Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In the grand theater of American politics, we have grown accustomed to the radical left. Figures like Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett wear their progressivism as a badge of honor, a loud and unapologetic declaration of war on traditional values. They are the battering ram, and their assault is overt. But the most dangerous threats to a constitutional republic are never the ones at the gates; they are the ones already invited inside, welcomed under the false pretense of unity and moderation. In Texas, that threat has a name: James Talarico.
Some conservatives are sounding the alarm, not because Talarico is a radical leftist in the mold of Crockett, but because he is something potentially far more dangerous: a radical leftist disguised as a reasonable moderate. This is not a new phenomenon. We have seen this script play out in Virginia, where Abigail Spanberger campaigned as a sensible centrist only to govern, upon taking office, as the most progressive executive in the state’s history. The pattern is clear: hide the agenda, secure the power, then unleash the revolutionary leftist socialist gauntlet.
Talarico is the perfect candidate for this deception. He is articulate, youthful, and presents himself as a man of faith seeking common ground. He speaks of “unity” while advancing a platform that would fundamentally alter the fabric of our republic. His advocacy for banning super PACs is not a reform; it is a direct assault on the First Amendment’s protection of political speech. PACs, in plain English, have served as a vessel allowing conservative fund-raising to compete with the unruly methods by the Democrats – a vessel that allows people to pool their resources for their movement as progressive strategies reach into less conventional, and legal, avenues of fundraising. Talarico’s positions on education are not about helping children; they are about federal overreach and the erasure of parental rights, principles the Founders held sacred.
Most alarmingly, Talarico wields his faith not as a guide but as a shield. He employs a “progressive interpretation of scripture” to justify policies that run counter to the biblical values many Texans hold dear. This is not a man of God bridging divides; this is a political strategist using the language of the church to lull good people into accepting a radical agenda. It is a tactic as cynical as it is effective, and it must be exposed for what it is: a calculated deception.
The argument is not that Talarico is “worse” than Crockett because his policy positions are more extreme. The argument is that he is more dangerous because his method of delivery is more insidious. Crockett rallies her base and energizes ours in equal measure. Her radicalism is a known quantity, easily identified and countered. Talarico, with his calm demeanor and “common-sense” style of talking, is designed to do the opposite. It is meant to lower the guard of the suburban parent, the moderate independent, and even the on-the-fence Republican voter. He is the political equivalent of a serpent, offering a message of calm while concealing a venomous bite.
The Founders designed a system of government that relies on an informed electorate and a basic, shared understanding of its principles. They feared the demagogue, but they also feared the deceiver; the smooth-talking man of ambition who could convince a free people to trade their liberty for a false sense of security. James Talarico represents that precise fear. This is why Colbert pulled what he pulled regarding the interview that he claimed CBS denied him to have – it gave the serpent access to the garden and as a result the slithering deceiver won the primary.
This election in Texas is not just another contest between a Democrat and a Republican. It is a referendum on whether we can see through the facade. It is a test of our vigilance. To underestimate Talarico as just another progressive is to fall for the trap. We must judge him not by the soothing tone of his voice, but by the substance of his ideology. And understand, this is a countrywide concern because there will be a long list of Talarico’s on the ballots around the country for the midterm elections. The future of America as we know it, a bastion of liberty, limited government, and traditional values, may very well depend on our ability to recognize a Trojan horse before it is rolled inside the gates.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers feared judicial tyranny. They had watched British judges operate as little more than a rubber stamp for the Crown and Parliament, enforcing political will rather than the law. That experience shaped the debates at the Constitutional Convention, where some delegates even argued against creating a federal judiciary at all. A federal court system ultimately prevailed only because disputes between states, maritime cases, and controversies involving the federal government required it.
Even then, the Framers rejected the idea that the courts should be the final arbiters of the law or the Constitution. Judicial review, as we now know it, was not granted in the Constitution. The concept was discussed, and rejected on the floor of debate. However, it was later asserted by Chief Justice John Marshall in his judicial opinion regarding Marbury v. Madison (1803). Over time, political elites and the legal class accepted that assertion, and the judiciary gradually elevated itself above the other branches.
As a result, we have drifted into the same trap the colonists faced under the British Empire: believing that a black robe confers superior wisdom and that judges exist to define the law rather than apply it.
The Rule of Law is not merely a collection of statutes or the text of the Constitution. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, it is grounded in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Rule of Law is a moral and legal order that pre-exists government and stands above the will of rulers, judges, or shifting public opinion. It is a framework rooted in objective moral reality, binding on both the governed and those who govern. It is the law not invented by man but discovered by him. It is a moral order observable in human nature and the natural order of things. It is Divine Law, which is a transcendent moral authority acknowledged by the Founding Fathers as the ultimate source of rights and duties. The Rule of Law is not whatever a legislature enacts or a judge declares. It is the alignment of human law and the pre-existing moral architecture of the universe and of the Creator Himself.
Human law is legitimate only when it aligns with that pre‑existing moral architecture. Legislatures cannot redefine it. Judges cannot override it. Government cannot replace it.
To understand the Rule of Law through an originalist lens one must recognize that human nature contains fixed truths, and law must be anchored in those truths. Government is not the creator of rights, but the guardian of rights that come from God. Natural rights are fixed, and government’s role is limited and knowable. Equality before the law flows from a universal moral source. No person, class, or judge stands above it. Legitimate authority arises only from the people, who delegate limited powers to government to secure their natural rights.
Moral order comes first. Political order must follow, and remain subordinate.
The Rule of Law collapses when the Constitution is treated as a “living” document rather than the fixed compact it was designed to be. It collapses when precedent replaces principle, or when natural rights are redefined by elite opinion rather than natural law. The Constitution embodies a natural‑law framework; its meaning is fixed because the truths it rests upon are fixed.
The Rule of Law is fidelity to those moral limits on government. Limits that exist to secure God‑given rights.
Once a society abandons the Rule of Law, and succumbs to the Rule of Man presented by activist politicians and tyrannical judges the descent is swift, and it doesn’t take very long before the culture begins to metaphorically dance around a golden calf.
Judges begin ruling from ideology rather than law. Universal injunctions become political weapons. Courts and legislators attempt to micromanage, seeking predetermined outcomes instead of applying objective legal standards. Political factions use the judiciary to sabotage opponents, discarding constitutional boundaries in pursuit of ideological victory. Judicial philosophy evaporates because the judges themselves no longer believe in one.
Such interference violates the separation of powers and reduces the Rule of Law to an archaic relic. Truth becomes relative. Power, not principle, becomes the currency of governance.
When the Rule of Man replaces the Rule of Law, the constitutional order that once secured American liberty becomes poisoned and discarded, leaving only a path toward tyranny, decay, and the eventual destruction of liberty.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is a war being waged, and nobody is talking about it. It’s not happening in some foreign desert. It’s happening right here, and it’s aimed squarely at you. At us. At people of faith, specifically Christians. And if you haven’t been paying attention, you’re missing the longest and most disgusting warfare of our time.
I’ve been talking about the war against Christians in America my entire life. We can go back to the sixties for a large part of it. They kicked God out of the schools, and they’ve been incrementally removing Him from the public square. But now, I have a couple of articles here that just lay it all bare, and it is chilling. It is a one-for-one playbook right out of every authoritarian regime you’ve ever read about in a history book. The left always, always goes after the people who believe in a higher power than the government. Because if you answer to God, you don’t answer to them. And they cannot stand that.
The first piece details the absolute reign of terror the Biden administration waged on Christians. Armed raids on pro-life Americans! Can you imagine? The FBI storming the homes of people who pray outside an abortion clinic. Meanwhile, Antifa and BLM can burn down cities for a year and they get “mostly peaceful” coverage from the state-run media. This is the double standard. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature of their program.
They talked about the Babylon Bee. A satire site! And why did the left come after them? Because the National Review columnist, Caroline Downey, nailed it. The most threatening speech to a ruling class is mockery. They can’t handle being laughed at. Their entire ideology is built on a foundation of lies and emotional hysteria, and when you shine a light on it with humor, the whole thing collapses. So they had to censor the Bee. They had to. And thank God for Elon Musk, a “benevolent billionaire,” as she puts it. But isn’t that terrifying? That our most fundamental right, the right to speak our minds, now hangs by a thread thanks to one guy who decided to buy a platform? What happens when the next guy is Mark Zuckerberg or some other left-wing stooge?
Then you’ve got this Don Lemon character, a former CNN anchor, marching into a church and disrupting a service. And his defense is his First Amendment rights. See how this works? His right to protest trumps your right to worship. Your right to religion is secondary. The left sees the First Amendment as a hierarchy, and freedom of the press, and only their kind of press, is at the top. Freedom of religion is at the bottom, right next to the right of conservatives to exist.
And the battlefield, as Tony Perkins from the Family Research Council points out, is marriage and gender. That’s the hill they chose to die on. He said the moment Obama came out for same-sex marriage, anyone with a biblical view of marriage was blacklisted. Banished. Even Fox News wouldn’t book them. This is how they operate. They take an institution that has been the bedrock of civilization for 5,000 years and they tell you it’s now “hate speech.” They redefine words, they redefine reality, and if you don’t go along with their new reality, you are the enemy.
But something changed. The tide started to turn. And what was it? It was parents. It was moms and dads who finally had enough of the indoctrination of their children. They showed up at school board meetings and they raised hell. And the left, for the first time, was shocked. They weren’t used to being fought back. That’s what started the resistance. That’s what gave people of faith the backbone to get into the political arena and start taking back ground.
But don’t you get complacent. Don’t you dare think this fight is over. Perkins warns about groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, these junkyard dogs of the left, who have hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank, and their only job is to label every conservative, every Christian, every pro-family group as a “hate group.” They are the ones who provide the intellectual ammunition for the censors.
Which brings me to the second article, and this is the “Ruby Ridge” warning sign. New Zealand’s Defence Force, our alleged allies, mind you, was running war games where the terrorists were “Evangelical Christians.” The villains were people who want to build a state on Christian values. This wasn’t an accident. This was a scenario written by AI, but adopted by the government under a left-wing, socialist leader. The enemy wasn’t radical Islamists. The enemy was Christians who oppose what they call the “Islamification” of their country.
This is not institutional bias, folks. This is conditioning. This is grooming soldiers to see their fellow citizens, people who go to church on Sunday, as the enemy. As terrorists. They are mentally placing ordinary people on the other side of the gun. This is Caesar demanding to be God. When the state decides that your faith is a threat, that your beliefs are a security problem, you are on a very, very dangerous road.
And you know why they’re doing this, right? It’s fear. They are terrified of the Christian message. They are terrified of the truth. They are terrified of a people who will not bow the knee to the state. That’s why Tony Perkins is right when he says, “Now is not the time to be silent. Now is the time to take the hill.”
This cannot be a generation of careful men. We cannot be quiet. We cannot shrink back just because some left-wing nutjob calls us a hater or an extremist. Our charity and our grace do not require us to surrender our values and the safety of our children. It’s time to charge forward. It’s time to retake these institutions. It’s time to speak the truth, and if they call it hate, so be it. Let them be the ones to explain why the Gospel is “hate speech.” Let them be the ones to explain why believing in marriage is “extremism.” The mask is off. We see exactly who they are. And it’s time we fought back with everything we’ve got.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| Tuesday Online Constitution Class |
  3:30 PM Pacific Online Constitution Class |
| Online Mr. Constitution Class www.mr-constitution.com American Liberty’s Foundation. Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The design for Operation Epic Fury based on credible intelligence was launched against Iran long before the actual attack. The planning likely goes way back. It wasn’t hoped for, but it was necessary against a country who has consistently thumbed its nose at any pressure put upon it, thumbed its nose at the U.S. and Israel during diplomacy, and simply said that it was their goal to create chaos in the world, and they had the nuclear capabilities to back up their madness. How do you reason with the unreasonable? How do you negotiate with someone who hates you and is willing to kill you and anyone associated with you because you are not their religion, or not their ideology, or both?
We’ve made that mistake, before. North Korea was not taken seriously, and now is essentially untouchable because of their nuclear capabilities. Presidents during the 1990s kicked the can down the road, and then in 2006 the communists of North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. They have conducted five tests since then.
Once a hostile state successfully acquires nuclear weapons, it becomes significantly more difficult to influence its behavior through diplomacy or conventional military pressure, thereby locking in a dangerous new strategic reality. The failure of preventing North Korea from becoming a nuclear-armed state is a cautionary tale we need not repeat with Iran.
Diplomacy is fine, but if it fails, action must be taken. A nuclear weapon creates a powerful deterrent shield, which allows a regime to act with greater impunity because they know that the cost of disarming them becomes catastrophically high due to the potential of a nuclear response.
If Iran ever achieved nuclear weapons, it would be a point of no return. The recent IAEA report revealed that Iran had enriched uranium to levels approaching weapons-grade and amassed an unprecedented stockpile of it without a credible civilian purpose, giving it the capacity to produce fissile material for multiple bombs on short notice. From this perspective, Iran was not just developing a nuclear program; it was on the verge of finalizing a nuclear weapons capability that would permanently alter the balance of power in the Middle East. The fear is that a nuclear-armed Iran would be emboldened to expand its influence through regional proxies (like Hezbollah and the Houthis), threaten Israel and Europe, and disrupt global oil supplies, all while being shielded from serious military reprisal by its own nuclear arsenal.
The reality of the matter became crystal clear while Iran continued to thumb their nose at everyone during diplomacy, leading President Trump to realize that the only way to prevent a repeat of the North Korean scenario was to act decisively before the nuclear threshold was crossed. Trump, however, did not wish to repeat the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan, so he opted for a targeted military strike aimed at setting back or destroying Iran’s nuclear program with Operation Midnight Hammer in June, and now has followed that up with a U.S. military option framed as one that will force Tehran to negotiate. “Operation Epic Fury” is designed to destroy Iran’s offensive capabilities and ensure “they will never have nuclear weapons.”
In the end, the conclusion was going to be pretty binary: Either accept a nuclear-armed Iran and the permanent threat it poses, or use military force preemptively to prevent that outcome.
War is not a pleasant thing, and nobody in their right mind supports the idea under normal conditions. President Trump has a track record of being against unreasonable war. He’s not a fan of putting boots on the ground, he railed against the Iraq War during Bush’s presidency, and during the first year of this presidency (second term) he negotiated an end to eight wars around the world. But, the same President who established the Board of Peace, and has called himself the Peace President, recognized it was absolutely necessary to launch strikes against Iran last Sunday.
The war in Iran was not unprovoked. President Donald Trump took a bold action against an adversary that has been attacking Americans since the Tehran Hostage Crisis in 1979. The Islamic Republic has been threatening the existence of Israel with constant attacks through their proxies, their own missile attacks, and through terrorism. Iran has been the primary sponsor of Islamic terrorism around the world for over forty-five years. They have destabilized the region and they have terrorized the entire world as they push their madness through key spots in the United Nations and fund it through oil sales. A series of recent protests inside the country challenged the world’s worst Islamic tyrant, and he responded by executing them by the tens of thousands.
A friend of mine escaped Iran in 1982, and he told me that the regime is not loved by the people. Persians love America, and the underground Christian movement is the fastest growing in the world.
Opponents call Trump’s military move against Iran a “regime change,” a dirty phrase that brings our minds back to Iraq. The elimination of Saddam Hussein moved Iraq from the frying pan and into the fire. The tribal mentality of Iraq’s population was not capable of maintaining any ideas of a new system devised and planted by the United States. That is not to say regime change is not possible – it just doesn’t work when it is from a political angle. When we turned Japan around after World War II, it was an economic change. We introduced the free market system, and Japan thrived.
The move against Iran isn’t just about Iran, either. China’s global influence has relied on two primary oil suppliers, Iran and Venezuela. Now, both have been overthrown by American might. Peace is not possible when you have the kinds of regimes that existed in Venezuela and Iran, and taking down China is not possible if the global network that China uses to strike out against the United States and fuel their communist machine remains intact. Using the argument that the attack against Iran was to stop nuclear weapons makes the attack very palatable, and there is a lot of truth to it. But it is also a part of the chess game with China, and the attack was conducted at the right time. Should we have waited until a nuclear missile was launched from Iran and detonated over a major Israeli city, or European city, before we decided that a nuclear Iran might be a danger to the world?
I am not a fan of war, but I recognize sometimes it is necessary. I will admit, I am nervous about the indication that boots might end up on the ground. I do not want a long, drawn-out, ground war like we had in Iraq. Hit the targets, weaken the regime, let those who have resisted the Islamic regime take control, and then send in personnel to guide them the best we can.
That’s the best we can do, and frankly, I don’t know the answer about if this attack against Iran was truly the best move. Only time will give us that answer.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If the Democrats had been in charge, the United States would have lost the Revolutionary War.
The early years of the Revolutionary War offer one of the clearest historical case studies in the dangers of fragmented military authority. General George Washington, appointed Commander in Chief in 1775, entered the conflict with a mandate that was impressive in title but sharply limited in practice. The political culture of the time, deeply suspicious of centralized power, produced a system in which Congress and the individual states routinely interfered with military operations. The result was a Continental Army hamstrung by political micromanagement, administrative chaos, and structural weaknesses that nearly cost the revolution its survival.
The Continental Congress did not initially conceive of the Continental Army as a unified national force. Instead, it viewed the army as a temporary coalition of state militias, each jealously guarding its autonomy. This mindset produced several crippling constraints on Washington’s ability to wage war effectively:
- Short-term enlistments, typically one year, ensured that just as soldiers became seasoned, their terms expired. Washington was forced into a perpetual cycle of rebuilding his army, losing cohesion, experience, and institutional memory. His repeated pleas for longer enlistments were dismissed for fear of creating a “standing army.”
- Political appointments of officers undermined merit-based leadership. Congress insisted on filling general officer positions according to state quotas and political considerations that disregarded merit. Washington often found himself saddled with unreliable or incompetent commanders while being unable to promote proven leaders from within his ranks.
- The requisition system for supplies left the army chronically underfed, underclothed, and undersupplied. Congress could only request provisions from the states, which frequently ignored or delayed those requests. Washington had no authority to compel compliance, even as his men starved at Valley Forge and Morristown.
- Congress’s inability to tax forced reliance on printed money and loans, fueling inflation and leaving soldiers unpaid. Mutinies became a real threat, and Washington lacked the financial tools to stabilize his force.
- Direct interference in strategic decisions further eroded Washington’s authority. Congressional committees, especially the Board of War, routinely second‑guessed his deployments and attempted to dictate battlefield priorities.
These structural flaws came to a head in the pivotal campaign of 1777.
The most damaging instance of congressional interference occurred during the British campaign that ultimately captured Philadelphia. The Board of War, dominated by Washington’s political critics, developed its own strategic plan that contradicted Washington’s professional judgment.
Washington understood that the Continental Army itself was the indispensable asset of the revolution. His strategy emphasized:
- Maintaining mobility
- Preserving the army’s strength
- Forcing the British to fight on ground of his choosing
- Avoiding fixed defenses that risked encirclement or destruction
He repeatedly warned that defending Philadelphia at all costs would tether the army to static positions and invite disaster.
Congress, under immense pressure to protect the capital and tainted by their own ideological political leanings and the influence of outside powerful voices, insisted on a geographically fixed defense. The Board of War demanded that Washington position his forces to block every conceivable British route to Philadelphia. This political directive forced Washington into defensive postures he believed were strategically unsound.
The consequences were immediate and severe:
- At Brandywine, Washington was compelled to defend a line chosen for political reasons rather than tactical advantage. The British flanked him, routed his army, and opened the road to Philadelphia.
- At Germantown, Washington launched a complex counterattack in a desperate attempt to retake the city. The plan failed, and the defeat compounded the political humiliation of losing the capital.
Both battles were fought on terms dictated not by military necessity but by congressional insistence on defending a symbolic location.
The string of early defeats, eight losses in the first eleven major engagements, combined with the near‑collapse of the army in late 1776 and early 1777, forced Congress to confront the consequences of its interference. Washington’s bold victories at Trenton and Princeton, achieved when he acted without congressional micromanagement, demonstrated the effectiveness of decisive, unified command.
Gradually, Congress began to change course:
- Longer enlistments were approved, allowing the creation of a more professional standing force.
- The Board of War was reorganized, and in 1781 Congress created the office of Secretary at War to centralize administrative authority.
- Congress increasingly deferred to Washington on officer appointments, operational strategy, and battlefield decisions.
- Washington’s leadership at Valley Forge, especially the training reforms implemented by Baron von Steuben, solidified congressional trust in his judgment.
This evolution, from a politically hampered command structure to one granting Washington greater autonomy, was essential to the eventual American victory. It enabled the Continental Army to mature into a disciplined fighting force capable of executing complex, long-term strategies, culminating in the decisive Yorktown campaign of 1781.
The Revolutionary War demonstrates that while civilian oversight of the military is essential, excessive political interference in operational command can be catastrophic. Washington’s experience shows that a commander must have sufficient authority to execute strategy, maintain discipline, and preserve the fighting force – especially during moments of national crisis.
The Founders learned this lesson through hardship. Their eventual trust in Washington’s judgment helped secure American independence, and led to the language in the United States Constitution naming the President of the United States the Commander in Chief over America’s military forces. The balance they sought, civilian control without operational micromanagement, remains a foundational principle of American war powers to this day.
Yet, history’s most urgent lessons are often the first to be forgotten by those who refuse to learn. Today, we see a revival of the same congressional arrogance and strategic ignorance that nearly doomed the revolution in 1777. Spurred by ideological opposition to the President and fueled by a media-driven panic, a coalition in Congress is demanding a new War Powers Act to shackle the modern Commander in Chief. Their grievance? They were not consulted in advance about the necessary and successful military operations targeting the narco-terrorist regime of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela or the decisive joint strike with Israel against Iranian aggression.
This is not principled oversight; it is a dangerous attempt to re-impose the failed model of legislative command. The proponents of this new restriction would have the United States military operate under the same paralyzing conditions that hamstrung Washington at Brandywine. They demand that critical, time-sensitive strikes be subjected to the same political horse-trading and state quota considerations that once promoted incompetent generals and starved Continental soldiers. They seek to replace the decisive judgment of a single Commander in Chief with the chaotic, committee-driven “strategy” that lost Philadelphia.
The modern world does not wait for a congressional committee to debate. A missile launch from Tehran or a terrorist plot hatched in Caracas demands a response measured in minutes, not months. To tie the President’s hands in such moments is not to uphold the Constitution; it is to invite disaster. It is to willingly trade American security for political theater, to sacrifice strategic surprise on the altar of legislative grievance.
The lesson of the Revolutionary War was not that civilian control is optional, but that operational micromanagement is suicidal. The Founders gave the President the mantle of Commander in Chief precisely to prevent a repeat of 1777’s catastrophic folly. Congress’s current push to restrict that authority is a declaration that they have learned nothing from the sacrifice at Valley Forge or the victory at Yorktown. It is an attempt to win political points by ensuring that when the next crisis arrives, America will be led not by a decisive commander, but by a bickering committee…a recipe for defeat that George Washington would find tragically, and dangerously, familiar.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary