Political Pistachio

Douglas v. Gibbs - Mr. Constitution

Political Pistachio

trump trade deal with china

By Douglas V. Gibbs

 

Buying American, we all believe, is better for our own producers and domestic economy.  Tariffs can be beneficial to protecting American manufacturing and production, as well.  While we all understand that we live in a global market, and the need to have trading partners goes all the way back to the dawn of America’s existence, there needs to be a balance that ensures our exports exceed our imports.  A country’s overall economic prosperity often hinges on its ability to produce domestically, and maintain independence in various markets.  Buying too many foreign goods can often be very hazardous to our economy in ways that we don’t even realize.  So, I appreciate those who buy American, or purchase foreign products largely produced in the United States because the non-American producer decided to set up shop in the United States to ease the burden of certain tariffs.

 

Tariffs can be a very important tool on our belt when it comes to foreign trade, and making sure that the playing field is tilted a little bit in our favor.

 

One of my neighbors whose livelihood is dependent upon the local timber industry told me recently that there’s an agreement that the Biden Administration has been working on with Canada that could destroy our lumber industry since Canadian lumber is so much cheaper.  I looked into it, and it is connected to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the Biden Administration, despite arguing about how dangerous Trump’s call for certain tariffs are, used tariffs to mitigate the damage a glut of Canadian lumber into the United States might cause.  In August the Democrats backed off regarding the pending agreement and increased the lumber tariff that not only saved the U.S. lumber industry from certain destruction, but by November of 2024 the tariff was a part of contributing to an increase in the American output of lumber that has the United States poised to surpass Canada’s production.  

 

Nonetheless, the Democrats, largely fueled by their desire to do anything to resist Trump and sour any opinion regarding his policies, have the politically leftward segment of America freaked out about tariffs, and specifically Trump’s threat of tariffs against countries like Mexico, Canada, and China.

 

I was privy, recently, to a conversation between two ladies who were discussing the tendency of one of them purchasing products from a website known to be owned by China.  When we travel, in fact, this particular relative tells my wife and I that if we buy her a souvenir, it preferably needs to be locally made, but at least make sure it’s not made in China.  I can appreciate such a sentiment.  The not-so-conservative member of the two ladies then went on to explain to the other that her ability to buy from the Chinese-owned website was going to go away thanks to Trump.  His tariffs were going to drive Chinese product prices up to ridiculous levels, and eventually those products will simply cease from being available to American consumers and inflation in the United States is going to skyrocket to unbelievable heights.

 

The debate over the tariffs from China, especially if one’s primary source of information is from the mainstream media, fails to take into account economic principles and market forces.  Democratic Party talking heads and their Republican establishment allies have basically argued that any tariffs used are evil, and that Trump is going to tank the economy and send inflation wildly out of control if he uses them.  They fail to verbalize that tariffs are a fact of life in a number of industries, such as the timber industry, and that they themselves support those particular tariffs.  They also fail to communicate that every cause has an effect.  Every happening has consequences, both good and bad.  They assume with their words, and therefore convince the general public of the same, that China will simply raise their prices to accommodate the tariffs.  Yet, somehow, they tell you the opposite is true when it comes to corporate taxes.

 

Market forces are interesting to watch, and can be predictable if one watches long enough, and understands economics.  There’s the whole supply and demand thing, and sometimes it goes even deeper than that.

 

In a free market the ultimate goal is to make a profit.  Along the way there are various obstacles that includes the cost of doing business that include, but are not limited to, taxes, wages, transportation costs, and the cost of raw materials of certain products or the cost of the products when bought wholesale.  When a fast food restaurant, for example, as we’ve seen in California, is faced with higher taxes, and increased minimum wage laws, either the business must raise prices, or reduce costs, or create a complex variation that includes both.  Sometimes, the business will end up out of business, or wind up closing some (or all) of its California locations if it is a countrywide entity.  To reduce costs the restaurant may reduce the hours available to its employees, or reduce the number of employees through various schemes that might include reduced operating hours or an increase of automation.  In the end the people who think they are going to make more money wind up making less.  If prices go up the company will probably sell less product, and the tax revenue will actually be reduced since in the face of a higher corporate tax percentage the company must reduce its tax burden through less output.  Typically, in the end, higher minimum wage laws raise the unemployment rate, and higher corporate tax rates reduces tax revenue for the taxing agency. 

 

China’s reality of facing higher tariffs creates a similar scenario.  For China, a tariff is an increase in the cost of doing business.  So, while raising prices and reducing how much product is imported into the United States by China is one possible scenario, the likelihood is that China will pursue other avenues.  America, after all, is China’s primary customer, and their economy could be in big trouble if they are not moving product in the direction of the United States. 

 

They may, with the desire to continue a profitable relationship with the United States, begin to metaphorically kiss Trump’s butt to convince him to reduce the tariff to what they consider a manageable level.  They may reduce their price to accommodate that increase caused by the tariff.  Or, they may seek to reduce some of the costs involved with doing business like the restaurants in California.  In economics there are always responses to actions, and if a leader is skilled enough they will use tariffs to not only level the playing field, but possibly encourage more domestic output, or perhaps even enable domestic manufacturing of foreign products which is good for American workers, and acceptable to most foreign producers who are seeking to reduce the cost of doing business when it comes to the cost imposed by a tariff.

 

The rhetoric about the dangerous Trump tariffs is political hyperbole, for the most part.  More than likely, to keep our business, China will do what it can to either convince Trump to reduce the tariff, or to reduce their costs elsewhere if they can.  And, if prices go up a little bit on Chinese produced products, that also is good because it opens the door for American manufacturing to be able to compete.

 

The interesting thing is that the argument about the dangers of tariffs goes all the way back to the beginning of the twentieth century.  Before the ratification (one might say “alleged ratification”) of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the primary sources for funding the federal government were an income tax on the States (based on population as determined by the census)  and tariffs.  So, as a part of the argument designed to defend the new individual direct tax on citizens tariffs were framed as being a bad thing for the economy.  The debate against tariffs worsened when the Great Depression emerged, with the Democrats claiming that the Smoot-Hawley Act (large tariff on foreign goods) was the cause of the Great Depression.  Despite the fact that the Great Depression began prior to the Smoot-Hawley Act, people believed the rhetoric, and the evils of tariffs in the minds of the American People was further solidified.  The argument was necessary from the point of view of the purveyors of the Federal Reserve – they dared not reveal that the true cause of the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve which flooded the monetary system with fiat currency and then reaped the benefits through a gain of assets as creditors seized property due to failures by borrowers to maintain the payments of their loans.  In short, the Great Depression was the greatest asset seizure by bankers in the history of the world.

 

Since the “tariffs are evil” argument has been in the Democratic Party arsenal for over a century, of course they leaped on tariffs being evil when Trump began to talk about using tariffs to gain some control over foreign affairs and encourage domestic production.

 

Tariffs, of course, are just like anything, however, and need to be used wisely and in some kind of moderation.  Too much use of heavy tariffs can ultimately damage relationships with trading partners.  However, the opposite extreme is not good, either.  True “free trade” allows our trading partners to skew the playing field in their favor, and tariffs can be used to tilt that field back in our favor, or at lease closer to being level so that nobody is being taken advantage of as excessively as we’ve seen prior to the emergence of President Trump.

 

Trump understands the delicate balance related to the use of tariffs, and he understands how valuable tariffs can be as tools for economic fairness, and even convincing countries to work with you on non-economic related issues.  After all, the mere threat of tariffs now has Canada and Mexico more willing to play ball when it comes to the invasion of illegal aliens coming across the border.  And in the end, as with their defense of the income tax and Federal Reserve, Democrats are screaming “danger, danger, danger” about tariffs for their own nefarious reasons, not truly because tariffs may do any of the negative things to our economy as they have been claiming.

 

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

george washington thanksgiving proclamation

Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Screenshot 2022-11-19 121314
By Douglas V. Gibbs
 
The concept of a Thanksgiving Feast is not uniquely American.  The Spanish Colonies also had thanksgiving ceremonies and meals as well.  The colonists in the New World, be they English, Dutch, French, Spanish, or of any other European origin, were a deeply religious people, and felt it necessary to give thanks to God for their survival, and prosperity, in their new land.  The Pilgrims had plenty to be thankful for, so their Thanksgiving Feast is the story that has been most publicized…they were, after all, among the earliest English Colonies in America.  It might be surprising, however, that turkey was not the dominant item on the menu (and may not have been on the menu at all!), nor were many of our other traditional favorites.
 
Considering the time period, the cultures of the people involved, and the location of the feast, the original menu for the first Thanksgiving was filled with wild game, foul, and ocean animals that may seem strange to us today. Wild Turkey may have been an item on the menu, but a likely collection of other birds probably dominated the list of foods available; including Goose, Duck, Crane, Swan, Partridge, and believe it or not, Eagles.  Other meats included Venison, and Seal.  Seafood was also a large part of the diet, so the banquet most likely included Cod, Eel, Clams, and Lobster.  The corn, not originally an item favorable to the palates of the colonists, was off the cob, ground down into a mush, and made into bread that resembled pita bread.  It was a three day banquet, and it was a celebration of survival as a result of good harvests, liberty, and the use of a very successful rudimentary form of a free market system.
The Pilgrims were religious separatists who wound up landing way north of their intended target.  Since they were separatists, I like to tell people they landed way north of the rest of the Massachusetts Bay Colonies “accidentally on purpose.” Many believe as I do that since they were separatists, the Pilgrims from Plymouth, England possibly purposely navigated north of their intended target.

The reason for the Pilgrim’s journey to America was to seek religious freedom. They were persecuted in England as the British King made it law that everyone must be a member of the Church of England, or suffer the wrath of the law with fines, imprisonment, and possibly exile.  To escape the tyranny, after a short stint in Holland where providing for their families was very difficult because non-citizens found it difficult to find notable work, they braved a treacherous crossing of the Atlantic Ocean that lasted 66 days.

The Pilgrims established a village in the New World using a communal system that used a central dispensary for food, and other items. The colonists were expected to work for the good of the community, placing into the central store all of their labors, and taking from it only what was needed.  While the collectivistic method was originally mandated by the lenders who funded their trip, as Christians they felt they could trust each other to put forth a good effort, and to be honest about what they took from the central stores for survival. The first winter was brutal, and most of the colonists remained on board the ship. More than half of the new colonists died from exposure, scurvy, and outbreaks of contagious disease. Less than half of the original colonists survived that first winter.

Of the Mayflower’s original travelers that survived through that winter, life was difficult. They were sick, hungry, and psychologically devastated. In the Spring, the colonists all moved ashore, and continued to maintain their collectivist system of communal living.

Days passed, and the Pilgrims were greeted, in English, by an Abenaki Indian. Several days later, as the story goes, he returned with another Native American, Squanto, a member of the Pawtuxet tribe who had been kidnapped by an English sea captain and sold into slavery before escaping to London and returning to his homeland on an exploratory expedition.

Squanto taught the Pilgrims, weakened by malnutrition and illness, how to grow corn, extract and use sap from maple trees, catch fish in the rivers and avoid poisonous plants. Through the process, with Squanto’s guidance, the colonists also formed an alliance with the Wampanoag, a local tribe. The friendship lasted more than fifty years, and is a shining example of how the colonists and the Indians attempted to live in harmony in the New World.

 
As I like to tell people, the English Colonists were families (rather than conquistador warriors) fighting for survival, and did not desire war with the Indians like the Conquistadors of the Spanish Colonies who wiped out entire tribes, and raped and forcibly took as wives the women of those tribes.  The English Colonists did not want to fight with the Indians largely because doing so would violate their Christian beliefs, and secondly because they needed their help in order to survive.  They were not there to create empire, like the Spanish.  They were there as individual families to start a new life.

Even after help from Squanto, starvation continued to rampage through the colony because under the communal system not all settlers were putting forth their best effort, and were taking out more than they were putting into the stores. Those that did work hard were angry because they were expected, through their labors, to carry the entire colony — some of those people reduced their work effort, seeing no since in working so hard for the benefit of others who refused to put out a reasonable effort. Unrest began breaking out, and the colony knew that if they did not do something about their situation fast, the colony would not survive.

A new system was devised that gave each Pilgrim a parcel of land. They were told this land belonged to them, and they could work the land as they pleased. The settlers would keep all that they produced, and could bring any excess to market to trade with other settlers for goods they desired.  This new system moved the colony away from the communal system they had been suffering under, and instead established a system that in today’s world we would call “Free Market Capitalism.”

The Pilgrims’ first corn harvest under their new free market system proved successful, and as a result of changing their system to a liberty-based system based on personal incentive, personal responsibility, and self-sufficiency, the colony was not only prospering, but their food was bountiful. In fact, they had so much food, they began to trade with the Indians.

Governor William Bradford, wishing to give thanks to the Lord for their good fortune, organized a celebratory feast and invited their Indian allies, including the Wampanoag chief Massasoit. The festival lasted for three days.

In addition to the menu items mentioned earlier in this article, five deer were brought by the Indians. Pumpkin may have also been on the menu, along with various berries.  The Indians made a stewed mix of corn, roots, beans, squash and various meats called sobaheg. On the table were also onions, turnips, and greens from spinach to chard.

Many of the menu items, it is suggested, were also prepared with traditional Native American spices and cooking methods. Because the Pilgrims had no oven and the Mayflower’s sugar supply had dwindled, the meal did not feature pies, sweet cakes, or other desserts. Because of the culture, it is also possible that the women did not participate.

In 1623, after a long drought that threatened the year’s harvest, and yet they still achieved a bounty encouraged by their “keep what you produce” free market system, Governor Bradford once again called for a feast for the purpose of giving thanks for the survival and prosperity of the colony.

As the years progressed, a thanksgiving feast on an annual or occasional basis became common practice in other New England settlements. During the American Revolution, the Continental Congress designated one or more days of thanksgiving a year, and in 1789 George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving proclamation. He called upon Americans to express their gratitude and give thanks to God our Lord for the happy conclusion to the country’s war of independence and the successful ratification of the U.S. Constitution. His successors John Adams and James Madison also designated days of thanks during their presidencies.

In 1817, New York officially adopted an annual Thanksgiving holiday.

In 1827, noted magazine editor and prolific writer Sarah Josepha Hale, known for her nursery rhyme “Mary Had a Little Lamb,” began to campaign to establish Thanksgiving as a national holiday. Hale published numerous editorials and sent scores of letters to governors, senators, presidents and other politicians over a period of about thirty-six years. In 1863 at the height of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln heard her cry, and issued a proclamation entreating all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.” He scheduled Thanksgiving for the final Thursday in November, and it was celebrated on that day every year until 1939, when Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the holiday up a week in an attempt to spur retail sales during the Great Depression. Roosevelt’s plan was met with passionate opposition determined to keep with tradition, and in 1941 the president reluctantly signed a bill making Thanksgiving the fourth Thursday in November.

Though turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, cranberries (cranberry sauce), and pies were not on that original menu, over the passing of time these have become the traditional menu items of Thanksgiving. The true essence of Thanksgiving, however, is not the meal. This unique American holiday was, and still is, a day for all of us to give thanks to God for our blessings, and for the difficulties we have endured that have made us stronger and wiser. And the story I have given you may not have been technically the “first Thanksgiving,” for throughout the colonies there were ceremonies of thanks that predate the Pilgrims’ celebration.

Despite the tales of a bloody relationship between the Indians and the settlers, which did exist to some extent as the colonies began to encroach on native hunting grounds, the early tales of Thanksgiving reveals that there was a time when the Indians and colonists existed in harmony, and gave thanks to God for their relationship, and the miraculous survival of the early colonists, thanks to a little concept (though this may not have been the first time a free market style system had been used) we now call today “capitalism.”

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Ukraine-and-Russia-flags-burning

By Douglas V. Gibbs

 

Fifty years ago the Democrats were the anti-war party because it was politically expedient to stand against the Vietnam War, despite the fact that a Democrat President, John F. Kennedy, set the stage for the Vietnam War, and a Democrat President, Lyndon B. Johnson, entered us into the Vietnam Conflict, and escalated it to ridiculous levels.  It was Republican Richard Nixon who campaigned to get us out of the war, and who accomplished the feat, yet somehow the Democrats convinced the younger generation that the Republican Party was the party of war-mongering and if elected Presidents who were members of the GOP could not be trusted with the nuclear button.  When Republican President Ronald Reagan was elected, the Democrats portrayed him as an out of control cowboy who wanted war, despite the fact that Democratic President Jimmy Carter had supported China’s border war with Vietnam, and his support for the bloodthirsty communist madmen of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.  After President Bill Clinton’s failed foreign policies in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Haiti and failed strikes against Usama Bin Laden where he got involved in more wars than any President since Johnson, when Republican President George W. Bush invaded Iraq allegedly in response to the 9/11 strikes against the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon, despite the Democrats being for the attack before they were against it, they went out of their minds calling Bush a “war-mongerer”.  Could it be that they became anti-war because they realized the position may attract a segment of voters they had not been reaching before?  Again, despite the reality that historically the Democrats have been pro-destruction via war and investors who draw wealth from the military industrial complex, the Democrats succeeded in convincing the average American that despite what everyone should be seeing, despite the reality of history, it was the GOP who was the pro-war party.  The “peace through strength” model, established by George Washington, but resurrected when Ronald Reagan breathed life back into the idea during his presidency, while accurate in the basic sense, was maligned and twisted through the words that sliced out of the mouths of Democrats, convincing Americans that the Republicans were pro-war and the Democrats were anti-war.

 

Then, Donald J. Trump came along.  He built a foundation of respect around the world by showing strength, and revealing a willingness to use America’s military strength when necessary, but did so in a manner that actually kept us out of war.  Trump ended the war with ISIS, and started no new war or military conflict during his presidency, the first to do so in nearly a century.

 

During Joe Biden’s term in the White House, two new large wars emerged (Ukraine and Gaza), with rumors and fears of others rising into view.  The Russian war against Ukraine, a war that Trump says would not have started under his watch because of his economic policies that would have kept Russia from putting the money needed for the war into their pockets, which changed when fuel prices went up largely due to Biden largely killing America’s domestic oil production, has brought many to believe the next World War is on the horizon.  The rules of supply and demand took control, and as America became more dependent on foreign oil, and drove prices up, Russia began to make more money on their oil production as well – and Biden and the Democrats were more than happy to start throwing money into a war between two regions that have been fighting for position since before the United States even existed as a country.

 

More money… more war.

 

After Donald Trump achieved victory in the 2024 Presidential Election, running on a campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine, President Joe Biden did something he was repeatedly unwilling to do prior to the election – authorize Ukraine to use American long-range missiles to strike deeper into Russia – which undoubtedly will expand and extend the war. 

 

Why?  When did the Democrats become the political party of destruction?

 

The short answer?

 

Since their beginning.

 

Don’t get me wrong, the GOP has been guilty too.  But, the new Republican Party under the guidance of Donald J. Trump understands there is a third option, other than appeasement, or the destruction of non-stop continual war.

 

National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz says that Biden’s latest move is more than just-another-example of the pro-war Democratic Party’s path of destruction, but that it is also designed to “thwart Trump’s effort to create a ceasefire and peace deal.”

 

“The timing is really curious, because Biden was reluctant to do this before the election, because he was worried he would escalate the war. He would take a lot of criticism for possibly escalating the war,” Fleitz told the John Solomon Reports podcast. “And now that the election is over, he’s made this decision, which Putin has said is a red line and could put Russia at war with the United States…I don’t think this is an effort to give Ukraine leverage in negotiations with Russia, because it’s going to make the war worse.  I think this is a deliberate attempt by Joe Biden to sabotage President Trump’s efforts to negotiate a ceasefire.”

 

Could it be a little of both?  Biden and the Democrats are, despite what they try to convince the general public, pro-war, pro-chaos, and pro-destruction while also wishing to sabotage Trump’s efforts?

 

The general consensus is that Biden’s authorization is a response to the deployment of North Korean troops in support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that such a move by the United States may be viewed as an act of war, and he’s willing to use nuclear weapons in such a scenario.

 

While Republicans like Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky has stated that Biden’s move without congressional approval was unconstitutional, the reality is that it was not.  Congress, according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, has the authority to declare war, but the President as Commander in Chief as delegated by Article II has the power to wage war.  So, Biden’s move was technically constitutional.  If Congress doesn’t like it, they can defund America’s role in the war between Russia and Ukraine.  The American people disagrees with Biden and the Democrats, and want the whole affair to end, which is among the long list of reasons that led Trump to win the 2024 Presidential Election.  Despite the legality of the move, and any argument to the contrary, it was still an unreasonable move and it was, as Former Trump Deputy National Security Adviser Victoria Coates told the Just the News, No Noise television show on Monday night that Biden’s action was a thumb in the eye of the American electorate and risked a dangerous escalation with a nuclear superpower.

 

“Why isn’t that a decision for the president-elect, who clearly has the support of the American people to make?” Coates continued. “Putin has said he might respond with a nuclear strike. You can’t handcuff your successor with that kind of responsibility, because you’re going to do something rash and not well thought through at the tail end of your presidency.”

 

Because for the Democrats it is all about power, and the narrative changes or sharpens based on what the Democrats believe will better enable their next path to power.  However, since they can’t win in the arena of ideas because all of their ideas are destructive and dangerous they must target their opposition, even if they have to be untruthful along the way.  They need wide-spread confusion, wide-spread chaos, and they seek to destroy the standards that have guided us since the beginning.  Change must be about change, in their minds, even if the change is down a road that is known to be a failure, or against the common sense and moral standard that most people hold as important.

 

They have proven they are willing to destroy the lives of those who oppose them, as they did with the January 6ers, and they are willing to be as insane as possible in their attacks against their opposition as they have proven with Donald Trump – and now, they are proving that in their effort to stop Trump, to “resist” against the GOP, and work back toward their own path of power, they are willing to sacrifice the lives of people in other countries and even risk nuclear war – a possibility that Putin has indicated he is willing to entertain if the United States was willing to take the path that Biden has taken with his recent authorization of long-range American missile use by Ukraine.

 

Their power is so important to them that destruction is on the menu.

 

Ridiculous, and dangerous.

 

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

 

Noah Webster

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Noah Webster recognized that the American version of English was following a path departing from the version of English spoken in England.  Americans, however, were still using the Oxford Dictionary from England.  So, Mr. Webster worked to produce a new dictionary, an American Dictionary of the English Language.

The 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was produced at a time when America’s culture was based on a Christian foundation, and a patriotic basis.  Webster feared that the language of the Constitution was being misinterpreted, a practice he had seen first-hand by his fellow members of the Federalist Party, who were followers of Alexander Hamilton and his creation of implied powers.  Webster aimed to undo the damage being inflicted by those seeking political power and a consolidation of governmental authorities into the federal government, and the way to do it was to be influential in the educational system.  Through informing the younger generation a country on a Christian Constitutional course may remain so longer than otherwise.

Webster already had in the hands of students his “blue-backed Speller,” his “Grammars,” and his “Readers.”  Biblical and patriotic themes and values covered the pages of the resources he offered.  Webster considered education useless without the Bible.  Christian influences flow freely as one thumbs through the pages of his 1828 Dictionary, which contains the greatest number of Biblical definitions ever given in any secular volume.

Webster said of education, “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed… No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people…”

Noah Webster laid the foundation of his 1828 Dictionary for years, recognizing that the American language was becoming distinct from that of England.  In 1806 he published A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, which built upon and extended the work of English schoolmaster John Entick.  In Webster’s 1806 dictionary he added 5,000 new words to Entick’s original 32,000.

The idea Webster had regarding the changes the American version of English was experiencing was first articulated in 1785 when he toured the colonies lecturing on the English language.  In 1789 his Dissertations on the English Language led him into his profound study, ultimately leading him to master more than 26 languages.

“As an independent nation, our honor requires us to have a system of our own, in language and in government.”

In great need of assistance due to his slim resources, Webster was encouraged to seek financial support where he could muster it.  He moved his family as necessary, taking on positions all over Massachusetts and Connecticut.  In 1793, Alexander Hamilton recruited him to serve as editor for a Federalist Party newspaper in New York City, lending Webster $1,500 to make the move.  In 1798 he served in the Connecticut House of Representatives.  He was elected Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1799.  He helped found Amherst College in Massachusetts in 1812.  In 1822 he moved his family back to New Haven, Connecticut, where he was awarded an honorary degree from Yale in 1823.  In 1827, Webster was elected to the American Philosophical Society.  He was influential in establishing the Copyright Act of 1831.  He released his own “Common Version” edition of the Holy Bible in 1833.  In 1834, he published Value of the Bible and Excellence of the Christian Religion.

Webster was an abolitionist, and he helped found the Connecticut Society for the Abolition of Slavery in 1791.  Though an abolitionist, as a constitutionalist he believed the authority regarding abolition of slavery belonged to the States.  He commented that the abolition must come State by State, the Constitution, federal government, and the Northern States, “cannot legally interfere with the South on this subject.”

As a fan of federalism, as presented by the United States Constitution, Webster understood the tenets of what republicanism was all about, but he believed the federal government needed to have more power than the Constitution offered in order to be the next great empire.  While he battled internally over these political ideas, he believed the Hamiltonian offering was too radical, and too secular.  Often, he was a man criticized by both sides of the political spectrum.  He stood firmly against Andrew Jackson’s ideas of democracy, considering the seventh President of the United States to be an authoritarian and a tool of the ruling elitists of Europe.

Noah Webster died May 28, 1843 at the age of 84 in New Haven, Connecticut.  After his death the rights to his dictionary were acquired by George and Charles Merriam.

 

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

410px-2012_Pennsylvania_congressional_districts_by_party

By Douglas V. Gibbs

 

When Republican Dave McCormick was called as the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania over Democrat incumbent Bob Casey, Casey refused to concede and the lefty election officials in Pennsylvania began a recount that would include counting illegal votes in the hopes of flipping the election.

 

A video has surfaced in which two Pennsylvania officials in Bucks County proclaim, and actually brag about the fact, that they purposefully ignored multiple court rulings to count illegal votes including those that don’t pass the signature test.  The Democrats are desperately trying to sway in their direction by any means possible the U.S. Senate race between Republican Dave McCormick and Democrat incumbent Senator Bob Casey in the hopes of minimizing the damage of the Republicans gaining a majority in the Senate.  Despite McCormick being called as the winner, the Democrats in Pennsylvania are still trying to overturn the election by manufacturing illegal votes to flip the result.

 

Wait a second, isn’t trying to overturn an election “treason” and “insurrection”? 

 

“I’m aware that the courts will almost assuredly step in and stop this, but what if the courts didn’t even know about it? What if Republicans didn’t have the resources to file the necessary lawsuits? That’s what’s so concerning here. How many times does something like this happen and we don’t find out about it because these county commissioners or whatever else they may be referred to as in other states never say so publicly?” 

 

Democrat Commissioner Diane Marseglia, one of the Democrats filmed admitting she was violating the court’s orders by counting those illegal votes endorsed Kamala Harris before the election.

 

In the end the election will probably not be swayed by the election fraud they are attempting to commit in Pennsylvania, but this is just another piece of evidence that the Democrats are happy to break the law and commit election fraud to win elections – a criminal mode that changed the 2020 Election, but because the GOP was watching closely they could not cheat enough to take this election.

 

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary