The Warped American Communist Mind versus Foundational Limited Government Constitutionalism

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The minds of the progressive leftist commies in America have shut out any truth, reason, or original intent of the United States Constitution.  They cannot see the truth because they have a warped view of government, politics, and reality.

Their perception can only see through one lens.  It’s like Black Lives Matter – once they convinced themselves that everything in America is racist and institutionalized racism runs through the veins of American History and every white person alive, they saw racism everywhere at every moment in everything because they expected to see it – even though it was not there.

Communist/Socialist/Progressive minds work the same way.  They have convinced themselves that Communism works, and that it is already seething through our system and that socialist philosophies work wonderfully even though history reveals over and over again that socialism has never been successful and every time it has been tried it has resulted in economic suffering, hunger, death and ultimately societal collapse – but when you point out their policies are socialist, communist, or somewhere in the same family, they will deny that to be the truth and then project all of their true hidden ideas onto their opposition and claim that their opposition is the leftist/commie/authoritarian/fascist wanna-be dictators.

They know we look unfavorably at communism, so they find a way to twist it, while attempting to hide their true selves – claiming their ideas are the basis of what will be successful communism, but all of the sins of communism and authoritarianism in the past actually somehow are in line with conservative policies and that their opposition are the true communists in a bad way.  For example, I remember a little over a decade ago Congressman Joe Garcia tried to compare border security to the horrors of communist policies.  Fences and walls are something that communism puts up.  He compared the ideas of fences and walls at the border to the Berlin Wall – AOC did the same, claiming the walls are designed to keep good people from escaping bad humanitarian disasters for a safe haven.  And illegal alien holding facilities for criminal aliens who are being deported are being called concentration camps – a lame attempt to continue with their “Trump and MAGA are Nazis” narrative.

On the flip side, one time, when Political Pistachio was still over at its old home, a leftist wrote in my comment section, after reading my opinion of how the liberal progressive leftist democrats are following the historical path of communism, and after I agreed with Allen West’s comparisons of Democratic Party policies to policies of past Soviet regimes, left the following:

The Soviet Union wasn’t “lefty”.  It was a hard line, right wing, authoritarian regime, not unlike North Korea.  That’s not the type of government any western Liberal advocates.  When you make that sort of claim, it’s just propaganda.

While speaking with a young man of the age of 29, after he spewed a number of leftist talking points, and proclaimed my image of the political spectrum was backwards.  He said:

The 100% government is supposed to be on the right.  It’s the rightwingers that want to use government to force a woman to not be able to have an abortion if she wants, and use government to control marriage.  The religious right wants the church to control us, our thoughts, our decisions, and to force us to not act in the way we want.  Democrats want government out of our lives on that, which makes it obvious that the 100% government lunatics are on the right.

Another once told me:

You already have communism in your life.  Police services, and other emergency services, being government agencies, is communism.  If you were true to your rightwing ideology, you’d want them to be run by for-profit companies.

When I ran for city council in Murrieta back in 2010, after a debate at the clubhouse of a senior community called The Colony, a man walked up to me and said, “You say you are for smaller government.  So what do you plan to take away if you are elected?  Parks?  The Senior Center?”

It’s the all or nothing argument and the absolutism when it doesn’t belong, but not absolutism when it should be applied.  Backwards, warped, and convoluted.

The definitions have been so twisted by the teachings of leftwing progressivism that people don’t even know what the truth is anymore.

Limited Government is not defined as a government that “takes things away,” as perceived by the older gentleman at The Colony.  A limited government is one that functions within the limited authorities granted.  A small government is one that does not exceed those authorities granted, remaining within the limitations established by the rule of law.

As for all of the “rightwinger” stuff, in reality, the Constitution does not lean to the right.  In fact, it is dead center.  Though I identify myself with the GOP (which the media and political hacks will say is “The Right”), and I even go so far as to call myself a conservative, in reality I am a Classical Centrist (or a Classical Liberal), because I hold the opinion that government must operate within the definitions originally assigned by the United States Constitution (including any amendments).  And if you want to be totally honest, there is no rightwing – if the Constitution is dead center, aside from Anarchy and a pure democracy, everything is to the left of the Constitution…including the GOP.

To answer the 29 year old with his “tyranny of the right” argument, the argument is not whether or not government is forcing women not to have an abortion.  Do we have laws to force a person from not murdering another person?  From the point of view of pro-personhood/pro-life groups, the goal is to protect the lives of every American “persons,” and that includes the unborn.  Simply put, abortion supporters are calling for the legal murder of persons in the first developmental stage of their human existence – and worse, they are unable to fight against those seeking to kill them so we must stand up and fight for their right to live.

Life, Liberty and Property – notice, life is always listed first.

As for the constitutional viewpoint, the federal government was never granted any authority to make law regarding any health issue, including abortion, therefore it is a State issue.  The States need to decide that issue for themselves.  As a pro-life advocate, I would hope that all fifty States would outlaw the genocide of the unborn through abortion, but at the same time, I would accept it if some States outlawed abortion, while others upheld it because that is within constitutional expectations and law.  The States, after all, through our voice and our vote, are individual entities just like you and me, and are supposed to be making that decision for themselves.  The federal government is not authorized to force the States to do one, or the other.  The federal government, according to Federalist #45 by James Madison, was designed to handle external issues and issues that directly influence the preservation of the Union – domestic issues are local issues, belonging to the States.

That goes for marriage, too.  In fact, my question has been, “Why is government involved in marriage in the first place – be it homosexual, heterosexual, inter-racial, or whatever?  I support traditional marriage, I disagree with homosexuality, and history shows that when homosexuality becomes normalized in a society it is a sign that the civilization is reaching the twilight of its existence.  However, from a limited government point of view, technically marriage is a State issue.  But going back to my question earlier about government’s involvement in marriage in the first place, shouldn’t the churches make those decisions, as we would see in any free market atmosphere?  Shouldn’t they then be able to reap the benefits, or the consequences, for their decisions?  Instead, the democrats have politicized marriage (and sexuality to the point that we are told by some that nobody really knows what a woman is).  By doing so, they have used their WOKE agenda to culturally and politically control various definitions, and by politicizing these issues they are now controlling speech regarding everything that were once none of the government’s business and in reality none of society’s business when it comes to the children.  Now, we’ve gotten to a point that calling homosexuality or transgenderism a sin or a mental misbehavior or any other negative comment places one on some kind of enemies list.  And nobody who disagrees with those behaviors have ever said that laws should be used to force people to act a certain way, or that those folks should not enjoy the blessings of liberty.  People who agree or disagree or carry out their lives in line with these moral deviations still can have a job, can operate in society freely, can own a home, etc. etc.  Despite their arguments, there are no legal limitations on their freedoms – just a bunch of people who say, “practice it in privacy and don’t push it on our kids.”  But, if you disagree with the homosexual/transgender/queer agenda, then the supporters of their version of the new civil rights movement claims that their opponents are horrible people.  Then, to stop any dissent against their agenda they have been seeking to put in place legal barriers to stop any dissent so that they can force their opinions about this into American Society and stop those who dare to disagree with them with hate speech laws and the like.  Are they going to start monitoring pastors’ sermons?  Will we become like Europe and the moment a social media post appears criticizing some WOKE agenda thing the person will be arrested?  And, getting back to religious freedom, should Pastors be fearful to speak on the issue, when before it was no problem, because the issue was not politicized until the last couple decades?  Then there’s the anti-religion argument who claims to be in line with a warped definition of the First Amendment saying churches cannot have an opinion on political issues.  Therefore, since homosexuality is now a political issue, all preaching on the topic must stop.  Are you kidding me?  Suddenly, a bunch of lawmakers are going to dictate to churches what they are allowed to believe?

Remember, government’s involvement in marriage goes way back – it was created by the democrats so that they may control marriage just as they are doing today with this issue.  After the Civil War marriage licenses surfaced so that the democrat-dominated governments in the South could disallow whites from marrying blacks.  In the 1930s, marriage licenses again surfaced, this time to control marriage in relation to the entitlement programs that were emerging due to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.

As for the claim by the 29 year old that Christians desire a theocracy, I have never heard any Christian call for an established church that controls everything like it did in old Europe at the time of the founding of the United States.  That is a straw man argument completely created by the liberal progressive left in order to attack Christianity as a whole.

Propaganda.

So, that all said, let’s get back to Representative Garcia’s and AOC’s claim that border security is an example of communism.

The liberal left has created an “all or nothing” political environment.  In other words, if you believe government control is wrong on a single issue, then you must believe it is wrong on all issues.  That line of thinking led former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to call the TEA Party Republicans a bunch of “anarchists.”  In his mind, compared to his Democratic Party idea of government-for-all-from-cradle-to-grave, limited government might seem sort of like anarchy.

Border Security is a necessary part of any society.  But Trump’s call for a strong border is not designed to keep people in like the communist Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain, but to keep out those who would seek to harm our society.  I love immigrants.  My wife is an immigrant.  But you don’t just open the border and let anyone and everyone in.  There has to be a vetting process.  Do you leave your front door open at your house hoping people will just walk in?  No.  And chances are, you lock it.  Chances are when someone knocks on the door you ask, “Who is it?”  Chances are you sometimes use the little peep hole to get a look at who it is.  You have strict border standards for your house, and vet anyone who wants to enter.  Why shouldn’t our border not be the same?

And if someone got into your house without your permission, wouldn’t you throw them out?  Don’t you consider it a crime for someone to come into your house without being invited?  And nobody says, “but gosh, even though they broke into our house, we can’t have them removed because they do jobs we don’t want to do.  They do the yard work and the dishes.”  No, they broke into your house, and you have them removed.  End of story.  Breaking in is an invasion, and you would not put up with that.

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government “shall protect each of them (the States) against invasion.”

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 allows the federal government to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution.”

The American Heritage College Dictionary defines “invasion” as “An intrusion or encroachment.”  Crossing a national border illegally is intruding or encroaching into a country, against the laws in place that were necessary and proper to carry out the constitutional authority to protect the States from invasion.  Border security is an integral part of protecting any nation from invasion.  Therefore, the federal government’s authorities in the Constitution includes using federal immigration personnel (ICE and the Border Patrol) to protect the country from an invasion by illegal immigrants and to remove them if they get in illegally – especially if they are criminal aliens on top of all that.

Not exactly “communism,” as Garcia and AOC claims.  Communism would be using a government program like Obamacare to enable the central government to control healthcare, in violation, I might add, of constitutional authorities granted.  Communism would be using the government to control gun ownership, pursuing the ultimate goal of gun confiscation, as we are seeing right now with the liberal democrats.  Communism would be government control of private industries through government dictates, heavy regulations, and the government purchase of portions of the industries, such as we have seen in the automobile industry, banking industry, credit industry, Wall Street, and health insurance industry, while Barack Obama and Joseph Biden were in office (and in reality, the methods used mirror fascism even more than they do communism since fascism is the control of the means of production through heavy regulation and mercantilistic agreements with businesses, rather than outright owning them through government takeovers as communism would dictate).

Why would AOC, Mamdani, Bernie Sanders and other radical Democrats make these kinds of statements and push for communist policies (while calling them by another name) in the first place?  Do they not realize that they are supporting the policies of communists? 

Of course they act like they are taken aback when the comparisons of their plans, policies and promises are compared to communism, spitting out some argument that they are not communists but they are instead Democratic Socialists and Progressives.  When the policies are the same, calling the ideology a different name does not make it something other than communism.

The democrats, as I explained to the 29 year old so many years ago, are not only the ones that believe in big government, but they are proud of it. . . they just try to hide it, because if voters knew what the democrats were really about, they would never be voted into office – at least that is what I used to think; but after a lifetime of indoctrination some of the youngsters are happy to welcome people like AOC or Mamdani into American politics.  They’ve been trained to.

The reality of late of who the progressive lefty democrats truly are has been poking its head out, and Americans are recognizing the socialist tint of Democrat Party politics.  That’s among the reasons President Trump won in November of 2024.  People are beginning to see who the Democrats really are, and they reject the collectivistic socialist garbage these people are pushing.  Fortunately, finally, under Trump’s leadership, the Republicans no longer refuse to shed light on it, expose it, and draw attention to who the democrats are.  And if enough people are watching and paying attention, we may see a new Golden Age on the horizon, after all – without the Democrats doing what they can to throw hammers and sickles into the spokes.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary