Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In today’s heated immigration discourse, some advocates for open borders and global governance attempt to rewrite history to support their arguments. They cherry-pick historical facts while ignoring crucial context, creating a distorted narrative that serves their political agenda.
A fundamental flaw in this approach is presentism: judging historical actions by modern standards and values. We cannot apply today’s cultural norms and legal frameworks to people who lived centuries ago. They operated under different circumstances, with different knowledge and different societal structures.
If we want to play the “stolen land” argument, then all people live on stolen land. Throughout human history, territories have been conquered, reconquered, and reestablished. Consider Britain: the original Britons are long gone. The island has been controlled by Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, and others. Today’s British people are largely a genetic mixture of all these groups and more. This pattern repeats across the entire globe.
Sovereign nations have the right to maintain their identity or change it as they see fit. History reveals that civilizations achieving longevity typically follow deliberate plans. Rome implemented strict assimilation policies. America, adhering relatively closely to its Constitution and embracing free markets, natural rights, and limited government, has prospered.
Unfortunately, some politicians now seek to undermine America’s founding principles. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) recently claimed during a subcommittee hearing that the Founding Fathers were “undocumented immigrants,” specifically mentioning Thomas Paine. When questioned, he doubled down, stating Paine was an “undocumented immigrant, just like Thomas Jefferson’s family was.”
This comment came during a Republican hearing examining the effects of the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe, which extended public education to illegal immigrant children based on the equal protection clause. The problem is, the decision violates Article IV’s privileges and immunities clause, which restricts constitutional protections to citizens.
Raskin’s argument, including his claim about undocumented founders, rests on the idea that America should fulfill its promise as an “asylum to humanity,” a refuge for those seeking freedom from persecution worldwide.
History reveals a different story. The English Colonies were part of the British Empire at the time. Thomas Paine, born in the U.K., was a British subject and legal resident. The British Empire didn’t use documents for colonial immigration because the system worked differently then. Most of our ancestors arrived without documents because the laws and processes were different.
Once America became independent, immigration laws were actually quite strict. The goal was to grow the country with the best the world had to offer. Think of it like a business seeking top employees, interviewing candidates and ensuring they have no criminal record or characteristics that might harm the enterprise.
Early American immigration policies carefully screened out Tories and those with low skills who might become dependent on the system rather than productive contributors. The Founders expressed the need for newcomers to have good moral character and adopt American principles. They specifically sought white Europeans, not due to some kind of racism, but at the time those were the peoples and places that best fit what the Founding Generation was trying to create. This context is something Raskin conveniently omits, preferring short, decontextualized soundbites to defend destructive leftist positions.
The debate over immigration deserves honest discussion grounded in historical fact, not revisionist history that ignores context. America’s founders understood that sovereign nations have the right, and the responsibility, to control their borders and determine who enters. That’s not xenophobia; it’s common sense nation-building.
— 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 Saxons Became the System… again. Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A legal dispute over allowing mail-in ballots that arrive after election day to be counted has worked its way to the United States Supreme Court. Watson v. RNC challenges federal laws that establish an election day for federal races. More than a dozen states permit the countine of late-arriving ballots as long as they are postmarked before election day.
Article 4, Section 1 of the United States Constitution establishes that federal elections are to be handled locally by the states, but if the times, places and manner of holding elections for any reason needs to be adjusted according to Congress, the federal legislature may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. So, the key in this lawsuit is simply, “is there federal law that requires all ballots must be received and handled by election day.”
The key federal laws being used to argue that late-arriving ballots cannot be counted are the statutes that Congress has passed to set a uniform Election Day for federal elections. These are primarily found in the United States Code at 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 11.
These federal statutes establish “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every even-numbered year” as the single “election” day for federal offices. The Republican National Committee’s position, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is that these laws create a hard deadline requiring ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials by the end of Election Day.
The Fifth Circuit specifically ruled that Mississippi’s grace period violated federal law, stating that federal law “does not permit the state of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days or 100 days” and that the statutes require ballots to be in the custody of state officials by the end of Election Day.
This interpretation is contrasted with Mississippi’s argument that “election” has historically meant when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots — not necessarily when they are received and counted. The Supreme Court’s decision will effectively determine whether “Election Day” is a voter deadline or an administrative cutoff for receiving ballots.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is a worldwide growing crisis against Christianity. Around the world believers face torture, imprisonment, and slaughter and until President Donald Trump decided to take a stance against the persecution and genocide in Nigeria, Western governments have ignored and dismissed the crisis. Even in Europe and America there are growing attacks against Christian beliefs, often framed as discriminatory forms of “hate speech.” Charlie Kirk’s assassin murdered Kirk because he believes Charlie’s Christian teachings were “hateful.”
In China, sharing the Gospel is a crime, and Bible verses have been rewritten to support official pronouncements from the government. Underground church pastors are regularly arrested, and “disappeared.” In India, Hindu terrorists beat and murder Christians, and torch churches and Bibles. Muslims hunt down Christians like animals, and massacre Christians regularly. There are no churches in majority Islamic countries. In Nigeria, a hundred thousand Christians have been massacred or abducted, and over the last six years about 20,000 Christian churches and schools have been destroyed. In Islam, conversion to Christianity is punished by execution.
In America the school system teaches our younger generation that America is guilty of “systemic racism” brought about by Christians who are “fascists,” “nationalists,” and even “Nazis.” Christians, like Israel, has become the enemy.
In California, state law requires foster parents to “affirm a child’s self-identified orientation or gender identity” which effectively bans Christians from being foster parents, or to adopt children. There is a movement in some states, like California, to deem any parent unfit to raise their own children if the family holds a view that contradicts the state’s ideology on gender and sexual orientation. In short, they are now seeking to remove children from Christian parents.
In Finland there is a case against Paivi Rasanen that is calling for quoting from the Bible a criminal offense under the country’s war-crimes laws. Throughout Europe people are being arrested and imprisoned for making Christian statements on social media that stands against homosexuality and transgender ideology. In the Netherlands citizens are being arrested for publicly expressing a pro-life worldview, and the government shut down a conference whose scheduled speakers recognized the biological reality of two distinct sexes.
The City of Los Angeles is being sued for claiming that believing in the Bible is a mental illness. The Liberty Counsel filed a legal action against the city. The city claims that if someone has a problem with the “Pride Flag” being flown, they need to seek mental health counseling, suggesting that one’s biblical beliefs about human sexuality reveals a mental health condition.
The comment by the city came after Eric Bateman requested to work from home remotely during the Pride Month activities, of which he had successfully performed his work from home before. In response, the city suggested his religious beliefs about human sexuality “may need counseling.” The same option to work remotely is an accommodation given to Muslims when they object to something in the workplace offendng their beliefs.
The Liberty Counsel is arguing First Amendment, citizens may not be put in the impossible position of choosing between their conscience and their livelihood. The employer, since it is a California local government, falls under the State of California Constitution, which also provides a robust religious freedom protection, mandating that employers reasonably accommodate religious beliefs, practices, and grooming, unless it causes significant hardship. Forcing an employee to violate their faith in the workplace, while giving the accommadation being requested to others (like Muslims) violates the State Constitution, as well as federal law Title VII.
Liberty Counsel said it found “the county’s actions forced Bateman to work in an environment that required him to violate his religious convictions, compelled him to ‘affirm a message with which he disagrees,’ and subjected him to unequal treatment compared to employees of other faiths,” which is also a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Liberty Counsel said it is seeking an injunction against the city’s actions in the dispute. Involved are violations of Title VII, the First and Fourteenth Amendments and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
 |
For the Republic
Sunday 5:00 – 7:00 PM Pacific
Hosts: Douglas V. Gibbs
is solo, this week
While Alan is gone (again)… so let’s talk about our godly republic.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said he vowed to “honor” the sacrifice of six U.S. military service members killed in a plane crash last week in a statement during a press conference. He said, “May Almighty God continue to bless our troops in this fight. And again, to the American people, please pray for them, every day, on bended knee, with your family, in your schools, in your churches, in the name of Jesus Christ. To the troops, keep going and Godspeed.”
CBS’s Margaret Brennan responded with an X post that came across as being critical of faith and prayer. She posted, “The Secretary of Defense tells the American public to pray for our troops on bended knee and invoke Jesus’ name…”
While refusing to call the position by its restored name, Secretary of War, the post came across as if she was repulsed by the fact that Hegseth called for prayer. Did she go out of her way to post this, and throw the ellipsis (dot, dot, dot) at the end because she was offended? Was is a passive-aggressive attempt to take a jab at praying or the name of Christ? The common response by conservatives has been that she was attacking people of faith. Americans, however, believe in the power of prayer, and it is a historical reality that goes all the way back to the Founding Fathers.
I suppose we should not be surprised that a left-wing personality is so bothered by a call for prayer. The Biden administration went after Pro-life Christians for silently praying in front of abortion clinics, and the Supreme Court recently unanimously allowed a court case regarding a street preacher convicted of preaching outside the “designated protest area” at a public amphitheater.
Is that why the Democrats and the Teacher’s Union is so against school choice? They’ve been failing our children not only when it comes to education, but when it comes to the freedom to hold opinions other than their far-left ideology. Students graduate functionally illiterate, unprepared, and filled with anti-Christian and antisemitic ideas. When I taught, I expected most of the work to be handwritten, and the class read the chapters of the textbook in class (U.S. History). That is teaching. Did my beliefs bleed a little into the curriculum? Of course. The children learned that the Founding Fathers were pretty amazing men, America faced many challenges that often could be tied to their own policies, and the free market system and system of limited-government fueled what became the most prosperous and free country in history. But those lessons were consitant with the truth – they weren’t some idiotic rants about how someone must have been gay, or that all of America was pro-slavery, or that according to some scholars women were treated like property – all of which is largely untrue.
The hostility toward public expressions of faith from figures like Margaret Brennan reveals a deeper agenda that seeks to erase America’s spiritual heritage from the public square. This secular crusade extends beyond mere offense at prayer; it represents a systematic effort to dismantle the very foundations that made this union of states exceptional. While leftist elites mock calls for divine guidance and rewrite history to paint America as inherently oppressive, they simultaneously fail our children educationally while indoctrinating them with anti-Christian values. The Founding Fathers understood that faith and freedom were inseparable, and any attempt to sever that connection threatens not just our religious liberty, but the entire framework of limited government and individual rights that has defined American greatness. When a Secretary of War calls for prayer and is met with contempt, it’s not just an attack on faith: it’s an attack on America itself.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” — Benjamin Franklin
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary