Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Joe Biden’s legal battle to suppress audio recordings from his 2016-2017 ghostwriter sessions has finally ended, and the revelations are damning. Roughly 70 hours of audio and over 100 pages of transcripts have been released after a federal judge dissolved an injunction blocking their publication. The recordings, made while Biden worked with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer on his memoir “Promise Me, Dad,” contain multiple instances of Biden acknowledging he was handling classified information and even sharing it with his unauthorized ghostwriter.
“I just found all the classified stuff downstairs,” Biden is heard saying in one February 2017 recording. In another, he warns, “The next thing I have here is, um, this is classified.” Perhaps most incriminatingly, Biden explicitly states, “Some of this may be classified. So, be careful. I’m not sure. … It’s not marked classified, but…” These acknowledgments directly contradict any claims of inadvertent mishandling, and Biden at one point boasted officials never knew he had them. Some of these sensitive records were found by investigators in his garage, offices, and basement den.
Special Counsel Robert Hur obtained the recordings during his investigation into Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, but declined to prosecute, saying a jury would view Biden with sympathy because he was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” And, realize, these recordings took place seven years before Special Counsel Hur made that conclusion.
The Oversight Project, which obtained the recordings through a Freedom of Information Act request after years of legal battles, noted that “the silence of the redactions loudly demonstrates that Biden knowingly and willfully disclosed classified information to his ghostwriter.” The extent of these disclosures was apparently far greater than Special Counsel Robert Hur previously indicated in his investigation.
Perhaps equally concerning are the multiple instances of cognitive lapses captured in the recordings – years before Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign. At various points, Biden struggles to remember details, loses his train of thought, and requires assistance from his ghostwriter to reconstruct past events. Biden was unfit for office, and these tapes reveal that. The Democratic Party was corrupt about Biden before, during, and since his presidency and did everything they could to cover it up. And then, they targeted Trump, and raided Mar-a-Lago.
The hypocrisy of the Justice Department’s handling of classified document cases is glaring. While Jack Smith aggressively pursued Donald Trump for similar allegations with no evidence, the department initially protected Biden by fighting to keep these recordings sealed. The release comes only after Biden dropped his legal challenges following unfavorable court rulings.
The tapes also raise serious questions about why Special Counsel Hur declined to prosecute despite evidence of willful mishandling of classified information. Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice released a sanitized version of these transcripts in 2024, but the actually audio was never handed over. And now that they are available, they reveal that Joe Biden was untruthful, mentally imbalanced, and they serve as an indictment against the deep state that protected him.
These recordings now face full congressional scrutiny, and Congress must confront the evidence they contain: that a former vice president and future president knowingly disclosed classified information to an unauthorized individual and demonstrated cognitive impairment years before his presidential campaign. The American public deserves answers about how someone with these documented issues was allowed to ascend to the presidency, and who participated in concealing this information from voters.
The Biden administration’s attempts to frame this as “weaponizing the DOJ for political retribution” ring hollow when confronted with Biden’s own words acknowledging the classified nature of the materials he was sharing. These tapes represent not just a breach of national security protocols but a profound betrayal of public trust that demands accountability from all involved.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In modern political conversation I’ve encountered criticism for my steadfast support of Israel, with one commenter suggesting that modern Israel isn’t the “biblical Israel” and that my support is misguided. This perspective, while increasingly common, misses the profound theological and prophetic significance of Israel’s restoration consistently emphasized from Scripture.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: Does God’s covenant with Israel endure despite their disobedience or questions regarding the genetic purity of the Israelites in modern Israel? As I’ve often expressed, the relationship between God and Israel mirrors that of a father and child. When a son is disobedient, the father doesn’t disown him. A father’s reaction may include discipline, or one that allows the son who refuses to listen to find his way, but the father’s love and protection remain. So it is with God and Israel.
J. Vernon McGee powerfully affirmed this truth, noting: “Israel is God’s chosen people. He is going to bring them back to their land someday in faith and belief. They are returning to the land today in unbelief, and they do not have peace. This is the evidence of the hand of God in the affairs of the world.” This observation perfectly captures the current reality, Israel’s restoration in our time is itself evidence of God’s faithfulness, even if they haven’t yet returned “in faith and belief” as McGee notes.
The establishment of modern Israel on May 14, 1948, stands as one of the most significant prophetic fulfillments in history. As Greg Laurie emphatically states: “When the Jews formed their nation on May 14, 1948, a modern-day miracle occurred. More specifically, a prophecy was fulfilled, and the prophetic time clock began to tick.” This isn’t mere political history. It’s divine providence unfolding.
Jack Hibbs reinforces this perspective, noting that “never before in history have events come together in such a way, and that these developments remarkably align with what Scripture has already foretold.” Hibbs specifically points to Israel’s restoration as a primary example of this prophetic alignment, highlighting how the biblical question “Shall a nation be born at once?” (Isaiah 66:8) received its dramatic answer in 1948.
The commenter’s suggestion that modern Israel should be called “Judah” rather than “Israel” reflects a common misunderstanding. While the biblical kingdom was indeed divided after Solomon’s reign, with the northern kingdom retaining the name Israel and the southern kingdom known as Judah, the prophetic restoration promises always envisioned a reunited people.
The prophets consistently spoke of a future regathering of all twelve tribes, not just Judah. This regathering began in 1948 and continues to unfold. As Jack Hibbs boldly declares, “If you look at Israel being restored as a nation and say that’s not the real Israel…” – the implication being clear that such skepticism contradicts the prophetic reality.
Critics often point to Jesus’ words in John 8:44, where He addresses certain religious leaders, saying, “You are of your father the devil.” As J. Vernon McGee explains in his commentary, this was directed to specific individuals who were opposing Christ, not to the entire Jewish people or to Israel as a nation. McGee consistently maintained that Israel remains God’s chosen people despite individual disobedience – a pattern evident throughout biblical history.
Beyond the theological arguments, there exists a clear biblical imperative to support Israel. In a commentary titled “The Prophetic Books,” J. Vernon McGee explains that Bible contains hundreds of prophecies that have been “fulfilled literally,” demonstrating that “these men were speaking the words of God.” This literal fulfillment includes the restoration of Israel, which stands as one of the most prominent prophetic signposts of our time.
Jack Hibbs has dedicated significant attention to “Israel in Bible Prophecy,” recognizing it as a central theme in understanding God’s prophetic timeline. His teaching emphasizes that supporting Israel isn’t merely a political position but a biblical one, aligned with God’s redemptive purposes for humanity.
As I reflect on these truths, my support for Israel deepens. We are witnessing the unfolding of prophecy before our eyes – a modern miracle that confirms God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. The existence of Israel today, despite ongoing conflict and opposition, testifies to God’s sovereign plan.
Like Greg Laurie, I recognize that “the prophetic time clock began to tick” in 1948, and like Jack Hibbs, I see the remarkable alignment between current events and biblical prophecy. And like J. Vernon McGee, I understand that Israel’s current state of unbelief doesn’t negate God’s purposes – indeed, their restoration in unbelief is itself evidence of God’s hand at work.
To those who criticize this support, I would gently but firmly suggest they reconsider the biblical evidence. The restoration of Israel isn’t a political accident but a prophetic necessity – a fulfillment of God’s promises that demands our recognition, our prayer, and our support.
As we watch events unfold in the Middle East, may we remember that we are living in prophetic times. Israel’s existence, survival, and challenges all fit within the biblical narrative that points toward God’s ultimate redemptive purposes. To stand with Israel is not to agree with every decision the Nation of Israel makes, or to agree with all of their political officials, but to stand with God’s prophetic plan – and that’s a position I’ll maintain without apology or hesitation.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled
The Presidents of Congress preceded the Presidents of the United States under the United States Constitution. Styled after Britain’s parliamentary system, the office of the President of the Congress Assembled was the delegate presiding over the sessions of the legislative body, making him the chief legislator, in addition to being ceremoniously called the President. The position held no executive authority as you might see in today’s President of the United States.
In America’s history there have been three legislative bodies that have served for the government of the United States (four if you count the Colonial Continental Congress): The Continental Congress, the Confederation Congress, and the United States Congress which has been assembling since the ratification of the United States Constitution. In the case of the first two congresses the presiding officer was also known as the President of the United States in Congress Assembled. The Continental Congress, though it began to meet prior to the launch of the Revolutionary War, was not an official United States Government body until after the acceptance of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
As a body the Continental Congress existed until two events occurred; the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and end of The Revolution. The Revolutionary War ended in October of 1781 when General Cornwallis surrendered. Two years later the end of the war was made official by the Treaty of Paris. Therefore, the three congresses may be viewed as follows:
1776-1781: Continental Congress (wartime legislature)*
1781-1789: Confederation Congress (peacetime legislature)
1789-Present: United States Congress (U.S. Constitution)
* Note: The Continental Congress began meeting September 5, 1774 while America remained colonies, with four Presidents of the Congress also serving prior to the advent of the Declaration of Independence.
While the United States was born when the Declaration of Independence was accepted by the Continental Congress, the country was not truly sovereign until the bonds that tied it to the British Empire were completely severed, which at the time was viewed as occurring at the time of the surrender of General Cornwallis. Therefore, while there were Presidents who presided over Congress prior to the end of the war, none of them were truly seen as Presidents of the United States. Therefore, the first President of the sovereign and independent country known as the United States took office once the Articles of Confederation were operational, and the war had ended.
While George Washington is universally known as the first President of the United States, an argument has been made that the true “first President of the United States” was John Hanson. While Washington was elected President in 1789 under the U.S. Constitution, twelve years before the Constitution went into effect, and after the Revolutionary War generation had drawn up the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress unanimously elected John Hanson to a one year term as the first President of the United States in Congress assembled.
In his home state of Maryland, despite the opinion of the rest of the country, Hanson as the first President of the United States is recognized as being fact, and is even celebrated. The John Hanson Society of Maryland managed to have April 14, each year, declared John Hanson Day in the Old Line State. Proposals for a national celebration have been appearing quite regularly since 1943.
While there were Presidents of the Congress prior to Hanson, he was the first to preside over “Congress assembled” after independence had been declared, a uniting document (Articles of Confederation) had been established, and the British had surrendered which, in a sense, set the whole thing in stone.
Hanson’s presidency established a number of precedents. During his presidency ambassadors were exchanged with other countries for the first time. He introduced the Treasury Department. A national bank, albeit temporary, was established. He established a Cabinet, which included the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. He led the fight to guarantee statehood to each of the territories west of the Appalachian Mountains (Northwest Territory). Under his watch all foreign troops were removed from American lands, including their flags. And, long before Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, Hanson proclaimed a day of Thanksgiving to be observed on the fourth Thursday in November. He found the work to be tedious, however, and he retired after the end of his term. A year later he was dead.
At the U.S. Capitol, once through the East Front door into the Rotunda, and into the corridor to the Senate Wing a statue of John Hanson resides on the right side just before you reach the Chamber. It is life-size, with walking stick in hand, and a three-cornered hat on his head. The statue was provided by Maryland in 1864 when the State was asked to provide two statues of its favorite sons. The other statue provided was that of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
If you want to return to Maryland from Washington D.C., one way to get there is along the John Hanson Highway.
The Presidents of the Congress prior to the presidency of George Washington are as follows:
| Peyton Randolph | Virginia | Sept. 5, 1774 – Oct. 22, 1774 | Colonial | First Continental Congress | |
| Henry Middleton | South Carolina | Oct. 22, 1774 – Oct. 26, 1774 | Colonial | First Continental Congress | |
| Peyton Randolph | Virginia | May 10, 1775 – May 24, 1775 | Colonial | First Continental Congress | |
| John Hancock | Massachusetts | May 24, 1775 – Oct. 29, 1777 | Colonial & U.S. | Second Continental Congress | |
| Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776 changes Congress from colonial to national. | |||||
| Henry Laurens | South Carolina | Nov. 1, 1777 – Dec. 9, 1778 | United States | Second Continental Congress | |
| John Jay | New York | Dec. 10, 1778 – Sept. 28, 1779 | United States | Second Continental Congress | |
| Samuel Huntington | Connecticut | Sept. 28, 1779 – July 10, 1781 | United States | Second Continental Congress | |
| Articles of Confederation: Effective March 1, 1781, changing Congress from being a Continental Congress to the Congress of the Confederation. | |||||
| Thomas McKean | Delaware | July 10, 1781 – Nov. 5, 1781 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| End of Revolutionary War: At the end of the Siege of Yorktown, British General Charles Cornwallis signed George Washington’s Articles of Capitulation on October 19, 1781, launching international recognition of the United States as an independent, sovereign country. Beginning of the recognition of the Congress as “The United States Congress of the Confederation Assembled.” | |||||
| John Hanson | Maryland | Nov. 5, 1781 – Nov. 4, 1782 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Elias Boudinot | New Jersey | Nov. 4, 1782 – Nov. 3, 1783 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| 1783 Treaty of Paris officially ended hostilities with Great Britain, September 3, 1783; provided official international recognition of the English Colonies as a separate, autonomous, sovereign country, the United States of America. | |||||
| Thomas Mifflin | Pennsylvania | Nov. 3, 1783 – June 3, 1784 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Richard Henry Lee | Virginia | Nov. 30, 1784 – Nov. 4, 1785 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| John Hancock | Massachusetts | Nov. 23, 1785 – June 5, 1786 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Nathaniel Gorham | Massachusetts | June 6, 1786 – Feb. 2, 1787 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Arthur St. Clair | Pennsylvania | Feb. 2, 1787 – Nov. 4, 1787 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Philadelphia Federal Convention (Constitutional Convention), May 25 to September 17, 1787. | |||||
| Cyrus Griffin | Virginia | Jan. 22, 1788 – Nov. 2, 1788 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| June 22, 1788: New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify the United States Constitution. September 13, 1788, the Congress of the Confederation formally certified the ratification of the Constitution and chose to retain New York City as the seat of government until the proposed new location could be constructed. March 9, 1789 was established as the date the Congress of the Confederation would officially end, and the new United States Congress would officially begin operating. | |||||
| George Washington | Virginia | Apr. 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797 | United States | United States Congress | |
| The commencement of the presidency of George Washington marked the first time in U.S. History that the President was not the head of Congress, but instead the head of a separate and distinct branch of government, the Executive Branch. Under the United States Constitution the concept of a separation of powers began. | |||||
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Elizabeth Powel asked Benjamin Franklin, “Doctor, what have you given us? A monarchy, or a republic?”
Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
When the Constitution of the United States was written, the Founding Fathers knew that they did not wish to create a monarchy. Their experience with the monarchies of Europe, and their understanding of the various rulers throughout history, provided lessons that the Americans were happy to heed. Democracy was dangerous, but monarchy and other types of oligarchies were even more perilous. If the young country was to survive in a world of empires, it needed a federal government, rather than a national one, with a President as the head of state, rather than a ruler.
The executive branch was established in Article II of the United States Constitution. The term was set at four years, and in 1951 the Twenty-Second Amendment placed a limit on the terms at two (or ten years if less than two years of another President’s term has been served). According to Article II the minimum age is 35, the President must be a Natural Born Citizen (to guard against divided loyalties), and must have been a resident of the United States for a minimum of the last fourteen years.
Aside from George Washington, who was a member of no political party, the Presidents of the United States have all been members of a major political party. During the early elections the battle was between Thomas Jefferson’s Republicans and Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party. After achieving the presidency only once with John Adams, the Federalist Party faded into history. After a stint as the only political party the Jeffersonian Republicans changed to the Democratic-Republicans, and ultimately became the Democratic Party. Around that time the Whig Party emerged, achieving the presidency four times. A battle over slavery eventually led to the demise of the Whigs, but from the division emerged the Republican Party, the GOP we know today.
America is not a democracy, but a republic, and among the mechanisms of our republic is the Electoral College. While the Electoral College was established by Article II of the Constitution, it did not receive its nickname until the yearly 1800s. Rather than be elected by a national popular vote, in the United States the candidates receive electoral votes. One of the candidates must not only achieve a victory by receiving the most electoral votes, but also must receive a majority of the whole number available. Otherwise, the Constitution provides for alternative methods of election by Congress.
The inauguration of the President of the United States occurs at noon on January 20. The transfer of office from the old President to the new President happens at this time, unless the President has been reelected and will be serving a second term. Either way, an inauguration ceremony takes place.
The primary role of the President is to execute the laws of the United States, a task accomplished through the assistance of various departments and agencies. The department heads form the President’s Cabinet.
The President is also the Commander in Chief, making the President the chief commander of the United States Military. The President serves as Commander in Chief of the militia (which includes the National Guard, State Militias, Air Guard, Naval Militia, and others) when the militia is called into the actual service of the United States by Congress.
The President may negotiate treaties with other countries, and sign treaties with other countries, but the treaty may not go into effect until the United States Senate ratifies it.
The President may nominate federal officers and judges, but they may not receive their commission for office until the United States Senates confirms his choice.
As the head of state the President receives foreign ambassadors and other foreign consuls and ministers. The President will typically be the member of the government to meet with foreign dignitaries in their countries, as well. While the President of the United States is viewed as the leader of the United States, it is important to remember he is not a ruler or a king. He is a President serving as a member of the federal government, a government that has been granted only limited powers by the United States Constitution. While the Office of the President of the United States comes with great responsibility, and one might even say great power, the President is limited by the Constitution, and may be checked by Congress (through the creation of law) and the people. The President is not a ruler, but a servant of We the People. Strong enough to lead the country on the world stage, but not so powerful that he could become a tryant at home.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
While not a participant as a delegate during the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson was highly influential in the delegation, corresponding daily with a number of the participants, including James Madison. During his presidency, Jefferson sought to put into practice the limiting principles of government embedded in America’s founding documents.
During the Constitutional Convention, though not directly, the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson found its start.
“Hamilton was indeed a singular character. Of acute understanding, disinterested, honest, and honorable in all private transactions, amiable in society, and duly valuing virtue in private life, yet so bewitched & perverted by the British example, as to be under thoro’ conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation.” — Thomas Jefferson, on Alexander Hamilton in The Anas.
Unlike Hamilton, Jefferson was a champion of a concept called Laissez Faire, or the proper limitation of the scope and powers of government. It was he that, though he was absent during the convention in 1787 due to diplomatic duties in France, was among the greatest influences upon the limitation of power embedded in the construction of our system of limited government. It largely was Jefferson’s ideals that the federal republic was founded upon, and to defend those principles during the Washington administration Jefferson created the Republican (not today’s GOP) political party to battle against Hamilton’s Federalist Party. The Jeffersonian Republicans adhered to the Constitution in such a way that the popularity of the party eventually led to the demise of the Federalist Party, and its ideology of nationalism.
After Jefferson’s victory in the 1800 Presidential Election, and his party’s success in achieving a majority in both Houses of Congress, he said of the big government leftist retreat to the court system, “The principal [leaders of the political opposition] have retreated into the judiciary as a stronghold, the tenure of which renders it difficult to dislodge them.” – Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1801.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Patrons: Read a deeper look into Jeffersonian Republicanism
Patrons: Read about Alexander Hamilton – Constitutional Liar
“No Kings” Progressives Seek to Crown Themselves
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The “No Kings!” chant echoed across college campuses, city squares, and political rallies, becoming a signature slogan of the anti-Trump resistance. We knew from the start that despite claims, it was not some spontaneous expression of opposition. It was orchestrated and paid for by forces in the shadows, carried out by professional protesters. It was a coordinated movement, complete with professionally printed signs, organized marches, and social media campaigns featuring celebrities and politicians solemnly declaring their opposition to monarchical rule. The rallies grew in size and sophistication, drawing thousands who claimed they genuinely believe they are defending democracy from a would-be tyrant. Yet beneath this passionate display of anti-royal sentiment lies a profound irony: those who most vociferously denounce kingship are simultaneously constructing the framework for their own centralized authority, proving that the allure of absolute power transcends political ideology and that the most dangerous monarchies are often those established in the name of preventing them.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” – C.S. Lewis
The chant “No Kings!” is the rallying cry for progressive activists and Democratic politicians opposing Donald Trump and his vision for America. It is a slogan that is actually a political projection. It claims false ideas about constitutional governance, masking that it is really a defining reality about their own political aspirations. While they decry Trump as a would-be monarch, they simultaneously advocate for a system that would effectively crown themselves through centralized power, ideological conformity, and the dismantling of constitutional checks and balances.
The irony is stark: President Trump has actually demonstrated tendencies in the opposite direction of traditional power-seekers. He refuses to take for himself the salary of the presidency, has worked to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, has sought to return authority to the states on issues like education and abortion, and he has eliminated an unbelievable amount of federal regulations. These are not the actions of someone consolidating power, but rather of someone dispersing it; precisely the opposite of what we’d expect from a king seeking to expand their dominion.
A “king” needs not be an individual. It can manifest as a system, oligarchy, or even tyranny of the majority – which is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared. The American constitutional system was deliberately designed to prevent any single entity from achieving absolute power, whether that entity be a monarch, a legislature, a judiciary, or even the people themselves in their raw democratic form.
James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 about the “mischiefs of faction” and how a well-constructed union could control the “violence of faction.” He understood that pure democracy could become just as tyrannical as monarchy when 51% of the population imposes its will on the remaining 49%. This is why the Founders established a republic with multiple layers of representation, separation of powers, and federalism – to diffuse power across institutions and jurisdictions.
The Democratic Socialists of America and their allies in the Democratic Party reveal their true aspirations through their policy proposals. Their platform calls for:
This isn’t opposition to kingship. It’s a plan to relocate the throne. By removing all institutional checks on their power, they seek to establish what might be called an “ideological kingdom” where their vision of collectivism reigns supreme. The House of Representatives would become their instrument of rule, granting them absolute control through pure majority rule.
The progressive movement has always sought to concentrate power in centralized authorities, whether in Washington or in international bodies. Their opposition to ‘kings’ is really opposition to any authority that might stand in the way of their own power. They have no principles other than power, and their communist dreams, and the way to achieve that power and hold on to it indefinitely, from their point of view, is pure democracy and a dismantling of the system of checks and balances created by the United States Constitution.
This pattern of accusing opponents of monarchy while seeking to establish one’s own centralized control has historical precedent. During the French Revolution, radicals denounced the monarchy only to establish the Committee of Public Safety, which exercised power even more arbitrarily than the deposed king. In the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar only to create a system with far more pervasive control over individual lives.
Tyranny is like any other evil. It does not appear in its true form, but as an angel of light, cloaked in the language of liberation. It’s George Orwell’s observation in his book 1984 where there must always be an enemy – a scapegoat – that is more terrifying than Big Brother’s tyranny so as to justify their existence and the continuation of the cause. The progressive movement today follows this pattern by denouncing “kings” while building their own throne of centralized authority.
The solution to this paradox lies in returning to the Founders’ vision of a properly limited federal government with meaningful checks and balances. This requires:
The threat to American liberty today comes not from those who seek to reduce the size of government, but from those who would concentrate power in the name of democracy. We must:
The true “No Kings” movement is not one that eliminates institutional constraints but one that embraces them as essential protections for liberty. Only by restoring the constitutional system of diffused power can we ensure that no single group, whether progressive or conservative, can establish itself as ruler over all others.
As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, the Founders gave us “a republic, if you can keep it.” Keeping it today requires recognizing that the greatest threat to our system comes not from those who seek to reduce government power, but from those who would concentrate it in the name of progress.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary