"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." -- Thomas Jefferson

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” -- Benjamin Franklin

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Capitalism, the free market, and the profit motive are the keys to a stable society. Liberalism will tell you that these principles of freedom condones and promotes selfishness, and creates a divide between economic classes.

The opposite is true.

Charity by government is not the role of government. The intentions may seem reasonable, but in the end when government tries to take on the role of charities, it ends up producing people that believe they are entitled to the government programs - in the end producing what liberals claim profit produces - more selfish people.

The selfish society produced by entitlement programs has become one dependent upon the government, expecting more from the government, and one that has the entitlement class looking upon the achievers as the enemy.

This is why it is so easy for progressive politicians to get the people angry at the big bad oil companies, or the bonuses that successful producers receive. The entitlement program has produced enmity between the takers and the producers. Progressives are creating a dangerous world where class warfare is becoming the norm.

Those that have been conditioned, those who believe the lie, want to try to get what they can out of a government that can't afford to do it anymore. They want preferential treatment, to be given gifts from the treasury despite their level of production - despite not being achievers.

And with each passing moment they believe they are more and more entitled to what was never supposed to be theirs in the first place. In the end, the entitlement programs have produced a society of free loaders.

Sure, there are those that genuinely need help, and for that the Constitution allows the States to have these kinds of programs if the States so desire. I don't believe they are good ideas, but the States are authorized to have these programs if they so desire - the federal government is not.

The dependency upon the government then leads to a populace that begins to lose sight of what it takes to succeed, and what we have here in this country to be grateful for... opportunity. No longer is the pride of accomplishment something that permeates through society - achievement has now become the enemy, and the Democrats actively campaign against the private sector, and for giving more and more freebies to the free loaders.

The Democrats do this to secure votes - vote buying 101.

Moral decent has become the norm. Children have lost the drive for success, knowing that if they fail they won't need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps - they can just give up and be taken care of by the government.

Government has killed opportunity and the drive for success, teaching the next generation that they should really be asking, "What more can I get out of the government?"

And while these selfish people receive their government handouts from the taxpayers, they criticize the achievers for being rich, they criticize the producers for reaping the benefits of their hard work - and the leftist progressive liberals preach that it is unfair that the producers have anything, and that the wealth must be redistributed so that all Americans are nothing more than selfish, free loading dependents upon the government.

Entitlements make people expect handouts. The drive for personal prosperity becomes lost, and the American Way is damaged as a result.

Success comes from capitalism and the free market. Achievement produces less selfish people, and fosters independence.

Self-reliance makes one appreciate the fruits of one's labor, making the achiever freer, less selfish, and not one to expect preferential treatment from the government.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Read more »

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Democrats hate cars, or at least they hate those that are not a part of the "ruling class" driving cars. The liberal left is pushing for us to become a nation of public transportation. In Europe, as compared to the United States, few people drive. Most people are dependent upon the public transportation system. The liberals will tell you that they want us to ride a bike, walk, ride the bus, or board trains, more because they wish to save the environment. That, however, is just the excuse they use. The reason they want you out of your car is much more sinister than that.

The Democrats told us that they needed much of the stimulus money to get the economy going again, and part of that was to build a new transportation infrastructure. However, most of the money went to other sources, and much of the spending went to places that is still unknown to the public.

They do want us out of our cars, and signs of that include the leftist push for a high speed rail system. The collectivist blueprint eliminates cars because cars give individuals, as far as they are concerned, too much independence. If you are on a bus, or a train, they know where you are and where you are going. With public transportation they have more control over your movement. That is the liberal dream: control and power.

Politicians hate cars because cars make people free.

The fact that bullet trains are impractical, or that public transportation is inefficient and a waste outside of a buzzing hive like New York City, seems not to sway the liberal collectivists from their push for more public transportation. The truth is a mere obstacle. The goal of domination over the populace is too important to them to worry about the fact that public transportation is not something that most people in America care to use.

The reasons for wanting you out of your car, however, goes deeper than merely controlling you, and taking away yet another slice of liberty. Packing the people into buses and trains goes way beyond the collectivist mentality. The drive is one that fits the Global scheme, and Agenda 21 - an international agreement that seeks to blur the lines of sovereignty, and bring the world under a single global system of governance.

The transportation system of the future, in the minds of these people, excludes private auto mobility. In an effort to remove people from cars, living areas where travel is discouraged are being created with a generous offer of public transportation. Rural areas are combating this agenda, but this agenda to move us toward a collective society is part of the reason we are seeing a push to eliminate the Electoral College, and a push to change the Senate to eliminate equal suffrage among the States (which is prohibited by Article V). Doing these things would eliminate the voice of the small states, and remove yet another obstacle to removing us from our cars and creating a communal society using public transportation for all modes of travel.

Getting us out of our cars limits, and eventually eliminates, our unalienable rights in many ways. Removing us from our cars compromises our choices, limits our movement, and further abolishes private property ownership (privately owned cars).

The elimination of a society that is free to move about with cars also pushes us closer to a controlled industrialized society, achieved by depopulation and heavy regulations on personal freedoms. Getting us out of our cars also takes away yet another symbol of wealth - leftism wants this to be an equitable society where everyone is equally poor, and unable to do anything to unseat the power structure.

An end to personal mobility opens up the opportunity for full control over the people, and would keep Americans from venturing out to much of America's lands. They wish to keep the populations concentrated in the cities, leaving most of the land vacated. Populations are easier to control in this manner. To achieve a communal utopia, they need to regulate travel and destroy choice.

Regardless of what you think their reasoning is, one thing is for sure: The progressives are admitting they want us out of our cars.

Last month, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told a group of reporters at the National Press Club that he wants to “coerce people out of their cars.” Newsweek later called it "behavior modification."

LaHood used those words, in fact, saying that he has joined a "transformational" administration: "I think we can change people's behavior."

La Hood, a former Republican Congressman that hardly adheres to the principled foundations of the GOP, has become a champion of using the Department of Transportation and federal transportation spending to get people to take trains, buses, and ride bikes instead of driving cars.

Like the rest of the liberal left, LaHood has a vision for using the power of government to change people’s transportation behavior and to change the nature of American residential communities.

“We want to. . . [create] opportunities for people to get out of their cars--and we're working with the secretary of HUD, Shaun Donovan, on opportunities for housing, walking paths, biking paths. If somebody wants to ride their bike, if--to work or to the place of employment or to other places--mass transit, light rail--creating opportunities for what we call livable communities.”

After asked if his policies were designed to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars, LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars."

He continued, “I mean, look, people don't like spending an hour and a half getting to work. And people don't like spending an hour going to the grocery store. And all of you who live around here know exactly what I'm talking about. You know, the dreaded thing is to have to run an errand on a weekend around here or to try and get home at 3:00 in the afternoon or even 5:00 in the afternoon.

“Now, look, every community is not going to be a livable community. But we have to create opportunities for people that do want to use a bicycle or want to walk or want to get on a streetcar or want to ride a light rail,” said LaHood.

Lahood made a joke about the fact that some conservatives believe that the way he wants to use the Department of Transportation represents an increased government intrusion in people’s lives.

“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama’s Transportation Secretary Says He Wants to ‘Coerce People Out of Their Cars’ - CNS News

Read more »

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Read more »

Constitution Study Radio: Amendment I

• by Douglas V Gibbs
• in Politics Conservative
• on Mon, Jul 4, 2011 06:00AM

Through the Constitution with Douglas V. Gibbs: Amendment I. Establishment Clause, Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Peaceably Assemble, Freedom to Petition Government for a Redress of Grievances.

Read more »

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal left hates patriotism because they don't understand it. Liberals are nationalists - their love of government outweighs anything else. Big government is their god, and the will of the ruling elite trumps freedom, individuality, and the American Way.

Independence Day celebrates what this nation was created to be, not what it has become. We celebrate the independence of this nation from tyranny. The 4th is a reminder that liberty can be achieved again.

The liberals argue when we tell them they are not patriotic, but those haters of the United States desire to change our system of freedom and a free market to something more akin to the socialist failures of Europe - and that, my friends, is un-American.

Harvard University agrees.

According to the US News & World Report, Harvard University says that July 4th parades are right-wing events loaded with patriotism that leftist liberals don't even wish to be a part of. Democrats stay home, while Republican candidates use the parades as an opportunity to connect with the people. According to the Harvard study, "July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day."

I wonder if that means Democrats will be trying to outlaw Independence Day, next.

All it will take is one person to complain that the 4th of July offends them, and the politically correct government loons will be working to downplay America's Independence.

With all of these anti-American activities going on by the Democrats - you know, destroying the economy, lying about unemployment and the the reality of rising inflation, compromising morality, murdering millions of unborn babies, and taking over segments of the private sector while also using mercantilism to create a system of preference - the liberal Democrats have become worried about the Fourth of July celebrations in the United States. Independence Day festivities shape the nation's political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party, or at least that is what the Harvard report says.

The liberals don't care about the nation's founding, or at least not in the same way conservatives do. They feel that celebrating the founding of this nation is a Republican event. It's a conservative event that liberals don't feel welcome at, or that liberals don't care about, so they don't show up.

According to the Harvard report: "The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations: When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent. It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent. It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they'll make a political contribution by 3 percent. . . the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older."

Since liberal democrats are all about political power, and keeping that power through reelection, the Fourth of July celebration is unnerving to them. "American Patriots" is one group the liberal democrats have serious difficulties pandering to.

How can an ideology that teaches hate of the American system win over those that love this country?

They can't.

Conservatism has been successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than democrats. Patriotism goes hand in hand with values, and those two things are in line with the desires of the Founding Fathers - making the Fourth of July celebrations a conservative Republican set of events.

The findings of the Harvard report also suggests that democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades. "There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization."

When leftists get together at events, it is as they did in Wisconsin - to protest their government handouts being cut. The democrats and the unions, they get together when they think the government might give them less.

True Americans, patriotic Americans, have the Fourth of July, and any other celebration of America. We wave flags, sing patriotic songs, and thank God for our fortune of being born in a country where we can be self-reliant, personally responsible, and pursue happiness freely.

To Democrats, every day is April 15th, where they can tax the public for more and more and more.

To Conservatives, every day is the Fourth of July - because we love our country.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing - U.S. News and World Report

Read more »

Two If By Tea and Rush Revere Himself to Attend Freedom Fest at Landreth Park in Joplin, Missouri

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Read more »

This is the Fourteenth Myth in the series: 25 Myths of the U.S. Constitution.

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Our government is filled with checks and balances. That is what makes this system of government such a grand thing. However, one presumed check was not originally intended, and through a series of historical rulings, amendments, and misinformation, it has come to be believed that the courts are the check against Congress. However, there is no place in the Constitution that gives the courts this authority, and interestingly enough the roots of this myth can be found in the courts themselves, and the push for democracy by the progressives.

The best way to understand why the courts having the power to check the Congress is unconstitutional, and is not the originally intended way to go about things, it is important to understand how it was supposed to be in the first place. To do this, we must understand the originally intended dynamics of the American form of government - and to do that, we must go back in time... all the way back to the 18th Century.

The United States was a union of sovereign states that decided the confederate form of government they had been existing under through the Articles of Confederation was too weak of a government. However, any central government with too much power was also a concern, so the possibility of forming a federal government with enough power to protect, preserve and promote the union was something the Americans felt should be done with great care, and with many restraints upon this new central government. State Sovereignty must be protected.

Before the U.S. Constitution was written the States held all of the authorities for all issues. Each State was autonomous, and expected the new federal government to abide by that fact. The States, in order to protect their sovereignty, expected to be among the chief checks against the federal government, and to do this, they demanded representation in the new government.

The U.S. Senate was that representation. The Senators were appointed by the State Legislatures, and the States were given equal suffrage in the Senate so as to protect the small states from the potential tyranny of the more populous states.

As the voice of the States, the U.S. Senate served as an integral part of the checks and balances against the federal government, and more specifically, the executive branch. The U.S. Senate served as a State backed check against the U.S. House of Representatives, and the voice of the people through the House served as a check against the U.S. Senate. The States, nor the people, could do anything without the okay of the other.

Together, they served as a check against each other, the executive branch, and the judiciary.

The 17th Amendment changed all that by changing the election of U.S. Senators from appointment by the State legislatures to the popular vote of the people. This one simple amendment changed the dynamics of our governmental system, and took away the voice of the States from the legislative branch. State representation in the federal government was no more.

With both houses of Congress now acting as a voice of the people, the check against Congress that had been in place when the States and the People checked each other, was gone. Both Houses, as the voice of the people, would do as they pleased without fear that the State legislatures may disagree. Collusion between the legislative branch and the executive branch became a real possibility.

Long before the 17th Amendment, the steps to seize for the judicial branch more power than originally intended had already been set in motion, so when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the courts stepped in to fill the void, and become the check against the Congress. The problem is, the courts were never granted that authority. They took it upon themselves, further creating the judicial leviathan that had been growing ever more powerful ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the courts stole the authority of judicial review.

The Congress used to be the check against the judicial branch, as characterized by the passage of the 11th Amendment when the Congress took away some of the court's authorities. With the passage of time, through court rulings and misinformation, the courts changed the dynamics of government, has placed themselves higher than the other branches, proclaimed themselves to be the primary check against Congress, and the people have come to believe the accompanying propaganda that supports such a ridiculous belief.

The courts are not supposed to be the check against Congress. Congress is supposed to be checked by the two very different representations by the people and the States.

The way to correct this problem in our system of governance is to repeal the 17th Amendment, and return to the States their representation in the U.S. Senate.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Read more »