Political Pistachio
Statements and behaviors from Joe Biden’s audio recordings that have been cited as evidence of mental lapses:
- In one recording, Biden explicitly stated “Oh gosh, I can’t think” when struggling to recall information during conversations with his ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer.
- The tapes contain numerous pauses and “ums” that one critic described as making Biden sound like he’s “buffering like a dial-up Internet connection”.
- During discussions about classified documents, Biden appeared confused and said “It’s confusing me” when trying to recall specific details.
- In one instance, Biden couldn’t remember the name of a Representative while discussing political matters, despite his long career in government.
- The recordings show Biden repeatedly losing his train of thought mid-sentence and struggling to maintain coherent narratives about events from his vice presidency.
- Special Counsel Robert Hur noted that Biden showed “diminished faculties and faulty memory” during these 2017 recordings, which were conducted approximately four years before he became president.
- The tapes reveal Biden occasionally struggling to recall basic names and dates during discussions about foreign policy and his time in office.
These recordings were part of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s investigation into Biden’s handling of classified documents and were made public after a lengthy legal battle initiated by conservative organizations through Freedom of Information Act requests.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ-4dWVwWsFI
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/07/28/recordings-biden-memory-lapses
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/07/27/the-biden-ghostwriter-tapes-are-out-n2680219
Abstract – Douglas V. Gibbs
On July 29, 2026, Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked the Fifth Amendment 111 times before the Senate, refusing to answer questions about his role in the COVID-19 pandemic response. The reason for his silence was a full and unconditional pardon issued by President Joseph Biden on his final day in office. Senator Josh Hawley, a lawyer, countered that the pardon nullified Fauci’s right to remain silent, creating a constitutional stalemate this article terms the Pardon Paradox. This Paradox is not an isolated incident but the logical culmination of a two-century transformation of the presidential pardon power—a transformation that has subverted the very structure of the Constitution.
This article traces the pardon power from its original conception at the Constitutional Convention, where it was envisioned as a narrow tool for correcting judicial errors and restoring domestic tranquility, to its modern use as a broad instrument of political protection. We demonstrate that the Framers, fearing executive corruption, embedded the impeachment exception to prevent a President from shielding his own accomplices. Through an examination of early presidential pardons, we show the power was consistently exercised as an act of individual mercy, applied after the judicial process had run its course.
The analysis then pivots to the radical departure from this tradition, beginning with President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon and accelerating through the preemptive, sweeping pardons of the Trump and Biden administrations. The Biden pardon of Fauci—covering any and all federal offenses over an eleven-year period, issued before any charges were filed—represents the furthest extent of this evolution.
The core of the article dissects the Pardon Paradox itself. We analyze the competing legal arguments: whether a pardon, like a grant of immunity, extinguishes the Fifth Amendment privilege, or whether the pardon’s limitations (not covering state prosecution or post-pardon conduct) preserve the privilege. This standoff reveals a profound constitutional dysfunction: a pardon so broad it creates uncertainty, and that uncertainty provides the basis for invoking the very privilege the pardon was meant to eliminate. The result is a breakdown of congressional oversight, a degradation of the Fifth Amendment, and the corruption of the pardon power itself.
This article concludes by arguing that the restoration of the pardon power to its original, limited function is a constitutional necessity. We propose a framework for structural reforms, including requiring Senate consent for end-of-term pardons and mandating written statements of reasons, to prevent the power from further eroding the checks and balances at the heart of our republic. The Fauci hearing is a stark warning that when a tool of mercy becomes a weapon of political protection, the entire constitutional order is put at risk.
Mr. Constitution Patron Membership Owners: Read the full deep-dive article:
https://douglasvgibbs.com/pardon-paradox-how-the-broadening-of-presidential-clemency-subverted-the-fifth-amendment-and-the-founders-design/
By Douglas V. Gibbs I. Introduction On July 29, 2026, Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of...
Patron Membership Required
You must be a Patron member to access this content.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During the pandemic (that I call the scamdemic), I refused to wear a mask or be injected. My wife also never received the jab, wearing a mask at work only because she faced termination otherwise. We didn’t stay home. We didn’t play the six-feet social distancing game. I taught two Constitution classes weekly, each with at least a dozen students. I attended church every Sunday at a packed venue where nobody wore masks. We dined at restaurants that refused to comply with the mandates and we traveled to Yuma, Arizona and St. George, Nevada for weekend getaways because those locations remained largely mask-free. Neither of us ever contracted COVID.
In a conversation during the twilight of the COVID madness with one of my sisters-in-law, she said to me, “So, let me get this straight. You and Virginia didn’t wear masks and didn’t receive the vaccine, and you didn’t get COVID? Mom and I wore masks all the time and got all the shots and boosters, and we both came down with COVID three times.”
I questioned the validity of mainstream political claims from the very beginning. “Where are the bodies in the streets?” I asked. Every death happened in hospitals. Some people died, but it was obvious that the numbers were being padded, and the disease was not the Captain Tripps (from Stephen King’s THE STAND) that they were trying to make it out to be.
I never believed Dr. Anthony Fauci or the wet-market argument. My theory was that the creation and release of the COVID virus was done deliberately by China and members of the Trump-Hating Deep State who were willing to do whatever it took to ensure a distraction large enough to influence the 2020 Election and divert attention from the fraudulent activities committed by those still angry that Donald Trump had derailed their plans when he beat Hillary Clinton four years earlier. The only problem was that the virus wasn’t as deadly as they’d hoped – but they still played the game as originally intended and did everything they could to drum up panic.
To cover up the lab-release of the virus, Dr. Fauci pushed the wet-market myth, presenting the Huanan Seafood Market as the probable site where Covid-19 first crossed into humans. However, Fauci’s own contemporaneous information, including his personal diary, indicate the virus was circulating before it reached the market. According to Fauci’s notes regarding the “Proximal Origin” conference call, only two of the 12 scientists participating believed a natural origin was likely. Released Slack messages reveal Kristian Anderson, the lead author of the “Proximal Origin” paper, not only admitted the lab escape version was likely the true version but wrote that “they were already doing this type of work and molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” The authors continued to express doubts about their own conclusions while publicly defending the paper and portraying laboratory involvement as scientifically implausible.
He used government funds to bribe doctors and finance papers to confirm his argument that the wet-market theory was accurate. He set the process for the COVID origins argument and was intimately involved in managing its publication.
Fauci destroyed evidence and encouraged others to do so. On February 2, 2020, he instructed NIH Director Francis Collins to “please delete this e-mail after you read it” a day after the “Proximal Origin” conference call. He issued another delete-after-reading instruction to his own staff in July 2020. He later testified before Congress that he never deleted federal records or sought to obstruct their production.
On May 23, 2021, reports emerged that in November 2019, three researchers had become ill with COVID-like symptoms. Kristian Anderson wrote, according to a released Slack message, that the team “get it and deeply appreciate what we’re doing, so we’ll keep dancing.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci later testified under oath that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) never funded gain-of-function research (altering a pathogen’s abilities to study it) at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was suggested as the origin of the COVID virus. A documented funding trail confirmed that NIH was indeed providing this funding, which means he lied to Congress.
Not only was there funding, but the work was maniacally sinister at best, and they remained silent about it. The furin cleavage site, for example, is a short insertion in the virus’ spike protein that enables host enzymes to cleave the protein efficiently, significantly affecting the virus’ ability to infect cells and spread. SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site is absent from all its closest known relatives. No natural SARS-like coronavirus with a furin cleavage site has ever been found. It was inserted purposely, and researchers had already demonstrated a keen interest in introducing such cleavage sites into SARS-related coronaviruses. The 2018 DEFUSE proposal, led by Fauci’s longtime grantee Peter Daszak in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, expressly proposed searching for “potential furin cleavage sites” and inserting “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” into SARS-related viruses before testing their growth in human airway cells. Fauci’s diary records that by Jan. 31, 2020, approximately half of the scientists involved in early discussions believed the virus looked “constructed,” with the furin cleavage site at the center of their concerns.
With his Deep State connections, Fauci used the intelligence community, media, and political officeholders to influence the narrative, presenting scientists associated with the natural-origin narrative as authoritative advisers. He presented himself as a detached scientific observer while privately participating in the national-security process to shape the government’s conclusions.
Fauci’s diary reveals how one driving force was his own hubris and desire for glory and recognition. He bathed in the limelight, giddy about the worship he received. His desire for recognition appears in newly released emails showing Fauci repeatedly soliciting scientists with longstanding financial relationships with NIAID to nominate him for prestigious and potentially lucrative awards, while Fauci and his taxpayer-funded staff supplied and helped prepare nomination materials. Federal ethics rules prohibit government employees from using public office for private gain or using their position to induce others to provide financial benefits. NIH rules also require advance written ethics approval before any employee can accept an outside award.
During the COVID scamdemic, churches were threatened for meeting and schools were shut down, but Fauci insisted he “had nothing to do with” closing schools and had not recommended locking anything down. However, Fauci’s March 15, 2020 diary entry records he spoke directly with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to convince him to close the city’s schools, urging him to close its bars and restaurants. He had a similar call with California Governor Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff, who told Fauci that the doctor’s television appearances had prompted the governor to close schools, bars, and restaurants across California. Fauci publicly expressed support for aggressive national restrictions, including a possible 14-day shutdown, while New York City’s schools closed that same day using his “follow the science” mantra to evade admitting any wrongdoing.
According to his diary, Fauci publicly lied about the virus’s fatality rate, telling the public it was 2-2.5 percent while privately recording it was more like 0.2-0.3 percent. People died in hospitals as a result of Remdesivir and ventilators while being denied access to proven medications like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; all because President Trump said those medications worked for him, and the goal was to use the disease to destroy Trump.
As Dr. Anthony Fauci’s diary entries reveal his fixation on his newfound celebrity and how he lied and deceived the public and any political opposition, leftist mainstream and legacy media outlets refuse to report it. Fauci’s diary entries, released by Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY), are now the focus of Fauci’s recent congressional hearing, during which the good doctor refused to answer questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment “right to remain silent” 111 times. From the media? Not a peep.
Fauci wrote in his diary about making sure the press was complicit, which makes their silence even more troubling. He wrote that CNN anchor Jake Tapper privately checked to make sure a canceled CNN interview hadn’t caused problems with the White House. When The Atlantic’s Peter Nicholas suggested Fauci had been “humiliated” over the canceled interview, Fauci fired back in his diary with an F-Bomb. In April 2021, Fauci had a heated exchange with GOP Ohio representative Jim Jordan, and in his diary he indicated CNN’s Dana Bash texted him, calling Fauci the “better man” and relaying that fellow CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer had joked no one would have blamed Fauci if he had used the same F-Bomb on Jordan.
While talkative in his diary, Fauci now has nothing to say. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) made Fauci look ridiculous with his use of the Fifth Amendment, walking him through a series of innocuous questions during which Fauci invoked the Fifth for each one – including what color his tie was and what color the carpet on the floor was. The problem is that the Fifth Amendment is designed to secure the right not to self-incriminate, and since Fauci received a pardon from President Biden, there is no chance to self-incriminate. It’s gone. Therefore, Fauci’s opportunity to use the Fifth is legally nullified, making his refusal to answer questions contempt of Congress and obstruction.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 (after a federal grand jury indictment on April 16, 2026) Dr. David M. Morens, a top advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci, was arrested and charged with conspiracy and destruction of federal records. The charges, brought by the FBI, Justice Department, and the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general, allege the former senior scientific advisor at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci led for 38 years, committed conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting.
Morens served as a senior advisor in NIAID’s Office of the Director from 2006 through 2022, the year Fauci retired.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said: “These allegations represent a profound abuse of trust at a time when the American people needed it most – during the height of a global pandemic. As alleged in the indictment, Dr. Morens and his co-conspirators deliberately concealed information and falsified records in an effort to suppress alternative theories regarding the origins of COVID-19. Government officials have a solemn duty to provide honest, well-grounded facts and advice in service of the public interest – not to advance their own personal or ideological agendas.”
FBI Director Kash Patel stated: “Circumventing records protocols with the intention of avoiding transparency is something that will not be tolerated by this agency. Not only did Morens allegedly engage in the illegal obfuscation of his communications, but he received kickbacks for doing so. If you have engaged in activity conspiring against the United States, we will not stop until you face justice.”
Fauci and his associates created the pandemic, lied about it, and did so to target Donald Trump’s presidency. They tried to cover up their activities, and now they are being investigated. We have whistleblowers confirming they lied. It started in Wuhan, with Fauci’s hands deep inside the operation. They never found an animal that transmitted the disease to a human. There is no evidence supporting the natural origin argument. It came out of the lab. And they knew eventually some of this might rise to the surface, so in a panic, Biden pardoned Fauci because he knew they were culpable. Now, Fauci knows he can’t lie, so he’s refusing to say anything. Fauci did so much damage. He knew wearing a mask is pointless when it comes to viruses. He knew the vaccine not only didn’t stop someone from getting COVID but that the dangers of the vaccine were far worse than the disease it claimed to prevent. From what I see, the shot was causing the infections. People got COVID after vaccination. People who didn’t get vaccinated largely did not come down with the disease. As I stated earlier, my sister-in-law and mother-in-law got the shots and boosters and contracted COVID three times. My wife and I, vaccine-free, never got it.
After this is all over, I don’t know what the ultimate result will be. I don’t know if there will be the legal satisfaction we’re seeking. I don’t know if everyone will discover that the whole thing was a lie from day one. The reality, however, is that there’s an avalanche of documents shedding light on the truth, and Senator Rand Paul has them. Though Fauci refuses to say anything, he said everything we need to know in his diary. Fauci and his inner circle said different things publicly and privately. They gave the public one impression while knowing something entirely different was true. They made up the mask and distancing mandates out of thin air. They unnecessarily shut down the country and ruined lives in the process. They steered the press, scientific community, and U.S. intelligence community to spread their lies, even though the handpicked clique of virologists assisting to spread the lie expressed private doubts about their public assertions. A leak of a 2018 U.S.-China grant proposal posed as a blueprint for COVID. It had been in their plans all along. The scamdemic was created, birthed, coordinated, and orchestrated against the world, making the perpetrators guilty of crimes against humanity. A lab was modifying viruses, engineering viruses, manufacturing viruses, and unleashing them on mankind.
During the hearing, Senator Josh Hawley said that Fauci wanted to think of himself as the “most famous scientist in the world… You’ve done more to harm science than anybody in my lifetime. And I hope you’ll go home and write that in your diary.”
We must not forget the lies by the Biden administration, the Deep State, or Anthony Fauci. We must not forget the lies the media pushed on us. The media lied about Biden’s mental health and about Fauci and COVID. They told us to believe the “experts” for the sake of keeping Democrats in power because in the end, that is what all of this is about: power. They have no principles other than power. They have no foundational beliefs other than power. The ends justify the means to these people. They want power, and Donald Trump, the Constitution, and the American People are in their way, so to get their power, they are willing to lie, destroy, and even kill.
And that, my friends, is true tyranny.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/05/19/fauci-lied-covid-claims
https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/fauci-colleague-david-morens-arrested
https://wltreport.com/2026/07/28/rfk-jr-fauci-serious-medical-event-private-diary/
https://wltreport.com/2026/07/29/rand-paul-fauci-contempt-congress-charges/
https://conservativebrief.com/paul-fauci-attorney-103221
https://thelibertydaily.com/heres-what-we-know-about-key-questions-fauci/
https://conservativebrief.com/rand-paul-fauci-hearing-103217
https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/10/unearthed-emails-anthony-fauci-deleted-records-testimony
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-haunted-2022-nothing-hide-vow-invoking-fifth-amendment-111-times
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/07/29/hawley-remarks-to-fauci-n2204913
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/05/19/fauci-lied-covid-claims
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In what can only be described as constitutional theater of the highest order, Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 111 times during his recent congressional testimony. The former COVID czar, who once enjoyed near-universal media adoration, now finds himself in the crosshairs of constitutional scrutiny. And as Senator Josh Hawley brilliantly exposed, Fauci’s legal strategy may contain a fatal flaw that could blow up in his face.
The central issue here is straightforward: President Biden issued a broad, retroactive pardon to Fauci in the final hours of his presidency, ostensibly shielding him from any “offenses against the United States he may have taken part in” related to COVID-19. This pardon, however, created a constitutional contradiction that Hawley, a Yale Law School graduate and former Missouri Attorney General, skillfully exploited.
“You don’t have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you’ve been pardoned,” Hawley declared, citing the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Brown v. Walker. The legal principle is clear: when a witness has been pardoned for potential offenses, “he may not stand upon his privilege” against self-incrimination.
The logic is irrefutable. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimony that could incriminate themselves. If Fauci has already been pardoned for any potential offenses related to his pandemic response, there is literally no risk of self-incrimination. The constitutional purpose of the Fifth Amendment protection has been nullified by the pardon itself.
By repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering even the most mundane questions, such as what day it was or what color tie he was wearing, Fauci wasn’t exercising a constitutional right; he was potentially committing contempt of Congress. As Hawley pointed out, when there is no risk of self-incrimination, refusing to answer congressional questions transforms from a protected constitutional act into a criminal offense.
The absurdity reached its peak when Hawley asked simple questions that carried zero legal risk: “What color tie are you wearing?” “What color is the carpet in front of you?” Each time, Fauci responded with his canned Fifth Amendment invocation, despite having no legitimate constitutional basis for doing so.
This legal charade could explode in Fauci’s face in several ways.
First, Congress could hold him in contempt for refusing to answer questions after his pardon eliminated any Fifth Amendment protection. Unlike typical contempt cases that face legal challenges over constitutional rights, Fauci’s pardon would make such a charge nearly impossible to defend against.
Second, as The New York Times notes, Fauci’s pardon “only covers what transpired before it was issued on Jan. 20, 2025.” This means any false statements he made during the hearing itself could potentially expose him to perjury charges, as his pardon wouldn’t cover new offenses committed during testimony.
Third, several states are already launching investigations into Fauci’s conduct, with Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville and Florida’s attorney general announcing separate probes. These state-level investigations wouldn’t be affected by the federal pardon.
The ultimate irony here is that Biden’s attempt to protect Fauci may have inadvertently boxed him into a legal corner. By accepting the pardon, Fauci eliminated his Fifth Amendment protections while simultaneously creating a political firestorm that has only intensified congressional scrutiny.
As Hawley aptly summarized: “The only problem is that Fauci doesn’t have Fifth Amendment protection anymore. President Biden pardoned him in the final hours of his term, which means that Fauci cannot legally ‘stand upon his privilege.'”
This constitutional standoff reveals the dangers of using presidential power as a political shield. What was intended as a get-out-of-jail-free card has instead become a legal straitjacket, potentially transforming Fauci from a protected witness into a congressional contempt defendant.
The Fauci Fifth Amendment spectacle represents more than just another partisan hearing. It demonstrates how constitutional principles can be twisted when political motivations override legal reasoning. Hawley’s constitutional takedown exposes the fundamental flaw in Fauci’s strategy: you cannot simultaneously accept a pardon for potential offenses while claiming protection against self-incrimination for those same offenses.
As this constitutional drama unfolds, one thing is certain: the legal and political fallout from Fauci’s testimony will continue to reverberate long after the hearing ends. And if Hawley’s constitutional analysis proves correct, Fauci’s attempt to shield himself behind the Fifth Amendment may have inadvertently opened the door to the very legal jeopardy he was trying to avoid.
The rule of law demands accountability, even for those who have operated above it for years. In this case, constitutional principle and political accountability may finally be aligning – much to Fauci’s detriment.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
“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