Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A History of Constitutions
Humanity’s history is filled with attempts to structure political power. Along the way, the desire to secure individual liberties were added to the process.
Constitutional concepts have ancient roots, with the development of written constitutions representing a revolutionary approach that transformed the journey.
A number of ancient civilizations established a comprehensive set of laws that applied to members of society. Ancient Israel’s confederation of tribes, as described in the Bible, operated under a covenant that established fundamental laws and principles of governance. The Twelve Tables of Rome represent a crucial milestone in the history of constitutional development, serving as among the earliest and most influential examples of a fundamental legal code being committed to writing and publicly displayed.
The Twelve Tables were created around 450 B.C. as the culmination of a long struggle between commoners and the aristocratic class of the Roman Republic. The common people complained the law could be interpreted to serve the interests of those in positions of power as long as it was unwritten. The people demanded that the law be written so that it would be clear and apply equally to all citizens.
A commission was established to codify Roman law, and the commission traveled to Athens to study the laws of Solon and other Greek legal systems before drafting the tables. The first set contained ten tables, with a second commission adding two more tables the following year. The Twelve Tables covered all aspects of Roman life and law, and were put on public display in the Roman Forum, making them accessible to all citizens. This established the principle that law should be public, and known to those it governs. The Tables attempted to balance rights and interests. By committing the law to writing, the Tables established that the same legal principles applied to both the people and the aristocracy. Nobody was above the law.
The influence of Roman Law influenced legal systems throughout Europe – particularly the idea of written and publicly accessible law. However, under Romanized Europe, political power remained concentrated in the hands of the aristocracy.
The Saxon legal tradition also served as a crucial pillar in the development of the American Constitution. Saxon law was distinct from Roman aristocratic law and Mosaic theocratic law. Saxon law emphasized individual natural rights divinely ordained, providing a profound influence on American constitutional thought.
Saxon society was organized around kinship groups and tribal loyalties, with a legal system that emphasized personal freedom and individual responsibility. Their law was not imposed by a centralized state, but through localism (which would later be known as “common law”). Their structure of governance created a system of distributed authority rather than centralized power, with local communities playing a significant role in governance and justice.
When Christianity arrived in Anglo-Saxon England, it did not replace Saxon legal traditions, but rather transformed them by providing a more theological foundation. Alfred the Great (871-899) combined Saxon customary law with biblical principles, creating a legal tradition that emphasized both natural rights and moral responsibilities.
The Norman Conquest of 1066 brought Roman legal concepts to England, but rather than replacing Saxon tradition, elements of the Roman system were also gradually absorbed into existing common law. The synthesis created a rich legal tradition that combined Saxon concepts with Christian principles and Roman contributions.
- Saxon concepts
- Individual Natural Rights
- Local Self-Governance
- Customary Law
- Christian principles
- Moral Law
- Equality before God
- Justice tempered with mercy
- Roman contributions
- Systematic legal categories
- Written Records
- Procedural Regularity
The combination of Saxon tradition with Hebraic and Christian beliefs and Roman influences launched what would ultimately become Western legal tradition, and would become in particular the foundation of the British System of Law that so heavily influenced the Framers of the United States Constitution.
From there, the British System took great leaps forward. The concept of fundamental law limiting rulers appeared in various forms, but the Magna Carta (1215) represents a crucial milestone. It established that the king was also subject to law, and it defined governmental powers and the concept of natural rights in a written document. While not a complete constitution, it planted the seed that government may only operate according to established written principles.
The Dutch Republic’s constitution, also influenced by the Saxons, Christianity, and Roman influences, while not written in a modern sense, relied on foundational treaties.
In the New World, a desire for religious freedom, and a geographical separation from the rule of monarchy, created a new direction that extended Saxon and Christian traditions in a manner that would ultimately revolutionize the concepts of self-governance, consent of the governed, and Natural Rights.
In 1620, the Mayflower Compact was the first written framework of government and an early form of a written constitution in what is now the United States. It set a vital precedent for self-government and the social contract. In 1639, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut set up a unified government for colonial towns in the Connecticut region, and is considered the first true written constitution. The English Civil Wars and the Glorious Revolution (1688) produced the English Declaration of Rights (1689), further developing constitutional principles by focusing on the security of individual natural rights.
State constitutions began to be adopted during the American Revolution, beginning with New Hampshire, South Carolina, Virginia and New Jersey all before the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The Declaration of Independence, while not a constitution, put into writing in the declaration that humanity is endowed by their Creator with certain individual rights, and the Articles of Confederation (1781) established America’s first constitution, though its weaknesses became apparent quickly.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
What we often speak of as American Principles largely did not originate in this country. Through the forging of America they were for the first time in history incorporated together into a political structure for a great country. The Founding Fathers, after all, were students of political theory, and reached all the way back to the Holy Bible in search for the most beneficial components for the formation of a government for their new Union of States.
They knew that they did not wish to create a centralized national government, but they required something stronger than the government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The confederation was too loose of a union, allowing the States to retain all powers and complete sovereignty. It was too weak of a government – but they feared creating too powerful of a government. They were seeking a careful balance. They needed a government strong enough to survive in a world of empires, but limited enough not to become tyrannical over the states and the people. They needed the new system to handle the functions of a national government externally, while leaving all of the domestic issues to the States.
The Framers of the Constitution through their research sought to pull together the benefits of monarchy, democracy, theocracy, aristocracy, and features from various republics throughout history. In the process, they discarded what they considered to be dangerous to the aim of securing the natural rights of the people. After extensive deliberation during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, they put it all together in a new patchwork of what we know today as our constitutional republic.
The contrast to other modern systems is glaring. One only needs to begin by examining the differences between the principles of the French Revolution as expressed in the Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the principles of the American Revolution, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, U.S Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. One, then, can compare the sovereignty of the States in the Union we call America to the position of subjectivity possessed by regions and provinces of other historical and modern countries. Some present-day nations even claim to have “states” like America, but fall short of the idea that the states are members of the Union with jurisdictional rights rather than territories of a nation whose rights are determined and defined by an overpowering national government.
The importance of the rights of the states, in fact, was so important to them that they dedicated an amendment in the Bill of Rights to them – the Tenth Amendment.
The key features of American Liberty rests then on two important features – individual natural rights, and the rights of the sovereign states.
After a long history of despotisms in which liberty was the exception, rather than the rule, the Framers determined they were finished with the concept of life, liberty, and property being determined and defined by merciless rulers. In the Declaration of Independence they called for a government that derived its just powers from the consent of the governed, but history had shown that to pursue such a path through democracy was destructive. The people must be involved with the making of laws, but the Rule of Law must be at the center of the process and there must be mechanisms in place to provide a check against the excesses of democracy. A type of aristocracy must be in place, but there must be checks against those who are skilled in the science of politics from obtaining too much power and devolving the system into a tyranny. A virtuous culture must be in place with a people who is firmly religious, but there must not be a theocracy in place in order to make sure the church did not control governmental actions and so that the government did not interfere with the freedom of religion. A leader must stand at the top of the system as the figure head, but must be so limited in power that he could never proclaim himself king, or legislate with the power of an oligarchy or nobility at his behest.
The whole thing proved to be the ultimate balancing act. Have a leader without power, a legislature limited in its law-making, and judiciary that may only apply the laws to the cases they hear, and a system that ensures the large population centers don’t dominate the system through democracy.
The Greeks suffered numerous calamities at the hands of democracy. The Romans created a republic that ultimately descended into a tyranny under a succession of Caesars that stripped the people of religious freedom. The feudal systems of the Middle Ages obliterated the distinction of private individual rights, establishing that possessions of property were an exercise of noble sovereignty.
The balancing act required that the people must no longer be subjects, but citizens with a wide degree of individual liberty and that those liberties were secured against infringement not only from other individuals, but also from the government. Historically, when the degree of individual liberties was at its greatest, progress and safety were also at their greatest point. The more power was distributed the greater the liberty. The more power was centralized, the less liberty was possessed by the people. Paternalism and governmental infringement on natural rights led to tyranny. Initiative and self-reliance of the individual always strengthened the system, and led to prosperity and progress.
Christianity, in particular, seemed to historically go hand-in-hand with liberty and prosperity. Christianity appealed to individuals because at its very foundation was the personal decision of the individual. Christianity possesses no necessary relation to the state. The God of Christianity has no connection to nations or regions. Christianity’s spread throughout the world reached into all regions of the planet, finding appeal and adherence among all peoples. Christianity provides that God is sovereign, and existed long before governments by men, therefore natural rights must come from The Creator – same as was believed by the Saxons (though they were Pagans until their culture met Christianity in Britain). Christianity supported the individual conscience of men, implying that the individual was more important than the collective, and it was then the duty of the individual to be a positive influence upon their community as an individual – not a mindless pawn of the collective. Individuality, therefore, naturally demanded the security of each individual’s rights – life, liberty, and property.
Tyranny cannot survive when the individual believes in natural, God-given, rights and is willing to rebel against any government that does not honor and secure those rights. This was the realization by the Founding Fathers, and once they pulled it all together in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, the concept exploded. Its influence had been felt in Roman Law, and the foundational beliefs of the Saxons. Natural Law’s growth was inevitable during the Age of Enlightenment because it was the logical conclusion of reason and conscience. The concept of Natural Rights transformed the structure of society by emphasizing the importance of individual liberty. While the Magna Carta, British Declaration of Rights, and the writings of figures like John Locke and Montesquieu became gospel of the American masses, it was the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution that finally pulled it all together. The only concern, once it was established was this: Would future generations adhere to the original intent of the social contract created by the Framers of the Constitution and the ratification by the States? Or, would they allow the concepts of natural law to fall into disregard in the name of the good of the state and under the pressures of those seeking to place the collective above the individual?
How is one to safeguard those revolutionary ideas if we don’t even understand them? Words on the pages of our Founding Documents only tell us a part of the story. Each line of text. Each word. Every part of those documents tell a story, but to understand the story one must dig into the context and histories behind them. That is where this exercise before you begins. It is an examination of those words and phrases and ideas so that we can understand them, be informed by them, and in turn recognize how to defend them and ensure that the freedoms we inherited remain in place. To understand the Constitution we must understand the American Story, and like those who forged this Union of States into existence, we must be willing to defend its principles and ideas. In the end, after all, without the foundational principles and original intent of the United States Constitution, America is nothing more than another nation wallowing in the fears and tears of despotism on the world stage.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A survey of the landscape of American education today reveals a crisis that threatens not just academic achievement but the very soul of our country. Today, we are experiencing rapidly declining literacy rates thanks to ideological indoctrination. Our schools have strayed far from their original purpose, and leftism’s creeping incrementalism over the last century is the culprit responsible. The path forward requires us to return to the very foundation that made American education exceptional: faith in God and biblical principles.
The early American schoolhouse, with its iconic red paint and steeple-like bell tower, stood as a testament to a profound truth: education and faith were inseparable. The Bible was the textbook. The New England Primer taught children the alphabet using biblical verses. Hornbooks displayed the Lord’s Prayer. This was not only acceptable, it was the norm because the United States was a country steeped in conviction.
The early Americans understood what we’ve forgotten: literacy was essential primarily so citizens could read Scripture for themselves. This approach produced remarkable results: 90% literacy in New England by the end of the colonial period, making America the envy of the world.
Thomas Jefferson championed public education, but with crucial safeguards that have since been eroded. He believed the states, not the federal government, should fund education, with curriculum determined by local communities and parents. Jefferson understood that education was too important to be centralized in distant bureaucracies.
This philosophy dominated American education for nearly two centuries. Communities took pride in their schools, parents directed their children’s learning, and local values shaped the classroom experience. The system wasn’t perfect, but it worked because it respected the fundamental right of parents to direct their children’s education according to their beliefs and values.
The first major assault on this successful model came in 1899 when John Dewey introduced progressive education. Dewey’s philosophy shifted focus from academic excellence and moral development to socialization and experiential learning. Where traditional education emphasized knowledge and virtue, progressive education prioritized process over content and feelings over facts.
This transformation accelerated through the 20th century as communist sympathizers infiltrated education, systematically removing God, the Bible, and prayer from schools. The 1947 Supreme Court decision in Everson v. Board of Education established a “wall of separation between church and state” that appears nowhere in the Constitution, and used the unconstitutional concept of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States (allegedly in the 14th Amendment) to impose it on the States. By the 1960s, Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp had officially banned school-sponsored prayer and Bible reading.
The 1979 creation of the federal Department of Education marked the final stage of this hostile takeover. Centralized bureaucracy replaced local control, federal mandates crowded out parental input, and standardized testing replaced genuine learning. The results have been catastrophic.
Today, American students rank alarmingly low in international comparisons. High school seniors struggle to write complete sentences. Many students are unable to perform basic academic tasks. We’ve created a generation that can’t read but can recite leftist talking points about socialism’s supposed superior position versus capitalism – the latter a system that built the very prosperity they take for granted.
Perhaps most concerning is the complete abandonment of virtue within our culture, which as spilled over into education. Benjamin Franklin wisely observed that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Franklin understood what we’ve forgotten: liberty requires moral grounding.
When we removed God from education, we didn’t just lose prayer – we lost the framework for teaching virtue. Without an objective moral standard, schools became battlegrounds for anti-liberty ideologies. Some teachers now openly promote violence and racism. Politicians and leftists tell students that stealing is sometimes acceptable. Organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America are working to remove our constitutional safeguards while mocking Christianity and biblical values, and the younger generation is following their lead because they were trained to during their years in public education.
We’ve gone from a country that cherished virtue to one that mocks it. Is it any wonder we’re experiencing such social decay?
The solution to our educational crisis isn’t more funding or newer programs. It’s restoration. We must return to the principles that made American education exceptional in the first place.
We must dismantle the federal Department of Education and return control to the States and local communities. Educational decisions should be made by parents and teachers who know their students’ names, not by bureaucrats in Washington.
We must restore biblical principles to the classroom. No, that doesn’t mean establishing a state religion. It means acknowledging that the Christian tradition has always been the backbone of our culture and it provides the moral framework necessary for citizenship and character development.
We must prioritize basic skills over social engineering. Schools should focus on teaching students to read, write, calculate, and think critically rather than indoctrinating them with divisive failed ideologies.
As I often tell people, we can’t get our political house in order until we get our cultural house in order…and that begins with God. Our Founding Fathers understood that education without virtue produces clever devils. They built a system that produced literate, virtuous citizens capable of self-government, and the rigorous patriotic duties involved in keeping the republic.
The choice before us is clear: continue down the path of secular progressive education that produces ideological conformity but not competence, or return to the time-tested model that produced generations of knowledgeable, virtuous Americans who used liberty and the free market to forge America into the greatest country in history. For the sake of our children and our nation’s future, I choose the latter.
Only by restoring God to His rightful place in education can we hope to restore America to her rightful place as a beacon of liberty and excellence to the world.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Petition Clause, found in the First Amendment, reads, “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The concept was deeply rooted in English constitutional tradition and American colonial practice. It was not an abstract right to be heard, but a concrete, procedural mechanism for popular influence over the legislature.
The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The United States was not established to be a democracy. Throughout history, democracies have proven to be dangerous. They always devolve into oligarchies. The Founding Fathers understood that consolidating power into any single place is dangerous—and that includes power in the hands of the people. But at the same time, the voice of the people is the most important safeguard of a stable system of liberty. How do you create a government that derives its powers from the consent of the governed without allowing it to devolve into a pure democracy?
Democracy can only be present in a system in limited form without becoming destructive. The federal government, as originally designed, possessed only one office that was democratically elected—members of the United States House of Representatives. Senate officeholders were originally appointed by the state legislatures. The President was originally chosen by the electors, with no nationwide popular vote as we have today. Judges are appointed, as are other officers of the federal government. The people’s democratic voice was intended to be present only in the House of Representatives.
Then how, one might ask, does a government derive its powers from the consent of the governed?
The American System, in a sense, is a Frankenstein’s monster. It was formed not as an aristocracy, democracy, monarchy, theocracy, or any other pure form of government one might see elsewhere in the world or throughout history. It is a republic, meaning it is grounded in the rule of law, and it takes from each of those systems only their better qualities.
A pseudo‑aristocracy was established by giving the states a voice in the Senate. Democracy was satisfied by providing the House of Representatives to the people, whose members are democratically elected. Theocracy was avoided through the Establishment Clause, yet the Founding Fathers recognized the importance of Faith’s influence on government. Therefore, in the First Amendment, they also ensured that government could not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The concept of religious freedom through the Free Exercise Clause helps maintain a Christian foundation, while the Establishment Clause prevents government from becoming a pure theocracy. And the advantages of monarchy were included in two ways:
- A President (but not a king) who possesses certain external authorities (like Commander in Chief and Foreign Affairs), yet is limited by law. His job is not to rule, but to execute the laws.
- A government that has the power to govern (rather than rule), but can be reined in by the republican attributes already mentioned, and through petition. Petition is the key component drawn from the long history of British monarchy, while also satisfying the key component that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence: the consent of the governed.
“We the People of the United States,” the first words of the Preamble, are embodied in the God‑given natural right of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances.
The right to petition possessed a direct inheritance from English practice. The right to petition the monarch and Parliament was a long-established, if often perilous, tradition in England. It was considered a fundamental liberty, distinct from the privilege to vote. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 explicitly affirmed the “right of the subjects to petition the king.”
This is the beginning of the Introduction of the next book I am writing – a book that provides a history of the Petition Clause, and how we may resurrect it so that we may use it in today’s battle against tyrannical government. The new book, Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances (The Forgotten First Amendment Right), should be available for purchase within the next couple weeks.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I had a Class-A license in California. It was difficult to obtain. Everyone fails the air-brakes test on their first try. During their second visit for the test, most fail the skills test, which includes parallel parking on the blind-side between cones with a space to fit your trailer in only twenty feet greater than the length of your trailer. Then, there’s the drive-test. One tire, only one, on any turn, touching a curb is an automatic fail. Once you pass one of the three you are good on that section, but to complete the whole thing it took me a third visit to the testing grounds. I held on to that license for twenty years – using it to transport construction equipment on a flat-bed trailer, forty-eight feet long trailer (I believe, if my memory serves me correct), and then during the final six years I drove a transfer (sand and gravel truck). My brother continues to drive a big rig, but now his commercial driver’s license is in a different State. I let mine expire roughly a decade ago, and I have since retired from the construction industry.
Driving a truck is a different experience. It’s a special skill, and it must be taken seriously because while you are on the road behind the wheel of a big rig, other lives are essentially in your hands. I remember when I went to get my license, I felt sixteen again. Sure, eventually my skill of driving a truck became not much different than driving my car – but in the beginning, it was a pretty steep learning curve.
So, looking back at my time behind the wheel of one of those bad boys, I have to ask myself: How is it that people who don’t have the skills, don’t have an understanding of the language, and can’t even read the street signs are able to acquire these licenses? And California, the State with among the toughest standards when I got my license roughly thirty years ago, is one of the culprits handing out these licenses to illegal aliens like they are candy.
You’ve seen the news items and videos of the illegal alien truck drivers making poor decisions, and in some cases killing travelers on the roadway. The one most of you may recall was in Florida, where the California-licensed driver made a U-Turn on a highway, and killed those who slammed into the trailer during the maneuver. Obviously, it’s a problem giving licenses to illegal aliens. Even if they weren’t illegal, the very fact that they don’t possess the skills, don’t care about our laws, and can’t even read the street signs ought to be a grave concern for folks out there on the roadways.
So, President Trump decided the problem must be solved. If you’re not even supposed to be in the country in the first place, which means you broke the law to get into the country, you should not be able to possess a driver’s license – much less a commercial (Class-A) license.
In response to Trump trying to resolve the problem, Twenty-one states and Washington, D.C., are effectively telling the Trump administration that they are more concerned about protecting the identities of illegal aliens than keeping American drivers safe on the roads.
Twenty-two lawsuits have been filed to keep the Department of Transportation from obtaining the identities of illegal aliens who have obtained commercial driver’s licenses.
And, let’s be clear: What the Trump Administration is requesting is not unreasonable or out of the ordinary. Every administration since 1988 has had access to the basic database in question. But, because they hate Trump, and they hate his immigration policies, state AGs are doing what they can to stand in the way of the Department of Transportation to access those records so that the Department may enforce the rules of the road. They would rather stand in the way of the process and make it easier for dangerous illegal immigrant truck drivers to operate a big rig. Their hatred for Trump, and their desire to protect criminal aliens, is more important than the safety of the lives of drivers on the road. They would rather violate a long-standing rule and put your family in danger on the road so that they can protect unqualified illegal drivers on the road who are causing senseless crashes.
It’s insane, to say the least.
While the Democrats have been going out of their way to protect illegal alien drivers, Americans have been dying on the highways. The Department of Transportation provided the actions it is taking to keep the country safe.
- Revoked over 30,000 illegally issued commercial driver’s licenses across non-compliant states.
- Removed nearly 10,000 fraudulent or unqualified CDL training providers from the federal registry.
- Enforced strict English Language Proficiency standards, placing over 26,000 non-compliant operators out of service to ensure every driver on American highways can read road signs and communicate with law enforcement.
- Closed the non-domiciled CDL loophole, cutting off unvetted foreign operators tied to dozens of fatal crashes.
But, that is just a tip of the iceberg. How many more drivers are there out on the road who needs to be taken off the road? Those drivers are not above the law, and neither should be the States attempting to protect them.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thomas Sowell’s Observation of Systemic Racism Propaganda
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Thomas Sowell draws a parallel between modern claims of “systemic racism” and the propaganda techniques employed by Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany. According to Sowell in an interview with Mark Levin in 2020, these terms have “no meaning” but function as powerful propaganda tools – exactly as Goebbels understood when he noted that “people will believe anything if it’s repeated often enough and loud enough.”
This comparison cuts to the heart of Sowell’s concern about contemporary political discourse: that vague, emotionally charged terms are being used not to advance understanding but to shut down debate and promote particular political agendas.
The interview took a darker turn when Sowell discussed what he sees as the existential stakes in American politics. He warned back in 2020 that if Democrats were to control all three branches of government, it could represent “the point of no return for this country.”
The same rings true for the midterms in 2026 and the Presidential Election in 2028. His warning reflects Sowell’s deep concern about the direction of progressive policies and their potential to fundamentally alter American society and governance – and take note this is drawn from an interview in 2020, before the recent rise of Democratic Socialists to prominence in the Democratic Party.
Sowell argued that the political battle extends beyond what many consider socialism. “It isn’t socialism we are fighting, it’s communism and radical Islam,” he asserted. This framing places current political debates in a broader historical and ideological context, suggesting that the stakes involve fundamental clashes between competing visions for society.
Sowell’s perspective in the interview I am referring to aligns with his lifelong analysis of how ideologies function and their real-world consequences when implemented through government policy.
The interview concluded with Sowell’s assessment of Donald Trump’s role in contemporary politics. “If it wasn’t for Donald Trump, it would be over. It still might be. We had better hope he succeeds,” Sowell stated.
This endorsement from Sowell, who has spent decades critiquing government overreach and misguided policies, carries particular weight given his reputation for principled analysis regardless of political considerations.
Historically, Sowell has emphasized the importance of empirical evidence over ideological narratives, unintended consequences of well-intentioned policies, ways in which political language can obscure rather than clarify and the historical patterns that repeat when societies abandon principles of individual liberty and limited government
Thomas Sowell’s interview serves as both analysis and warning. His comparison of “systemic racism” to Goebbels’ propaganda techniques challenges us to examine how language is being used in contemporary political discourse. His warning about a potential “point of no return” speaks to the gravity of our current political moment.
Sowell’s perspective deserves careful consideration regardless of one’s political affiliation. His critique ultimately calls for a return to clear thinking, empirical evidence, and honest debate about the challenges facing American society.
As we see the increase of power in the hands of those who would dismantle the United States Constitution, Sowell’s voice reminds us that the quality of our public discourse, and the precision of our language, are important factors in the battle for the future of American liberty and prosperity.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary