Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Department of Justice’s ongoing clash with left‑leaning federal judges, more often than not (it seems) with judges like Judge James Boasberg, highlights a growing constitutional crisis: inferior courts increasingly act as if they possess supervisory authority over the executive branch. The latest flashpoint came when an appeals court suspended Boasberg’s contempt order against the Trump administration for its March deportation of Venezuelan criminal aliens to El Salvador. The DOJ went further, requesting Boasberg’s removal on the grounds that he has launched a politically motivated campaign against the administration.
Boasberg accused the administration of “willful disobedience” for failing to comply with his earlier directive to return the deportation planes, declaring, “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” He further claimed that the deportees were “spirited out of this country without a hearing,” asserting that senior officials knowingly violated judicial commands.
Democratic politicians seized on the dispute, arguing that the administration’s resistance to lower‑court orders proves that President Trump is a would‑be dictator ignoring the Constitution. But this raises a fundamental constitutional question: Where in the Constitution is the executive branch required to obey the orders of inferior federal courts?
Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, whose duty is to execute the laws of the United States. Immigration law is being executed. Nothing in the Constitution grants the judiciary authority to micromanage executive enforcement decisions, nor does it empower district judges to supervise or override presidential discretion in matters of foreign policy, deportation, or national security.
The Founders established that the judiciary may issue opinions, but not commands. This is among the reasons why the judiciary was never originally given an enforcement arm. Alexander Hamilton described the judiciary as the “least dangerous branch.”
History provides clear examples of presidents rejecting judicial overreach:
• Thomas Jefferson refused Chief Justice John Marshall’s order to deliver William Marbury’s commission. Marshall himself acknowledged that the Court lacked the power to enforce its own directives.
• Andrew Jackson, confronted with a Supreme Court ruling he believed unconstitutional, famously responded, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
These episodes underscore a constitutional reality: the judiciary may apply the law to the cases they hear, but they may not compel the executive to act against its own constitutional duties.
The Constitution’s first three articles each begin with the word “vested” included in the opening salvo. The presence of the word “vested” was a deliberate structural choice establishing three separate branches. Each branch possesses powers that are exclusive and nontransferable. When a federal judge attempts to dictate how the President must execute immigration law, the judiciary crosses into executive territory, precisely what the Framers sought to prevent.
Boasberg’s order, therefore, raises a deeper issue: Is the judiciary attempting to exercise powers not vested in it by the Constitution?
The orders aren’t even based on constitutional grounds, anyway. Critics argue that deported criminal aliens were denied due process. But Article IV, Section 2 makes clear that the privileges and immunities associated with citizenship apply to citizens, not to individuals who have entered the country illegally. While Congress or the executive may choose to extend procedural protections to non‑citizens, the Constitution does not require it.
To claim otherwise is to rewrite the constitutional text.
If a federal judge repeatedly issues orders that exceed constitutional authority, interfere with the executive’s vested powers, or appear politically motivated, impeachment becomes not only permissible but necessary. The Constitution provides impeachment as the remedy for “bad behavior” by federal judges; behavior that includes issuing unconstitutional directives or attempting to usurp powers belonging to another branch.
Judge Boasberg’s actions, viewed through this constitutional lens, raise serious concerns about judicial overreach and the erosion of separation of powers. If inferior courts can dictate executive action in defiance of constitutional boundaries, then the balance of power collapses, and with it, the structure the Framers designed to preserve liberty.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Self‑examination is a deeply Christian discipline. It requires humility, honesty, and the willingness to confront one’s own failures; traits that historically lead to repentance and course correction. But the modern hard‑left, and the Democratic Party increasingly shaped by it, appears fundamentally incapable of such introspection. To look inward would be to unravel the very foundations of what they have built.
The Democratic Party has become so entangled in layers of deception, radical ideology, and moral inversion that a genuine look in the mirror would expose far more than they can afford to admit. Their political survival depends on avoiding that mirror at all costs.
Every election cycle ultimately returns to the economy – After all, “it’s the economy, stupid,” right? And time after time, the Democrats’ Keynesian prescriptions fail to deliver prosperity.
Yet the pattern repeats:
• pump more fiat money into the system,
• impose heavier regulations and fees,
• raise the cost of doing business,
• obstruct producers and job creators,
• and then blame their opponents when the inevitable failing consequences arrive.
Rather than self‑correct, they double down. Admitting error would require acknowledging the flaws in their worldview, and that is something the party’s current ideological trajectory simply cannot allow.
For years, Democrats have shouted that they are “saving democracy” from their GOP opponents. But their own actions tell a different story.
• In 2016, party leadership sidelined the grassroots to ensure Hillary Clinton’s nomination.
• In 2020, they cleared the field for Joe Biden with ruthless efficiency.
• In 2024, they bypassed the primary process entirely to install Kamala Harris at the top of the ticket.
So much for the defenders of democracy, much less keeping the republic…
Some observers have even raised concerns about election integrity during these cycles, 2020 being the most glaring example. Electoral monkey-business seems to have become the norm anymore for them… but if you question it you are a conspiracy theorist or insurrectionist. And, when evidence pops up supporting such claims, the absent concerns by the Democrats become dismissals rather than any consideration to address such claims.
A movement that claims to champion democracy while manipulating its own internal processes cannot afford to self‑examine. Any movement that claims to champion democracy but plays games with the electoral process also cannot afford to self-examine. Doing so would expose the contradictions.
The Democrats also insist they are the party of inclusion, yet their policies increasingly alienate the very groups they once relied upon.
• Men are turning away in large numbers, frustrated by ideological wokeness.
• Minority voters, long considered a reliable bloc, are drifting as cultural radicalism and economic stagnation take their toll.
The only group not bleeding numbers away from the Democratic Party are the progressive, hard-left, feminist women.
The party’s response is not reflection but accusation. Rather than ask why voters are leaving, they label dissenters as misled, manipulated, or morally suspect.
The lies and deception have become such a norm for them that they couldn’t even admit to anything that everyone saw with their own two eyes when Biden’s mental acuity was falling up the stairs. The truth about Joe Biden’s mental decline became hidden by them in a manner that reminded me of a child hiding behind a mailbox during a game of hide and seek. They were hiding nothing from the public for years, yet still claim there was no problem with Biden’s mental health. The subsequent revelations point to a level of systemic corruption that may require a political cleansing far deeper than the party is prepared to undertake.
Meanwhile, the relentless attacks on Donald Trump, be it lawfare, legislative maneuvers, and prosecutorial crusades, have exposed a network of partisan actors whose conduct raises serious questions. Names like Letitia James, Fani Willis, Jack Smith, James Comey, John Brennan, and others have become symbols of a broader institutional decay and corruption. Add to that the scandals involving figures like Tim Walz in Minnesota or the political machinations of Gavin Newsom, and the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.
The deeper the corruption is exposed, the louder the denials become.
And all of that noise is rising up and it is becoming much louder than their claims that Donald Trump is some kind of fascist. As a result, the Democratic Party now finds itself locked in an internal struggle between its traditional base and its increasingly radicalized left flank as the country watches the fireworks and recognizes that the Democratic Party’s self-inflicted wounds are now becoming a fatal infection. The louder the internal conflict grows, the more the party projects its own failings onto Trump and the GOP, and reveals its own weaknesses and deceptions.
The cries of victimhood, the frantic accusations, and the desperate attempts to hide connections and bury scandals… none of it serves as signs of confidence. They are all spasms of a movement losing control because of its flawed narrative.
History offers a warning. The Federalist Party and the Whig Party both collapsed under the weight of internal contradictions and ideological exhaustion. Their final years were marked by denial, infighting, and frantic attempts to maintain relevance.
The parallels are hard to ignore.
One wonders if we are witnessing the last gasps of a fading party.
As the Democratic Party continues its march toward ideological extremism, its ability to self‑examine diminishes. And without self‑examination, there can be no repentance, no correction, and no return to sanity.
Instead, we see projection, secrecy, and a desperate clinging to power.
The question now is not whether the party will change course. It is whether it still possesses the capacity to do so. And if not, we may indeed be witnessing the final convulsions of a once‑dominant political force that has forgotten how to look in the mirror.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Politics runs through everything we experience in life. Maybe not necessarily the same politics as we see in Washington D.C., but politics in general. There are always those seeking power, seeking to preserve their power, the wealthy and powerful seeking to secure their position, and those who manipulate the whole thing to get the outcome they demand. Meanwhile, the minority voice pushes back and sometimes in an attempt to quell their frustrations the system may give in a little and create a temporary fix while doing what they can to keep the deep down guts of the system intact. It’s true in Washington, it’s true at the state level, it’s true in local politics, and it’s true in college football.
Three weeks ago I wrote about how already flaws were beginning to emerge in the new college football playoff scheme. Alabama, after losing to Georgia in the conference championship, was still getting in, and other teams who were obviously not up to the challenge looked like they were getting in as well. It made the conference championship game look like it was a moot point when it came to the SEC. And, the match-ups with the schools from the minor conferences, while they should have a chance to prove their worth on the field, created match-ups everyone knew would end the way they did… with the G5 teams getting beaten up pretty badly. The system they created for this year made for a bad first round when it came to Tulane and James Madison being in the mix. I suggested at the time that perhaps the way to do it would be to just let the teams in the playoffs be the conference champs, regardless of ranking, and then have a couple at large teams. But, that too would be very flawed. It would, in fact, only exacerbate the problem.
Then, I got to thinking. The playoff controversy is not being caused by the playoff format. The problem is the regular season ecosystem that prevents Group of Five (G5) teams from proving themselves during seasonal play.
The system is built backwards.
As it stands right now, the power conferences control the money, they control the scheduling, and they control the narrative. They have no incentive to give a rising G5 team a fair shot. So when a James Madison or Tulane goes 12-1, or God forbid has an undefeated season, the critics say, “Well, they didn’t play anyone.” Or, “They don’t draw ratings.” Or, “They’ll get blown out.” And, more often than not, they are correct. But, those same critics support a system that prevents the G5 teams from playing anyone of a higher caliber during the regular season in the first place.
It’s a grand contradiction packaged and delivered by the power and big money of college football.
In other words, the problem isn’t the playoff format. The regular season is the real problem.
First of all, power conference teams have rigged the system so that they can avoid dangerous G5 opponents. A top-25 SEC or Big Ten team gains nothing by scheduling a strong G5 opponent. If they win: “Well, they should have.” If they lose: “The season is ruined.” So, they schedule FCS cupcakes, bottom-tier G5 teams, and they make sure it’s a “home-only contract,” meaning that the G5 or FCS team opponent will only be scheduled to play the Power Conference team at the Power team’s stadium with no return game at the smaller school’s stadium. By doing this the Power Schools still get the revenue of filling their stadiums, they have guaranteed TV control over the game, they keep their competitive advantage, and it eliminates the risk of losing on the road to a smaller program. A road loss to a G5 team is a resume killer, and a home win over a G5 team is resume padding. The system they’ve created protects the Power Conference teams’ playoff resumes and their revenue.
The problem is, G5 teams can’t build a resume without access. Teams like James Madison, Tulane, Liberty, Fresno State or Boise State all face the same wall: They can dominate their conference, and they can even win 10-12 games, but they can’t get two or three meaningful Power Five (P5) games to prove legitimacy. If they had those games, the playoff committee wouldn’t be guessing, or playing favorites – they’d be making their decisions about who gets into the playoffs based on solid on-the-field evidence.
The problem goes deeper than just the domination and control by the Power Conferences. The advertisers and networks want “brand value.” They want those big match-ups between the Big 10 or SEC giants. There is not as much money to be made with games like JMU vs. Oregon State, Tulane vs. Kansas State or Iowa State vs. North Texas. Not necessarily because the game would be that bad of a game, but because the brands would not draw ratings. So, the system is built to protect the brands.
Bringing me back to my original idea…
The solution is not a new playoff system, or more tweaking to the playoff format that still leaves teams out of the final twelve who believe they deserved a chance to prove their merit on the field. The solution lies in the regular season. There should be mandated cross-conference scheduling.
If every G5 conference champion contender was able to play two to three Power Conference opponents per year, the conversation at the end of the year would be entirely different. I want G5 teams to be able to prove themselves on the field of battle, so why not give them that chance during the season so that if they fail you don’t have to include them in the playoffs after the regular season has ended. But, if they pull those games off during the regular season, now it seems reasonable to give them the chance during the post-season. A tougher schedule would give the G5 teams a real resume, give the committee real data, give fans better September football, reduce the “they don’t deserve to be here” argument during the post-season, and force the big conferences to put their money where their mouth is.
And to be honest, in the end it would make college football healthier, and recruiting more competitive across the board.
If in 2025 Tulane had beaten a team like Ole Miss or Kansas State, and played a competitive game versus LSU; or if James Madison had beaten a team like Virginia Tech, played Penn State close, and upset a mid-tier SEC team, the questions about playoff spots would be resolved before the playoffs were upon us. The allowance of these G5 conference champs into the playoffs would have been more digestible. And if they had lost all of those games, there would be no reason to cry when they were denied access to the playoffs. They had their chance to prove themselves, and they didn’t pull it off. As it stands now, G5 teams are judged on conference games, perhaps one P5 opponent, and the feelings that some members of the committee might have in letting them get their chance because of how they got ranked. That’s not a fair system, and at the moment it let’s teams squeak in that may not be able to compete as hoped during the playoffs.
To make it fair, a rising G5 program needs road tests, home tests, National exposure, and real resume games. What they get is one-off road games, no return visits, no chance to host a big opponent, and no chance to build a playoff resume at home. The regular season is structurally designed to prevent G5 teams from proving themselves. Then, the power conferences sit there in their ivory towers and proclaim that the G5 teams don’t deserve a chance because they don’t play anyone. But the reality is, they won’t play them unless it’s at the Power 5 home field, on the terms of the Power Conferences, with their officials, their crowd, and their TV deal.
The root cause of the playoff controversy is not that the playoff is broken. The regular season is protecting the powerful and isolating any challengers. If college football wants fairness, they need to shake up the system at its foundation. They need to mandate cross-conference scheduling, require during the regular season that P5 teams play at least one top-tier G5 opponent, and that some of those games be played at the G5 opponent’s home stadium. Give every G5 contender two to three games versus Power teams, with at least one being a home game. This will give G5 teams a real path to legitimacy, and partly shatter the image that the most powerful and wealthiest teams and conferences are too afraid to allow any challengers any chance to get their heads above the waterline. Then, once the regular season follows what I have recommended, the playoff becomes self-correcting.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We are less than a year away from the 2026 Mid-Term Elections and President Donald Trump’s opposition are pulling out all of the stops. While the progressive left claims Donald Trump is a dangerous dictator, and many of their voting minions believe them, many of the issues that cross the kitchen counter in conversation are beginning to swing in favor of Republican leadership.
While Trump’s use of tariffs were predicted by the Democrats to be an economic disaster in the making, the U.S. economy has grown by more than 4%, much larger than any other country around the world. The tariffs ultimately have narrowed the trade deficit, are stimulating domestic manufacturing, and have brought a massive amount of foreign investments into the United States.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2026 is in position to boost business investment, boost wages, slash the cost of doing business and leave much more money in the pockets of the average American.
By rolling back regulations and increasing domestic energy production the free market will be increasing production and supply even more so in 2026, which in turn will expand output and productivity which increase economic value in the system – a key factor when combating the inflation caused by the Biden administration’s flooding of the monetary system with fiat funds. Real incomes will bounce back, and sweeping tax reductions will leave more in the bank accounts of the American people.
When domestic manufacturing increases the unemployment rate drops, consumerism increases, and prices drop. Meanwhile, thanks to the tariffs, revenue from customs and excise taxes has been climbing massively. Once it all starts rolling more greatly in 2026, success will begin to beget success, and U.S. production will continue to steadily rise. Oil prices have been falling, and that reduction in fuel costs alone has a massive impact on the overall American market.
All of this is important because, through Donald Trump’s name won’t appear on the midterm ballot, but the issues that Americans can see and feel will be. The success of his presidency, regardless of claims to the contrary by his opponents, is something that will influence Americans as they go to the ballot box. And, voters will likely respond in a manner that will favor the Republican Party next November if they feel confident that the President’s policies are working in their favor and that he needs more allies in Congress to continue the trend.
The Democrats fear that Republicans will increase their majority in Congress, and they are doing everything they can to stop MAGA’s momentum. Despite history’s tendency to favor the party not in power in mid-term elections, the historical trend is not set in stone. While the Democrats are hoping for a repeat of the 2018 House meltdown that gave the Democrats a congressional triumph during Trump’s first term second-half, with a lot of help from his successes, a large GOP turnout and a staunch foundation of election integrity to ward off any ideas by the party-of-the-donkey to rig and steal it, I believe this year’s mid-term will swing in favor of Trump.
Democrats, understand, will do everything in their power to regain some semblance of power, be it more government shutdowns, or a threat of yet another Trump impeachment. And, if Democrats don’t take the House or the Senate in this upcoming election, and the prospects of economic improvement and national security largely through President Trump’s immigration policy and updated Monroe Doctrine continues to show great success, 2028 may be a bleak year on the horizon for the Democrats, as well.
I am not necessarily predicting a “red-wave.” The congressional gerrymandering war may temper some of the advances that Republicans hope to achieve. Then again, the reactionary position of the Democratic Party may also work against them. In California, for example, in order to combat redistricting efforts in Texas, and other red states, the deeper gerrymandering of an already deep blue case of political gymnastics has possibly created more Democrat Party heavy districts, but the blue votes have been diluted across the State to achieve the desired outcome. If President Trump’s economy continues to roar in the right direction, the Democrats may actually lose some of those districts in the Golden State because many voters are willing to step over to the other side when their wallet is in the conversation. And, perhaps, the California Governor’s Mansion may even be in play as well if Trump’s approval rating keeps rising and the disapproval of the rudderless Democrats keeps dropping to historic lows.
While the Democratic Party is notorious for getting out the vote in mid-term elections, Trump’s allies are ready to turn out in record numbers as well. They know that the decision to bring Trump back to the White House in the last election must be defended. Republican voters heavily favor Trump’s policies. Independents are leaning toward the President. And Democratic voters, other than the craziest WOKE, commie, hard-left ones, are leaving the party in droves.
But, it all hangs in the balance over if the economic signs of improvement in 2026 come to pass. And improvement alone is not good enough if the public can’t see it. The improvement must be visible to the average voter despite the media’s and Democrat Party’s claims to the contrary.
America’s enemies hope for other disrupters, too – natural disasters, sudden national security disruptions or the rise of some kind of scandal that they can sink their teeth into. But, barring any unforeseen crises, and with the expectation that the economy will continue to visibly improve, all signs point to both Houses of Congress increasing the Republican majority by the time the mid-term elections are over.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The progressive left’s play with words just shot them in the foot. The Democrats and their socialist allies depend upon optics more than truth, so they parse words in the hope of making you have one perception when the reality might be something different. With that in mind, in retaliation against Trump’s use of the National Guard to assist ICE in the execution of immigration law, they call it the use of the military in our cities. They want the reasons behind the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 to bubble fearfully inside your head.
The Posse Comitatus law came at the end of Reconstruction to limit the use of the U.S. Army after it was used to occupy The South after the War Between the States. The term posse comitatus is Latin for “power of the country,” referring to citizens having the preferred option of calling upon the sheriff, local law enforcement, and if necessary the local militia to keep the peace rather than a standing army under the control of the federal government. The law was passed after pressure from Southern Democrats calling for restrictions on the use of the military in internal affairs. The act also reflected a long-standing suspicion that was shared by the Founding Fathers of the use of standing armies to enforce civilian law, which is also rooted in English common law and colonial history.
The Democrats, from day one of Donald Trump’s presidency, have argued he is a wannabe dictator willing to use the force of the federal government in an authoritarian manner, so when he sought to deploy the National Guard to assist in the execution of immigration law, his opponents saw their opportunity and screamed that he was using the military against the American People. According to Congress, there are exceptions to the domestic use of the military by the federal government, like:
- The Insurrection Act: Allowing deployment to quell rebellion or execute federal law
- Disaster Response: When assisting, but not leading law enforcement
- Counter-Drug Operations: In a support role, only
- Border Support: Logistical roles, but may not be used to police civilians
Basically, the understanding in American Law is that the military may be used to assist, but generally they have no policing powers (arrest, search, seizure, or investigation of civilians unless authorized by law).
In the past, the use of the military domestically has become a topic of debate during times of major riots, civil unrest, border enforcement strategies, pandemic or natural disaster responses, and terrorism events within U.S. territory.
Getting back to the Democrats using optics and perception for their narrative, rather than actual truth, their aim from the beginning has been to create in the minds of Americans a totalitarian military minded system being pushed by Donald Trump. That’s one of the reasons they have called him a fascist, and a modern-day Hitler. They want to stir up images of Nazi soldiers marching through the streets of America – a police-state enforced by military rule.
So, with that narrative in mind, the line between who the military is and who the militia is has been blurred. The Democrats have been relentless in their use of language calling the militia the military. But, the National Guard is not the military. It is the militia.
Aside from a narrative filled with illusory optics and perception, the Democrats have also deployed a massive lawfare campaign. Yes, they’ve been hitting Donald Trump with lawsuits ever since he first emerged on the political scene, but during this second term the lawfare has been ratcheted up targeting pretty much everything he does. The lower courts have been pretty consistent in ruling against the President, but more often than not he wins once it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Among the most recent cases to reach the Supreme Court is Trump v. Illinois. The High Court ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, and the media is calling it a big defeat for The President. But, because of the language used in the ruling, using the word “military” rather than “militia” when it comes to the National Guard, the ruling created an interesting unintended consequence. The language of the ruling changes how a President of the United States may execute federal law when it comes to the use of military resources.
President Trump deployed the National Guard to Chicago in early October of 2025 using 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, plus additional Guard members from Texas. The justification used by the Trump administration was that the deployment was necessary due to political and civilian obstruction to federal immigration operations. The Guard was deployed to support ICE facilities and personnel, including at the Broadview ICE facility. The deployment aligns with the U.S. Constitution where in Article I, Section 8 it calls for the militia being used to execute federal law.
President Trump also publicly stated that Chicago’s violent crime justified federal intervention, considering the level of violence to be “rebellious,” which makes the deployment of the militia (National Guard) consistent with the Article I, Section 8 power to “suppress insurrections.”
Once the Democrats launched a lawsuit against the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry blocked the deployment almost immediately ruling that the administration had not identified lawful authority for using the Guard in this manner, despite the fact that the White House had already identified constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8.
Once the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled 6-3 not to lift the injunction, leaving the block in place while litigation continues. The unsigned order stated:
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”
The three justices who dissented were Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
From an original intent point of view of the U.S. Constitution, according to Article I, Section 8, Congress may call forth the militia (which, according to the Militia Act of 1903 is the National Guard) to:
- Execute the laws of the Union
- Suppress insurrections
- Repel invasions
When called into federal service, the Guard falls under the authority of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). Therefore, if the Guard was deployed to assist ICE in executing federal immigration law, the deployment fits squarely within this clause. If the Guard was deployed to suppress violent crime rising to the level of insurrection, it also fits.
Article IV., Section 4’s “Domestic Violence” Clause requires that the state legislature (or the governor if the legislature cannot convene) must request federal support to quell “domestic violence.” This clause, which is likely what the Democrats are using when they claim President Trump may not use “troops” inside the states without their permission, only applies when the purpose is to restore order that has not risen to the level of insurrection, and when the federal government is not executing federal law. This may also be the clause some of the Supreme Court justices were focusing on, but it’s a misapplication if the stated purpose was to execute federal immigration law, or suppressing insurrection-level violence. During the Whiskey Rebellion during President George Washington’s time in office the violence in that instance was considered to reach the level of insurrection, and Washington used the militia for the purpose of executing a federal tax – both serving as historical precedent supporting President Trump’s use of the National Guard in Chicago.
In the ruling the Supreme Court stated that the government failed to identify the authority allowing “the military” to execute the laws in Illinois, which brings us back to the progressive left’s use of language for optics. The National Guard, when federalized, is not the same as the standing Army. It is the constitutional militia according to U.S. Law – the very force the Founding Fathers intended to be used instead of the standing army for domestic law execution. The Court’s language implies that the Guard is the military, and since it is the military it cannot execute laws unless using a law that allows it; therefore, the President must first justify using “the military.” This flips the logic of the Founding Fathers on its head.
From a historical point of view, the Founders desired that communities used local authorities first. Then, if federal law needed to be executed domestically, the President may utilize federal civil officers and then the militia. The military may be used only as a last resort. The Court’s response seems to reverse this order, justifying military use before militia use – directly opposite of constitutional design.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling misreads and misapplies the Constitution by treating the National Guard as if it were a standing army. As previously stated, under Article I, Section 8, the militia is the constitutionally preferred force for executing federal law and suppressing insurrections. By implying the President must first justify the use of the regular military before federalizing the Guard, the Court has inverted the Founders’ intended hierarchy of force and undermined the very safeguards they built to prevent domestic military rule.
In the end, when trying to convince the American People with a narrative that called the militia (National Guard) the military, and by using that same language in the ruling by the Supreme Court regarding Illinois v. Trump, the language of the ruling instructs that the regular Armed Forces must be used first before the President can bring out the National Guard. In other words, because of their screaming and trying to convince you that the National Guard is the military, the Supreme Court’s ruling using that kind of language may actually lead to the use of active-duty military units domestically – an unintended consequence they brought about themselves due to their games with language.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Long History of Democratic Party Rot
By Douglas V. Gibbs
How many people have believed that the deep dark establishment of the political left is evil, corrupt, and even murderous? Ever since the nineties we’ve heard about the Clinton Kill List. Nobody has ever been able to prove it, but deep down we know it exists. It worked its way into mainstream conversation with the deaths of Seth Rich, and notorious sex-island pedo Jeffery Epstein. Then, the investigations about secret email servers and dark schemes to go after Donald Trump emerged. Again, we were not surprised, but until lately the truth of the whole thing never really made it to mainstream discussions. Typically, it was only talked about during conservative gatherings with hushed jokes and careful whispers.
Recently, news of a trail that leads back to Hillary Clinton in 2016 has surfaced regarding foreign donations flowing to the Clinton Foundation while she steered American foreign policy as Secretary of State. Of course, the FBI machine back then was more than happy to let the trail go cold. Documents published a couple weeks ago revealed the existence of reports about concerns of foreign bribery back then. A 2016 book by investigative journalist Peter Schweizer called “Clinton Cash” helped kick off the 2016 Cracked Foundation investigation.
The Clintons aren’t the only ones capable of behind-the-scenes antics. Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Gavin Newsom, and Ilhan Omar experienced questionable financial gains once in office, as has their significant others in the cases of Pelosi and Omar.
Then, of course, there is the myriad of Hollywood Productions on the political stage designed to create the political drama the Democrats believe serves their political interests, from the Russia-Russia-Russia Hoax regarding Donald Trump to the agitation/FBI-plant/staging of the alleged insurrection of January 6 to the lawfare antics that conveniently uses leftist federal judges on the public stage for all to see.
In other words, the Progressive Democrats and their Deep State allies are willing to go to just about any length to gain and maintain their power and wealth. From agitations to assassinations, nothing seems to be too far to go to secure their power and wealth. And since President Donald Trump took office nearly a year ago, a nice long list of exposed dark schemes are now bubbling to the surface.
After ruining the lives and careers of anyone who dared claim that the 2020 Election was stolen, and in particular when it came to the State of Georgia where Fani Willis staged a vicious lawfare campaign regarding those claims, recent news has come out that Fulton County now admits to illegally counting 315,000 ballots. That means that if those illegal votes had not been counted, Trump would have won Georgia by somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 votes. Now, a new investigation has been opened, and I have a feeling the recent revelation of 315,000 votes is only the tip of the iceberg. Other revelations of election fraud have been springing up around the country, with a case in southern Texas likely changing a district from blue to red.
In Los Angeles a cover-up has been exposed regarding the Palisades firestorm on January 7, 2025. According to PJ Media, Mayor “Bass’s office and the leadership at the LAFD removed, erased, and excised information that implicated the state’s role and the city’s botched preparation and response to the Lachman Fire and the state’s standing orders to allow those fires to burn themselves out.” In short, L.A. Fire and city brass chose not to pre-deploy and fully staff-up for the fire – a decision that did not align with the department’s policy and procedures during red flag days. What else are they hiding?
The fraud and corruption and willingness to do things that may even incite the assassination of a candidate for President of the United States is not beyond these people. Their power, their wealth, and their arrogance have led them to a position where it seems nothing is off the table.
Which brings us to Minnesota, and the Somali Fraud.
The fraud in Minnesota is not an isolated incident, and we are finding out that it is tied to much deeper dark engines inside the Democratic Party than what we see on the surface. It all came to light with the Feeding Our Future fraud where the Feeding Our Future non-profit fraudulently siphoned roughly $250-300 million in federal funds, making it the largest pandemic-relief fraud scheme ever brought to light. More than 90 people have been charged, with at least 60 convicted so far. Defendants enrolled restaurants, storefronts, or community centers as “meal distribution sites” under Feeding Our Future’s sponsorship. The meal counts were falsified with fake invoices and meal count sheets, and then the money was laundered through various false companies, fake food vendors, real estate purchases and luxury goods. One defendant used a property company to launder nearly $1 million, buying homes that also operated as taxpayer-funded group homes. While the whole thing exposed the vulnerabilities in federal pandemic-era oversight, it triggered investigations that have exposed a long list of fraud cases, with the FBI calling it “the tip of a very large iceberg” as they investigate related schemes.
The Minnesota fraud also includes up to $18 billion in Medicaid-related spending since 2018 that may have been misused, and other related fraud schemes costing the American taxpayers billions more with a large number of the defendants being Somali. The scandal is partially the result of failure of oversight by Governor Tim Walz who failed to act despite years of warnings. For the Democrats in Minnesota, the “walls are caving in” on Walz as whistleblowers and mayors come forward with claims of a long train of systemic fraud tied to Somali-run programs. The claims are that Walz either ignored the warnings, lacked the competence to prevent the fraud, failed to take action for fear of being accused of being racist, or had his hands in it himself – the latter being a possibility that seems to be bubbling to the surface as we begin to see how many hands were in the scheme through FBI investigations and other revealing reports.
A viral video by independent journalist Nick Shirley showed visits to several Somali-run daycare centers that appeared to be inactive despite allegedly receiving millions in government funding. Federal authorities, including Homeland Security Investigations, launched a new massive investigation following the video’s release.
Representative Kevin Kiley, R-CA, recently unveiled similar mismanagement of taxpayer funds in California, calling it worse than anything going on in Minnesota. According to an audit, the number of high-risk agencies in California that may be vulnerable to fraud, abuse, and mismanagement has doubled while Governor Gavin Newsom has been in office. According to Kiley, “They failed to take corrective steps, costing taxpayers billions and billions of dollars…$24 billion that was spent on homelessness in the state audit also found that the state just lost track of that money as homelessness soared…$32 billion lost to unemployment fraud…a third of our community college applications are fraudulent…The list goes on and on and on.”
Carl DeMaio, California State Assemblyman representing District 75, claims Newsom is overseeing a widespread and costly welfare fraud, arguing that the scale of the alleged misconduct far exceeds similar issues raised in other states and that national media outlets have largely failed to scrutinize the situation.
In Minnesota, protecting the schemes may have even led to the assassination of a member of the state legislature. According to the Libs of TikTok, Melissa Hortman was the only Democrat to vote against healthcare for illegals in the state legislature, and then was found assassinated a few days later. The Democratic representative had held an office in the Minnesota State House of Representatives since 2023, and was murdered by Vance Boelter who was indicted on July 15, 2025 on six federal charges in connection to her death, that of her husband Mark Hortman, the shootings of Senator John Hoffman and Yvette Hoffman, and the attempted shooting of Hope Hoffman. Vance Boelter was re-appointed to a Minnesota state advisory board by Governor Tim Walz six years ago, though it was a minor, unpaid position and no personal relationship or ideological alignment between Walz and Boelter has been established.
Could her vote have angered individuals connected to Minnesota’s large welfare-fraud networks to the point that they would put a hit out on her? While there is no hard evidence that fraud networks targeted Hortman, and statements put out by those involved in the investigations state that the shooter acted alone and that such theories are unfounded, the circumstances and timing definitely can be considered compelling enough to make such an assertion.
Considering the long history of leftist deception, lies, and illegal moves by the Democratic Party’s elite, it’s no surprise that under the Trump presidency a number of progressive games of deception and fraud are being rooted out. So much so that the rats are beginning to abandon ship, and in many cases out themselves. According to The Daily Signal, “More than 200 former staff at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division signed a letter condemning Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, and in doing so, they outed themselves as deep state actors and demonstrated Dhillon’s effectiveness in restoring the division to its true mission.”
“There absolutely is a deep state,” John Daukas, former acting assistant attorney general in the division in Trump’s first term told The Daily Signal. An April RMG Research poll found that 75% of the federal employees who voted for Kamala Harris last year, work in the District of Columbia, and make more than $150,000 annually said they would refuse to follow a lawful order from President Donald Trump, if they considered it bad policy. Daukas said many Civil Rights Division career staff he worked with acted on a similar mentality. “They acted like they were the policymakers, like they had been elected, as opposed to the president,” he recalled. I can name a long list of federal judges that seem to think the same way.
How long has the shenanigans been going on when it comes to the Democrats, and their quest to build and maintain their power and wealth? At least a hundred years, or more? Then again, these kinds of things go all the way back to the founding. President Thomas Jefferson was attacked by the courts for his actions, and found himself firing half of the bureaucracy when he entered office – the big government, Federalist Party half. Incidentally, reversing the bad policies, ending bad government spending, and clearing out the deep state actors in the bureaucracy led to an interesting result; the inability of the Federalist Party to win anymore major elections, which, within a couple decades, led to the end of that political party.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary