the American System, aside from John Marshall’s work to strengthen the concept of unfettered federal supremacy, was to dismantle the mechanisms of the republic and make the United States more of a democracy.
Andrew Jackson, the Father of the Democratic Party, believed that the best way to preserve the promise of liberty would be to move America’s political system away from being a constitutional republic and closer to democracy; rule by the people.
Prior to the rise of the Democratic-Republican faction within the Jeffersonian Republican Party a number of mechanisms were in place that ensured that the United States, and each of the States, enjoyed a republican form of government. In order for utopianism (early term for socialism) to take hold the checks and balances in place needed to be removed. The oversight of the federal government by the individual States proved to be a large part of what was holding change back, and those who desired the rise of an oligarchy, partly through the use of the Schemes of Leveling (redistribution of wealth), realized that democracy was the way to do it, and the sovereignty of the individual States stood in the way.
Changing the lexicon became an early tactic. Alexander Hamilton despised federalism in the sense that he didn’t think the Constitution went far enough in the creation of a centralized government, but to conceal his enmity towards federalism he hijacked the word and named his political party the Federalist Party. Through his political influence Hamilton challenged the very principles of the constitution with concepts like implied powers and The Bank of the United States. His followers, like Chief Justice John Marshall, implemented judicial review so as to utilize unconstitutional powers through the courts to move America towards the concept of being a firm union with a central government that is considered to have supremacy over all governmental bodies of the union. The bankers worked through the central banking systems to manipulate America’s economy, the international BAR influenced the legal institution of the United States so as to nudge the political system in the directions they deemed best for the European ruling elites. Then, in the name of abolishing slavery, Abraham Lincoln completed the mission, moving the country away from being “the United States are” to “the United States is”.
No more would the country be seen as a federation of States who enjoy rights as sovereign members of the union with various mechanisms of oversight in the government to keep it from becoming tyrannical; the United States became a nation indivisible, ruled over by an all-powerful national government.
The Old World hoped for a divided America at the beginning of the War Between the States, but wound up with something better in their minds; a national system compliant with the demands of the ruling cartels of Europe.
Fabien influence after the war nudged America into the Progressive Era, a thirty year span from about 1890 to 1919 during which both parties proudly entertained socialist politics, and participated in the institution of labor unions in the name of dealing with industrialization, the federal reserve in the name of modernizing the monetary system, the Sixteenth Amendment so as to institute a progressive direct tax against the people in order to pay for the reforms in society and the interest owed to the federal reserve, and the Seventeenth Amendment in the name of dealing with political corruption which, it turned out, was simply a projection of what they were really up to.
Mechanisms that made this country a republic were being dismantled one by one. No longer would the State legislatures have any influence over the federal government’s budget, the federal lawmaking process, the regulation of the value of the currency, the ratification of treaties with other countries, nor the nominations of persons to serve in the highest offices of the federal government along with those who would be democratically elected by a general population that was being dumbed down by the education system and media so that they would not only fail to realize that what was happening was unconstitutional, but be thoroughly convinced that the changes being implemented were innovative and in the best interest of the efforts of those in charge to save our democracy.
The word democracy became synonymous with republic. The narrative demonized the concept of States’ Rights, altering the concept into a publicly accepted narrative that proclaimed the sovereignty of the States as being dangerous and an antiquated relic of history that enabled the continuation of slavery during the antebellum period until bloodshed overcame and drowned the sins of the racist Southern States. The federal government became the savior of the people, the fountain of good intentions that ensured that society ran in an orderly manner rather than in disunited chaos. Finally, America was united as a nation, truly together under a single banner of a national government.
Early on the word democracy was inserted into the conversation of American politics. The word was being used so much so that James Madison felt it necessary to distinguish between republic and democracy multiple times in a number of the Federalist Essays he authored following the signing of the Constitution.
While James Madison’s arguments against democracy largely focused on direct democracy, or pure democracy, the dangers of leaving too much power in the hands of “rule by the people” was an apparent concern of the Father of the Constitution, as well as a number of his contemporaries. In his writings it is apparent that from his point of view democracy and republic do not mean the same thing, and the schemes of democracy were not only undesirable, but posed as a grave threat to the security of the republic.
In Federalist #1013, Madison defined a democracy as being a system where the “people assemble and administer the government in person.” A republic was described by Madison as “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place”. Unfortunately, the basic political opinion that resides in mainstream consideration of Madison’s explanation has determined that his Federalist Paper explanation was designed to indicate that a democracy in the eyes of the Founders only meant a “direct democracy,” and a republic was simply a representative system, of which would include a “representative democracy”. However, if we examine the political system created by the Constitution that is hardly what the Founders created, and presented to the States for ratification.
The fear of tyranny by a majority rule was a common theme among the Founding Fathers who did not necessarily throw in with Alexander Hamilton’s political theories and call for a more centralized government. Numerous barriers were put in place to guard against an unrestrained majority rule. The barriers were implemented by granting suffrage to more groups than the general population. At the federal level, for example, the State Legislatures were also provided a voice in government, as I indicated earlier while explaining how those mechanisms have been dismantled.
The early federal elections only provided to the general population a direct democratic vote of the members of the House of Representatives. The President was voted for by Electors, who had been appointed by the State Legislatures, and no popular vote was conducted in an effort to sway the vote of the Electors in the direction of the public demand. The U.S. Senate was elected similarly, with an even greater emphasis on control over the process by the state legislatures, as opposed to a direct democratic vote.
While three branches were created, as John Adams wrote in defense of the American Constitution, because every body must have a head, a legislature and a judiciary, the republican form of government was designed to be unlike “those countries in Europe…in which all the authority was to be collected…collecting all authority into one center.”14 But, the American system still required the components of government.
As I like to explain to the classes I instruct, “Shays’ Rebellion revealed the weaknesses of the government under the Articles of Confederation. The statesmen of that time realized that under the Articles the government was but a lamb, and what they needed was a lion. The problem with lions, however, is that lions eat people. So, how do you create a lion, but restrain it in such a way that it is not dangerous to the very people it is supposed to serve?”
A balance needed to be achieved that created a central government with enough strength to handle the external issues. The authorities it would be granted would be those required in order to operate as the head of the country, while barring it from interfering with the operations of the States. The federal government needed to be strong enough to engage in the common defense of the union, engage in trade with other countries, ensure the protection of the trade routes by being in charge of maritime law beyond the shores of the States, mediate in disputes so as to ensure domestic tranquility, and have enough power to handle all of the other issues directly connected to the protection, preservation, and promotion of the union. The States would retain their sovereignty and, because the federal government was handling the issues that central governments of countries typically address, the States would be able to handle their own individual operations that directly influence their own local issues. As James Madison explains in Federalist #45, “The powers reserved to the States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”15
The truth is, liberty is a rare commodity in history. Most governments in history, and a majority of the governments today, are oligarchies, which are systems in which a powerful few rule over the population. An oligarchy tends to be a tyranny. If for some reason at one point it is not, because it has a benevolent ruler, that period of reduced tyranny always leads eventually to full bondage due to various factors, which, more often than not, are because eventually there is a change at the top of who the ruler is.
If most of the people in a group cannot take care of themselves, then those who can take care of them will, and an Aristocracy will arise whether anyone wants it or not.
Similarly, if everyone in the group is headed in the same direction, a monarchy will naturally arise. The group can’t help it. The people will choose someone to lead them.
Finally, if everyone in a group can take care of himself and also watch out for the well-being of others, they will form a democracy. It will arise without anyone suggesting it. It just happens.
The problem with each of the natural forms of government is that people run it. People can change from day to day. Any whim of the king, or the bureaucrats, or the mob, can take everything away from you. We need something more stable, something to count on, no matter how often the rulers change.
About 2500 years ago, the Roman Monarchy faced this very problem. The monarch had been selected by tribes that had joined together rather than destroy each other. The monarchy was a government of the tribes – a thing of the tribes.
Romans demanded a new government based on Law rather than the whim of the ruler. They formed a new government based on the People rather than the Tribes. They called their new government Res Publica, the People’s Thing – what we call republic today.
The new government had elements of Monarchy in it. When a single ruler was needed, it would be there. It also had aristocratic and democratic "branches" when those are needed. Because it is made up of other forms, it is called a "mixed" government. A Republic is a Mixed government.
The genius of a mixed government is to construct it in such a way that no branch can do its job without the other branches also doing theirs. That way, no branch becomes so powerful that a whim of a ruler gains too much power. Each branch has to work with the others but, at the same time, not be ruled by any other. A Republic is not natural. It is constructed; it is man-made.
The constant struggle in a Republic is to not decay into one of the Natural forms. The People’s Thing, to serve the people, requires constant attention from the people.
Heed the famous words of Benjamin Franklin. Directly after the Constitutional Convention, the story goes, Mrs. Elizabeth Powel anxiously asked Franklin: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
"A republic," answered Franklin, "if you can keep it."”16
Republican forms of government are designed to properly distribute power so that tyranny can never take hold. No part of government possesses all power, or the power to act independently without approval from some other part of the system. A separation of powers, in the case of the United States, was also instituted in order to ensure the different parts of government could not collude together in pursuit of establishing tyranny. Federal issues remain only in the realm of the federal government, State issues remain with the States, and local issues are handled by local government.
In addition to a separation of powers the system also has multiple constituencies so that only one group does not possess all of the representation.
In the federal government, while the people democratically votes in the members of the House of Representatives, originally State suffrage was present in the U.S. Senate. There were also mechanisms that enabled the counties to be involved at the State level, and city leadership to participate in the county legislative process.
With so many divisions of power the likelihood of tyranny gaining a foothold in the system is practically nil. The only way for tyranny to grab a hold of the reins of America’s republic as defined by the United States Constitution would be by slowly altering the republic into something else, like a democracy.
Recognizing that the mechanisms of a republic was the primary obstacle holding back the rise of tyranny through the reign of a ruling elite those who pursue power realized the republic would need to be changed into a democracy. Then, once a democracy, through deception and manipulation the people themselves would then gladly vote tyranny into office, fully convinced that those who promise to be benign rulers only have the common good as the primary focus of their endeavors.
The Founding Fathers were well aware of the objectives of tyrants. Daniel Webster explained, “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions…There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters...They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves…the love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts.”17
On today’s political battleground the aim is to finish the job of dismantling the republic through various means in play.
1. Eliminate the final two pieces that still makes the country a republic; the Electoral College, and the Amendment Process including ratification by the States.
2. Through a process called “deconstruction” convince Americans that their System of Liberty is flawed because of the alleged flaws that exist in America’s history, such as slavery, and colonialism.
3. Revise history so that it reflects the deception being used to deconstruct the American System of Liberty.
Americans will not accept socialism if they believe their liberty and free market economic principles are operating in a manner that is best for their own happiness, personal economic welfare, and the prosperity of the country overall.
Various false narratives have been thrust upon the American People over the last two hundred years. We have been convinced that (to name a few) the courts are the ultimate and final arbiters of the Constitution, that secession of the States is wrong and illegal, that the War Between the States was only about slavery, States’ Rights is a racist concept, that the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War to preserve slavery, that the early Americans were colonialists no different than the powerful white privileged toxic men of Europe, and that the foundation of America’s entire system was founded upon slavery because a slave ship known as The White Lion landed on the shores of Virginia in 1619, delivering the first slaves to the Atlantic Coast.
The reality is that all of those arguments I just listed are false. History has been revised, and the false narrative is being taught in the classrooms of public education in order to encourage the youth of this country to revile America’s foundation of liberty so that they may become socialist revolutionaries willing to commit violence if necessary to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and instill in its place the very kind of oligarchy the Framers of the Constitution were working to protect us from.
While the pages of this book will include evidence that disprove the deceptions connected to the narratives presented by The 1619 Project, Critical Race Theory, and other strategically divisive arguments being used by those who would approve of declaring the U.S. Constitution “unconstitutional”, the reality is that their efforts are deceptive specifically because America’s political and economic systems are so successful. America’s Liberty and prosperous economic foundation that is based on an idea known as Laissez-faire, which means: Let the common man choose and act; do not force him to yield to a dictator; has been so successful that it epitomizes what is right and good about individualism and the consent of the governed. One might even argue that “left and right” in the scheme of politics doesn’t even apply when such a system in place. It becomes more of an up versus down, or a “right versus wrong.”
The left-right paradigm presented by the enemies of the Constitution, in truth, does not exist.
There is a right and a left in politics, but it is not what has been presented to the American People. On the political spectrum the U.S. Constitution is dead center. Supporting it does not make someone “right-wing”. Only anarchy, and conditions less centralized than what the Constitution offers, would technically be to the right, politically. Everything else, it turns out, is to the left of the U.S. Constitution.
Democracy technically resides to the right of the U.S. Constitution since the checks and balances and “multiple constituencies” of a republic do not exist in a democracy. Historically, democracy is used by those who seek to rule as a tool to ultimately bring about an oligarchy.
Like democracy, anarchy never lasts, and when the people get to the point of crying out for someone to bring order to the chaos being caused by the unstable right-of-center systems, the very people who created the lawlessness of anarchy or the corruption of a democracy guided by the wealthy and the powerful, the very people who launched society into either of those systems, then step up claiming it is they who can bring order back to the lawless society. The new leaders then establish an oligarchy, leading the people into the bondage of tyranny on the opposite side of the spectrum.
The purveyors of racial division in this country are well-aware that democracy is the vehicle they need to drive America into a position of changing from a constitutional republic to a Marxist tyranny of statism and equal misery under the iron fist of a ruling elite. They are trained Marxist revolutionaries and they have decided that it is in their best interest to take away your liberty and block your access to your God-given Natural Rights. Only the interest of the community is important, and the common good is what they say it is, regardless of any dissent that may arise from individuals who dare to stand against their new order of society...
...Race has nothing to do with a system's success if that success is based on its political system. Democracies rise and fall not due to race, but due to the very nature of what a democracy is. There are no white democracies or black democracies that succeed or fail because of the color of the people administering them. Democracies fail because that is what democracies do.
“Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams (1814)29
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” – James Madison, (1787)30
While the Founding Fathers sometimes used terms like “democracy”, “democratic republic” and “representative democracy,” the aim was to create a constitutional republic, rather than any form of democracy. The key was not only a proper distribution of power, but enabling the legislative duties to be belong to a duplicity of constituencies.
In a letter to Roger Sherman, John Adams explained, “In republics, as the sovereignty, that is, the legislative, is always vested in more than one, it may be vested in as many more as you please. In the United States it might be vested in two persons, or in three millions, or in any other intermediate number, and in every supposable case the government would be a republic.
It's time to restore our republic, not destroy it with "progressivism".
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary