Political Pistachio
| ALERT: The KMET Advertiser is Retiring… Be a sponsor or advertiser (contact me at constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com to discuss terms) Donate (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/douglasvgibbs) Become a $9 per month Patron Member at my website (https://www.douglasvgibbs.com/membership-account/membership-levels/) Purchase my books! Scroll down to the list and all of the links at www.navigation2liberty.com Saturday Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs” Mr. Constitution” Constitution Radio: With Doug, Alan and Dennis – KMET 1490 AM, Saturday 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Pacific http://www.kmet1490am.com |
  |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Jefferson was not fond of large cities, and believed that tyranny rose from large centralized population centers. James Madison shared that sentiment in Federalist Paper #10, referring to large impetuous mobs as factions, “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” This is where, he believed, democracy became dangerous.
Jefferson was clearer in his writings regarding the dangers of people piled upon each other in large cities; “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.” – Thomas Jefferson
In the cities the large populations require more regulations, and more government influence on the lives of the people. “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government,” Jefferson explained.
The United States of America was founded on principles designed to protect liberty, the rights of the citizens, and State Sovereignty against a potentially tyrannical federal government that was being created by the Constitution for the purpose of protecting, preserving and promoting the union of States. The Old World mocked the attempt, determining that self-governance without a ruling elite to ensure the common good was folly. The new country put its trust in a system rejected by Europe called “republicanism,” determining that as a republic, freedom would be best protected. However, some feared that if the population became too great, and too many cities were built, the republic would descend into a democracy, which always becomes an oligarchy; the many ruled over by a powerful few.
How could a system where local issues were supposed to be navigated by local government without the watchful eye of a centralized system filled with bureaucrats be anything other than an utter failure when the bureaucracy is filled with persons who only care most about the interests of the cities, survive?
Jefferson hoped America would remain an agrarian society, a country of small family farms. His distaste for cities was well known. He called them “pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.” From his studies of Latin and Greek Jefferson derived his belief that the ideal citizen was one who was a modest family farmer who produced everything he needed, making him truly free. His relations to the surrounding populations would then be voluntary, rather than necessary. City dwellers could not grow their own food, cut down trees and build their own homes, nor create their own clothing or products for market. They were less free. They, according to Jefferson, were shackled with economic and political dependency. “Those who labor in the earth,” he wrote, “are the chosen people of God.
“The mobs of great cities,” he wrote, “add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of the people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”
Philadelphia was already considered a metropolitan center, a hub of societal organization with its more than 50,000 residents. That said, during his time ninety five percent of Americans were farmers. While there were cities, the vast majority of the American people lived either on farms, or were scattered along the coast in fishing villages. To Jefferson, cities were unhealthy places, both for the body, and the mind. Without open spaces, he argued, people were confined and destined to be dependent upon the government. Unfortunately, as the country grew, urban life was inevitable. The American population grew rapidly, and cities began to dot the landscape across the map. Despite his anti-urban bias, in his writings Jefferson was a man of paradox, calling his five year residency in Paris (1784-1789) a time of thriving, and he regarded his years in Philadelphia as the most satisfying of his life.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I spent yesterday afternoon, or at least a small portion of it, battling on the phone with a friend of mine over President Trump’s decision to hit Iran. “We needed to stop Iran’s ability to obtain nuclear weapons,” I argued. “That was supposed to be what Midnight Hammer was to take care of,” he retaliated. “Besides,” he continued, “BRICS nation ships are getting through the Strait of Hormuz.”
I don’t know if that argument is true, but it touched upon what the whole thing is about. In addition to stopping Iran’s search for nuclear weaponry, it was also designed to hit China’s blossoming global network.
Iran’s influence around the world as a leading state sponsor of terror reaches outside the Middle East. Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are all over the world, including the Western Hemisphere. Their presence reached into Venezuela, and upon our own shores. Iran’s adherence to an ideology that calls for mass chaos and their willingness to attack their enemies without even an afterthought made it necessary to destroy all of their offensive capabilities, and the ability to recreate the ability to be a threat. There work since Midnight Hammer proved that we needed more than a few strikes in June to take care of the problem. We thought we’d set them back years, but it turned out only to be months.
However, the whole Iran affair runs much deeper than that. Iran has been among China’s chief energy suppliers, and through Iran’s willingness to work with China it has allowed the CCP to flex its own influence in the Middle East. China’s primary oil suppliers in recent history have been Venezuela and Iran. China has built much of its economy on high-end, energy-intensive exports but they don’t domestically have the energy necessary to fuel their technology machine. Now, with Venezuela’s ships no longer bringing oil, Iran under attack and disruptions to oil tankers getting through the Strait of Hormuz, it’s causing a serious energy supply crunch for the CCP. We must be reminded that before the attack against Iran, China accounted for 80 to 90 percent of Iran’s oil sales.
President Trump believes the war with Iran will be “wrapped up soon,” but that doesn’t mean the flow of oil to China will resume. The war stopped Tehran from developing nuclear weapons and averted a nuclear holocaust by a regime that believes the road to a worldwide caliphate travels through mass worldwide chaos, but also it stopped China’s advancement on a different World War III battlefield that is being waged on other less-violent fronts.
China has also been flexing military presence around Taiwan, something it paused for a moment during the Iran strike, but has resumed since Taiwan’s agreement with the United States over an arms package. Starving Beijing of needed resources, like oil, may push the Chinese back a little, and give Taiwan a little breathing room. BRICS, however, to address my friend’s concerns, remains as a major obstacle.
The BRICS question is where economic alliances and military strategies intersect. Trump’s attack on Iran seems to also be designed to disrupt China’s growing influence through BRICS. Iran joined BRICS, but the membership has been undermined by the current conflict. The attack forces China to either defend a BRICS member, or risk appearing unreliable to other partners (and potential partners). The strategy creates a dilemma for China on the credibility front, while also making BRICS more ineffective as a collective security arrangement. China, and BRICS, are struggling with figuring out how to articulate a common response. Their bluff has been called, and the reality that they have no collective defense pact has been exposed. BRICS simply cannot coordinate any meaningful security guarantees to its members, which weakens its cohesion, and compromises Beijing’s attempt to build greater economic and diplomatic structures through BRICS. The Iran conflict has exposed the limitations of China’s BRICS strategy.
Brazil, China and Russia condemned the military attack on Iran, but other BRICS members like India maintained a more neutral position. This division demonstrates that BRICS fails to even realize what its own position is, and hinders its ability to clearly define its role on the international stage.
For Trump, the weakness of BRICS as a security alliance represents an opportunity. By demonstrating that membership in China-led organizations provides no real protection against U.S. military action, he undermines Beijing’s credibility and discourages other nations from deepening their ties with China. This aligns with his broader strategy of challenging China’s rise through direct confrontation rather than economic competition alone.
By targeting Iran, Trump strikes at a key node in China’s network of partnerships while also potentially disrupting China’s energy imports, as Iran supplies approximately 13% of China’s seaborne oil imports.
Ultimately, President Trump’s approach appears calculated to exploit the structural weaknesses of both Iran’s defenses and BRICS’ collective security capabilities. By initiating conflict now, he stops Iran’s march to create nuclear weapons, tests China’s commitment to its allies, and forces the U.S. foreign policy establishment to focus on the Middle East rather than Asia – a strategic distraction that ultimately serves neither American nor Chinese interests well, but reflects Trump’s willingness to use confrontational, militarized solutions when diplomatic channels collapse.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution begins with some of the most powerful and direct words ever written: “Congress shall make no law…” This was no accident. The founders, having just fought a war against a distant and tyrannical government, were particularly focused on securing two types of speech: political and religious. They understood that for a people to govern themselves, they must be free to criticize their government and worship (or not worship) as they please without fear of legal punishment.
For over two centuries, this principle has been a cornerstone of American liberty. Americans still recoil at the very idea of police knocking on someone’s door over a tweet or Facebook post. We see it happening elsewhere and shudder. In the United Kingdom, people have been arrested for social media posts. In parts of Europe, the line between protected speech and criminal offense keeps moving. What is treated as a fundamental right in the United States is increasingly treated as a punishable offense abroad. That isn’t progress; it’s regression dressed up as “social responsibility” or “public safety.”
The First Amendment blocks direct government suppression, so the enemies of open discourse have found a clever workaround. Instead of using the force of law, which is clearly prohibited, they’ve gone after the visibility of speech.
In theory, private social media companies have the right to moderate their platforms. It’s the digital version of the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign. A private business can set its own rules. But what happens when these private companies start working hand-in-glove with those who seek to silence certain speech, but technically it’s not law? What happens when a concerted effort emerges to shut down the speech of certain groups, particularly those who hold more traditional or unpopular views in the eyes of “progressive-leftist” thinking?
A parallel system of censorship has grown up alongside the First Amendment. In this system, Big Tech companies act as the new speech gatekeepers. They decide who can speak, who gets heard, and who disappears into digital exile. You may have the constitutional right to talk, but if you can’t reach anyone in the modern public square, what does that right actually mean?
The methods are subtle but devastating. Platforms remove accounts, throttle content, suspend monetization, and slap “misinformation” labels on disfavored opinions. The rules are constantly changing, enforcement is inconsistent, and the appeals process is a black box.
The most insidious tool is the algorithm. These invisible lines of code decide what trends, what goes viral, and what gets buried on rarely visited pages of search results. They shape public perception, reward certain viewpoints, and starve others of an audience; all while hiding the rulebook. The message is clear: “Say what you want, but we’ll make sure nobody sees it if we don’t like it.”
This creates a chilling effect. Users are forced to alter their tactics. They soften their language, avoid certain topics entirely, and begin to self-censor. After all, if one wishes to be heard, you learn how to not cross invisible lines. In the end, while it may not have been a government law that silenced them, their speech has been effectively impinged. The right to speak remains, but the ability to be heard has been taken away.
Of course, the defenders of this system will argue that since the government isn’t making the law, it’s all perfectly acceptable. But the American people aren’t fooled. They sense that the digital public square has been curated, filtered, and sanitized in ways that don’t feel organic or fair.
And in a free market, there’s always a response. Parallel platforms are bubbling to the surface and gaining popularity precisely because they promise a space where speech isn’t conditioned on corporate approval. There’s a reason these alternatives are thriving: people are hungry for an authentic public square where all ideas can compete on their merits.
Free speech has always been a rough thing. It includes opinions we dislike, arguments we find offensive, and perspectives we outright reject. This isn’t a flaw in the system, however – it’s the whole point. The founders understood that the only way to protect the speech you like is to protect the speech you hate.
The alternative is a world where governments arrest people for posts on one hand, and corporations erase dissent with code on the other. One is loud and authoritarian; the other is quiet and corporate. Both achieve the same result: the death of open discourse.
The Constitution is only ink and paper if not defended. Our Natural Rights are not self-executing. Liberty, as intended by the Founding Fathers, requires more than just words on parchment; it requires eternal vigilance. It requires a culture and an infrastructure that respect not only the right to speak, but the ability to be heard without invisible manipulation.
If there is to be a future with no algorithms deciding our fate, no shadow bans, and no mysterious “reach dropped,” we must actively prevent the opposite course. Understand, it is a process – not something we will suddenly lose because of a single law. They are patient. They seek victory post by post, throttle by throttle, until only the approved voices remain, and the true marketplace of ideas is nothing more than a curated corporate echo chamber.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Trump has been signaling that the communist dictatorship in Cuba is on its last legs. “Cuba is gonna fall pretty soon,” he told CNN host Dana Bash.
President Trump went on to explain that Cuba wants “to make a deal.” Cuba’s economy has been in a tailspin since its access to oil and money vanished when Maduro was captured and Venezuela became essentially an American ally. Cuba, as a result, has suffered from fuel shortages, power cuts and food scarcity.
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has confirmed he is in discussions with President Trump, but says any potential agreement remains in the early stages. The Trump administration is preparing an economic deal with Cuba, with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (whose family escaped the communist country) in secret talks with members of the Cuban regime.
Members of the Cuban populace have launched demonstrations against the ruling communist party. Energy shortages have forced the country to rely on a mix of natural gas, solar power, and thermoelectric plants, with two of the plants recently shutting down, and a recent blackout was blamed on a broken boiler at a thermoelectric plant, which led to a complete shutdown of Cuba’s power grid.
Coincidentally, within 24 hours of the electric grid shutdown, an 6.0 magnitude earthquake struck just off the Cuban coast. While there has been no immediate reports of damage, the earthquake served as an exclamation point regarding Cuba’s woes.
For nearly seventy years the communist regime has used terror to cling to power, but communism destroyed the economy of Cuba, with the regime’s elite consuming imported goods and leaving scraps to the people. As other communist regimes fall around the world, the hopelessness of the failed ideology is also falling in Cuba. While the rest of the world seems not to care about what is going on in Cuba, President Trump recognizes the needs of the people and aims to starve the regime of the resources it has been using to terrorize its own people.
President Trump is currenlty signalling that Cuba’s brutal regime will be falling soon, and it won’t even be a fight. The way President Trump has been talking, one wonders if he thinks the island nation is destined to be the 51st State… but remember, he negotiates high, and then works it out within reason.
But… one wonders.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| Tuesday Online Constitution (and history) Class |
  3:30 PM Pacific Online Constitution & History Class |
| Online Mr. Constitution Class www.mr-constitution.com When the Vikings arrived to Conquer Britain. Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |