Political Pistachio
by Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers viewed freedom of speech as a fundamental, natural right and an indispensable “bulwark of liberty,” necessary for checking tyranny and discovering truth. They championed robust political debate and conscience-based religious freedom, believing that suppressing opposing views leads to oppression, whereas free speech allows folly to die of its own poison.
Benjamin Franklin and George Washington stated that without freedom of speech, society would be led like “sheep to the slaughter,” and James Madison described it as a principal pillar of free government. They viewed public debate as a duty, allowing the people, as the “only censors of their governors,” to correct errors in government. They argued that the freedom to think and express thoughts is essential to human liberty, protecting both the majority and minority.
The founders championed the right to criticize government, rooted in events like the John Peter Zenger case, which affirmed the right to challenge officials. When it came to religious speech, Thomas Jefferson advocated for complete liberty of conscience, arguing that government has no jurisdiction over human opinions, a view designed to ensure freedom for all faiths.
“Freedom for the Thought We Hate” developed through the Enlightenment, recognizing that protecting speech is critical to liberty even when it is disagreed with, as freedom of thought is not merely for those who agree with the majority, but for all. They believed that free deliberation allows truth to survive while “folly” dies of its own poison.
While the Founders often held high standards for civil discourse, they aimed to protect the right of dissenters to live in peace, rather than demanding ideological conformity.
This foundational principle of free speech stands in stark contrast to how it is being challenged today. As a constitutionalist, I disagree with a vast array of my opponents’ views and what they have to say. I debate them, try to correct them, and warn them that their opinions, behaviors and even lifestyles are dangerous, filled with potential consequences that is dangerous for them and perhaps even society. I also petition government for a redress of these things, and I vote to put people in office who agree with my stance on things – but you will never hear me say, no matter how much I disagree with someone’s opinions, that the law should be used to silence them or to only celebrate my way of thinking.
The opponents of the Constitution, however, seems to think that their leftwing thinking gives them the authority to intimidate you, silence you, and destroy your right to free speech. They seem to say, “we believe in free speech as long as it agrees with us.” Totalitarian governments do not tolerate criticism. The CCP arrests dissenters, and Iran executes them. Does not the progressive leftists in this country realize that their crusade to silence MAGA, Trump and Christians bears a resemblance?
This troubling trend manifests in various ways across our society. We are reminded of the story of Paige Ostroushko who, along with her family, violently assaulted Turning Point USA journalist Savannah Hernandez. Based on what was said, it was an attack against Hernandez for ideological reasons, with Ostroushko calling Hernandez a “fu**ing piece of sh** Turning Point b**ch.”
This type of behavior is not an isolated event. We can go all the way back to 2015 when we saw anti-Trump gangs chasing down MAGA supporters like animals, and attacking them in groups of violent mobs, beating them down to the ground.
The intimidation extends beyond physical violence to threats against public figures. Erika Kirk, the widow of Charlie Kirk who founded Turning Point USA, recently canceled an event appearance after receiving serious threats. She was set to appear alongside Vice President J.D. Vance, who still attended despite Erika canceling her appearance.
Perhaps most concerning are the systematic attempts to codify speech suppression into law. In California, Democratic legislators are working on legislation to silence citizen journalists like Nick Shirley who exposed the Somali daycare fraud scandal in Minnesota. The new law, AB 2624, would silence citizen journalists and threatens these journalists with large financial penalties to dissuade them from reporting on public interest stories in the name of protecting migrants from being reported for wrongdoing. In short, expose corruption, and you will be punished. Your freedom of speech will be silenced to protect the guilty.
The federal government has also been complicit in this assault on free speech. During Biden’s presidency, the federal government collaborated with pro-abortion groups to silence pro-lifers, according to a recent report released by the Justice Department. The Biden-era Justice Department aggressively applied the FACE Act against pro-life activists, operating using a two-tiered system of justice conducting selective prosecution based on beliefs. The Biden Justice Department monitored pro-life activists for years before charging them, while providing significant support to abortion clinics and ignoring or downplaying vandalism and attacks against pregnancy resource centers. The report says federal prosecutors “authorized aggressive arrest tactics” and withheld evidence that defense counsel requested while also attempting to screen out jurors based on religion. The Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants in FACE Act cases, compared with 12.3 months for pro-choice defendants.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone, and engage in civil discourse – it’s another to use violence or the law to silence the speech of someone else, the latter being actions the leftist democrats have been guilty of for a very long time, violating the very principles behind what brought us the Bill of Rights in the first place.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in November 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Before DHS, national security responsibilities were scattered across more than 20 different agencies with poor communication and coordination between them. The new department consolidated these agencies under one roof, including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This merger was the largest government reorganization in over 50 years, designed to break down the intelligence-sharing failures that had allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed.
Since its creation, DHS has focused primarily on preventing terrorism, securing borders, enforcing immigration laws, and responding to natural disasters. The agency created the color-coded terror alert system (later replaced) and established the Transportation Security Administration, which dramatically changed airport security nationwide. While terrorism prevention remains its core mission, DHS has evolved to address new threats like cybersecurity, domestic extremism, and emerging challenges like pandemics. The department’s effectiveness has been debated, with critics pointing to privacy concerns, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and questions about whether centralizing so many agencies has actually improved security outcomes.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was established on March 1, 2003, as part of the massive government reorganization following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The agency was created by merging the investigative and interior enforcement functions of two legacy agencies: the U.S. Customs Service (previously under the Treasury Department) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly under the Justice Department). This consolidation was designed to improve coordination and eliminate the intelligence-sharing failures that had allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. Initially called the “Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (BICE), the “B” was quickly dropped, and the agency became known simply as ICE. With approximately 20,000 employees and an annual budget of around $8 billion, ICE operates more than 400 offices throughout the United States and in 46 other countries.
ICE’s mission focuses on enforcing federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration primarily within U.S. borders. The agency is organized into three main operational directorates: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which investigates transnational criminal organizations and terrorist networks; Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which detains and removes undocumented immigrants; and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), which provides legal services to the agency. Unlike Border Patrol agents who patrol the nation’s borders, ICE personnel operate primarily in the interior of the country, conducting targeted enforcement operations, investigating customs violations, and managing detention facilities for those awaiting immigration proceedings. Over its two decades of existence, ICE has evolved to address emerging threats while maintaining its core mission of protecting national security and public safety through immigration and customs enforcement.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in November 2001 as a direct response to the security failures exposed by the September 11th terrorist attacks. Prior to TSA, airport security was a patchwork system managed by private security companies hired individually by each airline. These companies operated under regulations set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but standards were inconsistent, pay was extremely low leading to high turnover, and screening procedures varied dramatically from airport to airport. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, signed just two months after 9/11, federalized this system, creating TSA as a new agency within the Department of Transportation (before being moved to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security in 2003). In its first year, TSA rapidly deployed a federal workforce of over 55,000 screeners and implemented standardized security protocols across the nation’s commercial airports.
Since its creation, TSA’s role has evolved beyond just screening passengers and baggage at airports. The agency is now responsible for securing all modes of transportation, including rail, mass transit, highways, and pipelines. While its most visible presence remains at airport security checkpoints where travelers encounter standardized screening procedures, liquid restrictions, and advanced imaging technology, TSA has developed a multi-layered approach to security. This includes Federal Air Marshals on flights, intelligence gathering and analysis, canine teams, and partnerships with other law enforcement agencies. The agency has continually adapted to emerging threats, implementing new technologies like full-body scanners and enhanced ID verification requirements while attempting to balance security needs with the efficient movement of millions of travelers daily.
The Transportation Security Administration has faced criticism over its screening practices and perceived inconsistencies. One notable program that drew scrutiny was the “Quiet Skies” surveillance initiative, which monitored travelers deemed suspicious but not on any terrorist watchlist. In June 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the “Quiet Skies” program, revealing it had cost taxpayers approximately $200 million annually without preventing a single terrorist attack since its inception. The program was also criticized for potential politicization, with allegations that it was used to target political opponents while excluding certain individuals connected to known or suspected terrorists. Criticism in social media and memes online depicting TSA agents screening nuns and children while letting “terrorist types” walk on by emerged. Even The Naked Gun series of movies often parodied airport security, with scenes of normal families being frisked and scanned with a wand as gun-toting terrorists walk through the metal detector without even a glance. These concerns highlighted questions about TSA’s risk assessment priorities and resource allocation.
Regarding passenger screening protocols, TSA has continually evolved its procedures in response to emerging threats. The agency has implemented various screening measures over the years, including restrictions on liquids and electronics, based on intelligence indicating terrorist groups’ interest in concealing explosive devices in commercial electronics, clothing, and cosmetics. Despite the TSA’s standardized screening approach sometimes resulting in public criticism when seemingly low-risk individuals received enhanced screening while other potentially suspicious travelers passed through with less scrutiny, the agency has maintained that its risk-based security approach focuses on behavior and threat indicators rather than profiling. Even so, the effectiveness and fairness of these methods have been subjects of ongoing public debate.
From conservative perspectives, a push to privatize TSA remains an option as the current partial shutdown has seen the departure of hundreds of agents, and long lines at many airports just to get through security. The argument is framed as a common-sense solution to government inefficiency and political gamesmanship. Ben Carson argues that the current system “turns efficient, convenient air travel into a political football,” with government shutdowns making “metaphorical hostages of airline passengers” by creating hours-long waits at security checkpoints. Conservative pundits and political figures point out that airports already using private contractors through the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) maintained short wait times even during recent DHS funding disputes, while TSA-run airports experienced significant delays. They advocate for a model where TSA would focus on “intelligence and counter-terrorism while allowing the private sector to focus on efficiency and customer experience,” arguing this would insulate air travel from partisan budget battles. The Trump administration’s 2027 budget proposal reflects this approach, calling for expanding SPP to smaller airports and cutting approximately 8,400 TSA positions (about 14% of the workforce).
Progressive commentators view the privatization push with skepticism, framing it as an ideologically motivated attempt to weaken unions and enrich private contractors. AFGE Union representatives argue that Republicans’ “ultimate goal” is to “eliminate union protections and privatize the TSA” so “their millionaire buddies can make more money by having contracts,” which would lead to “not better security, not better screening for anyone, but just more possibilities for gaps in the system that terrorists can get through.” Progressives point out that even if screening were privatized, the federal government would still need to oversee security standards, meaning federal workers and costs would remain. The fact is, during the current DHS funding dispute, ICE (the agency Democrats are targeting) remains fully funded through separate legislation. The left, it seems, to go after ICE and President Trump’s immigration policies, are willing to compromise national security with the TSA funding crisis.
Trump responded by bringing in ICE agents to handle some of the TSA responsibilities, and Republicans have argued the current crisis reveals the need for at least a private sector partnership when it comes to airport security. While progressive Democrats are claiming their ire is regarding ICE, Republicans have responded by generally supporting strengthening the immigration enforcement agency and expanding its role. The use of ICE agents at the airports demonstrates ICE’s versatility and importance to national security. Progressives, meanwhile, strongly oppose expanding ICE’s presence anywhere, much less in airports, viewing the latter as an inappropriate mixing of functions that could intimidate travelers and create a chilling effect, particularly for immigrant communities. They contend ICE agents lack proper training for passenger screening and that their presence at airports represents an unnecessary militarization of civilian spaces.
President Trump has been a vocal and forceful proponent of using ICE agents to supplement security at airports, framing it as a necessary and pragmatic response to what he describes as a “manufactured crisis” created by political opponents. He has repeatedly stated that while Democrats in Congress “play political games” with Department of Homeland Security funding by holding it hostage over immigration enforcement, he would not allow the American traveling public to suffer the consequences of “long lines and chaos at our airports.” From his perspective, deploying highly trained ICE personnel was a logical solution, as he has emphasized that these agents are “some of the best law enforcement professionals in the world” who are fully capable of handling screening duties while maintaining national security.
Trump’s view is that this move exemplifies his administration’s commitment to “results over rhetoric” and his willingness to take decisive action when Congress fails to act. He has praised ICE agents for stepping up and “filling the gaps” left by TSA workers who walked off the job during the funding dispute, portraying it as a demonstration of their versatility and dedication to protecting Americans. The President has argued that this situation proves the fundamental inefficiency of government bureaucracy and reinforces his long-standing belief that private sector solutions and flexible inter-agency cooperation are superior to rigid, unionized federal workforces. For Trump, using ICE at airports was not just a temporary fix but a demonstration of how his administration “gets things done” by prioritizing security and efficiency over political correctness and bureaucratic resistance.
From a constitutional perspective, privatizing ICE is necessary. While national security is within the realm of the federal government, and more specifically the executive branch, aviation is not. Technically, there are no expressly enumerated powers regarding aviation, though opponents to the opinions of constitutional originalists will argue that aviation is implied by the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause. I believe, if aviation must fall within federal authority (and I am not suggesting it shouldn’t be), then Congress needs to propose an amendment to the Constitution and the States need to ratify it to codify the authority. Even so, there is a legitimate argument that federal bureaucracy without any private partnership may not be the best way to go when it comes to airport security. A hybrid model where both federal standards and administration are combined with a private workforce may be the best avenue not only for efficiency, but to ensure the TSA is not used as a political tool by anyone in Congress in the future.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The opponents of President Donald Trump are accusing him of war crimes because he told Iran that if they don’t work with him he will bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. The verbal threat was one that told the Islamic leaders America was willing to end their civilization. Critics of Trump immediately launched into rhetoric that called the president “insane,” suggesting he might use nuclear weapons on Iran, and that his attacks on Iran were “unconstitutional,” and “criminal.” Steven Simon of Responsible Statecraft even accused Trump of threatening genocide in Iran.
Senator Chuck Schumer called Trump an “unhinged madman.” Bernie Sanders said Trump is “dangerous and mentally unbalanced.” A long list of Democrats are accusing President Trump of war crimes, and House Democrats are discussing invoking the 25th Amendment to seek removing Trump from power because of Trump’s threat to “wipe out Iran’s civilization and unleash hell on Tehran.”
House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated it was their “patriotic duty” in “stopping the madness.”
Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wrote on social media, “This maniac should be removed from office.”
Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA) said, “He must be removed.”
The 25th Amendment, according to the Constitution, requires a majority of the President’s Cabinet (or a body created by Congress), and the Vice President to agree that Trump is unfit for office, and if Trump were to offer an opposing view that he’s fit for office in writing, two-thirds of each chamber of Congress would need to vote in support of removal. So, the 25th Amendment threat is an empty one, at best.
While opponents call Trump’s threats “mad rants” and “calls for genocide,” the reality is Trump’s threats are the only language that Islamic madmen understand. The threats by Trump were specifically regarding Iran’s infrastructure (bridges, desalination plants, power plants), the very same kind of actions being used by Ukraine in their war (of which the Democrats don’t consider war crimes) as stated by Jessie Watters on The Five, recently. If the targets Trump is threatening to hit are war crimes, then by that standard a long list of Presidents (most of whom were Democrats) are then guilty of war crimes from past wars America has participated in.
“Well,” said a well-intentioned neighbor of mine, “the war in Iran is unconstitutional because Congress did not declare war. The War Powers Act requires the President to get congressional approval before conducting war.” Article II establishes the President as Commander in Chief and an examination of the Constitutional Convention and history provides that means he is able to wage war without Congress micromanaging his actions from their legislative desks. As for the War Powers Act, the law is unconstitutional on its face. The only method that may be used to change constitutional powers to the President is a constitutional amendment, not a piece of legislation.
Islam is an enemy that lies, deceives, and takes advantage of weakness. So, President Trump has taken a firm stance, and unlike prior presidents he does not bluff. Trump’s methods are simple. Put pressure. Enter into diplomacy. If diplomacy fails, apply more pressure, and attempt more negotiations. If the other side is still refusing to be reasonable, apply the consequences that are necessary to ensure compliance. That is what Trump is doing with Iran.
Unlike other enemies, Islamists largely base their decisions on what they believe the will of Allah is. If they believe their defeat is so strong that Allah wants them to back off for a while, then they will. Only military strength against them can bring them to that conclusion. Iran’s threat to the region, once they agree to Trump’s terms, will be temporary because that is how Islam operates – and Trump understands that. But they’ve got to really believe that Allah is against them continuing to fight if they are going to stand down. As Shiites, however, Iran’s leaders believe in an apocalyptic vision of worldwide chaos if a global caliphate is to emerge. So, they’ve got to be convinced that even chaos raining down from the Heavens is not even in their best interest. Only the threat of complete annihilation will get them to stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their willingness to defy the world. Trump understands this, so he made the threat – not in the name of genocide, but realizing that is the only language the revolutionary military leaders of Iran are willing to understand.
Without the threat, and without Iran believing that Trump is willing to do exactly what he says, there would be no chance of Iran ever coming to the table of diplomacy and seriously considering an actual agreement to the terms Trump has laid out.
What is funny about it is that the Democrats freaking out that Trump is seriously willing to wipe out an entire civilization is actually helping the president, because if fellow Americans believe he is willing to wipe Iran out, Iran’s leaders will be more likely to believe so, as well.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
You can’t reason with the unreasonable, and Iran’s leadership has been unreasonable the entire way. Islam, or at least the leaders who refuse to participate in the modern version of getting along at the dinner table, knows only a firm hand.
President Trump, unlike the past week-knees of Presidents who preferred paying Islamic madmen Tribute Payments (hence, Obama’s pallets of cash to Iran) or cowering under the threat of Muslim Terrorism, has a firm hand and has proven he is willing to use it if necessary. After pretty much cornering Iran into a position where their only chess move remaining on the board is to surrender, the Islamic revolutionary regime has decided to go down fighting – so, President Trump has ordered a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and nearby waters to enforce a ceasefire with Iran and get ships moving in and out of the Persian Gulf so that the oil can flow again.
Understand, America has all the oil we need. We do not depend on the movement of oil in and out of Iran and her Middle Eastern neighbors. But, we live in a global market, and when supply is restricted by theocratic madmen who refuse to cry uncle when pushed against the wall, prices worldwide rise and as a result President Trump is more than willing to apply pressure in other spots and take military action when necessary.
The blockade of ship traffic to and from Iranian ports not only should get other ships in the area moving, but also starve Iran of its final economic lifeline. The hope is the move will convince Iran to honor negotiations, while opening up movement and navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports. The blockade, in particular, will also make sure Iran cannot sell any oil, and is designed to serve as a punishment against Iran for threatening to attack other ports in the region. The move was in response to Iran’s military declaring the “security of ports in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is either for all or for none.”
Iran’s leaders also put out the message that Iran will “firmly implement a permanent mechanism to control the Strait of Hormuz.”
President Trump warned that Iran’s remaining force of small boats “will be immediately ELIMINATED” if any of those vessels even approach the U.S. naval blockade. Trump indicated the same system to knock out drug dealer boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean would go into action.
Vice President J.D. Vance in Pakistan spent hours in negotiation with Iranian officials, but the Iranians failed to fully comply with U.S. demands according to Vance. And, Iran added their own new demands, none of which the United States will consider.
European countries have stated they will not participate in the blockade, again leading Trump to comment how our allies are not behaving as allies, and the president has stated the U.S. government may reexamine its relationship with NATO as a result.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The FOX News “Gutfeld” show featured a video of attorney and Trump critic George Conway emotionally stating he was willing to spend his children’s inheritance to fund efforts to “save democracy,” specifically highlighting his financial support for Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. He said in the video, “I thought to myself: I want my kids to inherit a democracy. And so, I wiped the tears away and I drove to the fundraiser and I gave them the check.” Conway’s donation was $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund – the legal maximum. Conway called it a bargain to support the “rule of law.” Once a Republican, Conway had become a prominent “Never Trump” figure and ran as a Democrat for Congress in 2026, focusing on opposing Donald Trump.
Greg Gutfield asked his guests about the idea of saving democracy, with only one noting the country is not a democracy, but then mistakenly calling our system a “Democratic Republic.”
This exchange reveals a fundamental misunderstanding that has plagued American discourse for over two centuries. American society has been convinced we live in a democracy, with little understanding of the crucial difference between a republic and a democracy. This confusion began early, despite James Madison explaining the difference five times in his Federalist Essays. The Founding Fathers consistently warned about the dangers of democracy, and even Old Europe at the time recognized these dangers, though they believed an oligarchy under royalty and an established church was preferable.
As I explain in my book, “Repeal Democracy,” majority rule through democracy historically always ends in tyranny. In a democracy, population centers control the vote, establishing a system where cities dictate policy to the rest of society. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers were careful not to create a democracy.
A democratic-republic is a representative system where officeholders are directly elected by the people, and today’s America closely resembles that. But, it was never designed as such. The Pledge of Allegiance isn’t to the “democratic-republic for which it stands.”
A republic, while incorporating some democratic principles, contains checks and balances designed to guard against the excesses of democracy. It prevents any part of government from becoming too strong or centralized. A republic ensures proper distribution of power. In a democracy, the vote controls everything. In a dictatorship or monarchy, a single leader rules, and while some rulers may be benevolent, history shows that tyrants eventually seize power. In theocracies, religious leaders hold all power, and in other oligarchies, some group always rules with an iron fist.
In a republic, nobody rules completely. Factions are set against each other so that none can dominate. Minority voices are amplified, and the democratic voices of population centers are challenged by other groups. Our Senate was designed with only two senators per state to ensure that states with large populations couldn’t rule over less-populated states. Originally, Senators were chosen by state legislatures (a method eliminated by the Seventeenth Amendment) to ensure that states held a voice in Congress and to provide a rural perspective in the federal government.
The House of Representatives and State Houses are populated by members democratically elected, so larger cities tend to have a stronger voice in those chambers. But at the state senate level, as with the U.S. Senate, representatives were historically not chosen based on population but by geography. In many cases, this meant one state senator per county – a method disallowed after the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court ruling. The original method ensured representatives having a rural perspective also had a seat at the table – a natural check against the voice of population centers in the other chamber.
Even the President was not originally elected democratically. He was chosen by electors selected by congressional districts and state legislative houses. The method of choosing electors belonged to state legislatures (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2) – removing pure democracy from the equation. We know this system as the Electoral College, and while it still avoids a direct national popular vote (which would enable the largest cities to dominate), it has changed from its original form. The Electoral College evolved from electors voted by the people to electors established by parties who vote according to the popular vote of each district. Even the winner-take-all method that exists in all but two states was not originally followed. Each elector was applied based on their individual vote to the number of electors the candidate received.
Constitutional amendments require ratification by states – another method that moves away from pure democracy. In most countries, constitutional changes can be achieved through legislative votes or direct democratic vote. Consequently, the average age of constitutions worldwide is seventeen years, compared to our Constitution’s endurance of more than two hundred years.
The key to the Founders’ design was checks and balances and separation of powers – not just between branches, but between levels of government. The states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to establish a written constitution, and part of the agreement was that states would remain involved in governmental processes. During the Philadelphia debates, delegates considered state approval. The states were viewed as members of the union with rights similar to individual citizens, with the aim of ensuring states maintained oversight over the federal government they were creating. The goal was to prevent the federal government from making decisions without state approval.
As a result, the voice of the states influenced nearly all federal government policies:
Budget: Federal spending was established including the states’ voice in the Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and payment from states for spending was approved through indirect taxation (pre-16th Amendment).
Taxation: Tax law was established through the states’ voice in the Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and income tax was paid indirectly through states based on population (pre-16th Amendment).
Elections: Prescribed by state legislatures, except where Congress might regulate (Article I, Section 4), with states also having a voice through the U.S. Senate (pre-17th Amendment). States determined the election of electors for President (Article II, Section 1). Votes were first counted locally before being sent to central counting at state and federal levels to maintain local control. Congress was prohibited from interfering with how state legislatures prescribed Senators could be elected (Article I, Section 4), a provision violated when Congress proposed the 17th Amendment.
Appointments: New federal executive positions required approval/confirmation by the U.S. Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2), the states’ voice prior to the 17th Amendment. Similarly, federal judges require Senate confirmation.
Treaties: The President may negotiate and sign treaties, but validation needs Senate ratification (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2).
Local Legislation: Federal powers are enumerated powers by the Constitution, so local issues belong to local governments, except in cases directly impacting the union.
In short, the Founders understood that one of the best ways to guard against the consolidation of federal power, which historically leads to tyranny, was ensuring states stood in the way of such power. While the federal government was given significant authority regarding war, maritime law, trade with other countries, and other external matters, it was largely not authorized to interfere with domestic issues without state approval.
The enemies of liberty and proponents of centralized tyranny understand this, which is why they’ve been systematically dismantling Constitutional checks and balances, with major assaults during the Andrew Jackson years, Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, through the New Deal and Great Society eras, and with each argument against states having a voice to “save our democracy,” including recent calls for eliminating the Electoral College.
Calls for “saving our democracy” advocates increasing tyranny and centralized control without minority voices having any influence. “Save the democracy” calls for the enslavement of regions of the United States that lack large populations, consequently losing the Rule of Law to absolute rule by a tyrannical majority.
Even our allies call for “saving democracy.”
To save the country, we need to abandon democracy and return to being a republic.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Render Unto Caesar: A Biblical Perspective on Taxation
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As we’ve just passed another April 15th, many of us have felt that familiar knot in our stomachs as we signed over a portion of our hard-earned money to the government. The question that often arises in the hearts of believers is: “What does God’s Word say about taxes?” Is taxation biblical? Is it right for Christians to participate in a system that often seems wasteful, corrupt, or contrary to our values?
The most direct answer from Scripture comes from Jesus Himself in Mark 12:17, when He was confronted with a politically charged question about paying taxes to Caesar. Holding up a Roman coin, He delivered one of the most profound statements in all of Scripture: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
In these few words, our Lord established a principle that would guide His followers for millennia: There is a proper place for earthly government and a proper place for divine authority. The coin bore Caesar’s image, so it belonged to Caesar. But we bear God’s image, so we belong to Him.
Government is a “necessary evil,” as some philosophers have noted. Romans 13:1-7 provides a look at government’s role and our relationship to it. Paul wrote, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”
This is not to say we are to become blind subjects of a government that violates God’s principles. God expects us to be active participants in political things and to do the work to create a godly culture and to influence our government to operate in a godly manner. But, regardless of that government’s policies, we are to operate legally within its authority as long as we are not violating God’s Law to do it.
That said, when Jesus Christ walked the Earth, taxes were far more oppressive than what we may experience toady. The Roman tax system was designed not just to fund the government but to enrich the ruling class and subjugate conquered peoples. Tax collectors were often despised collaborators who enriched themselves by collecting more than what Rome required.
Jesus never led a tax revolt. He never encouraged His followers to withhold their money as a form of protest. Instead, He taught submission to authority while calling His followers to a higher citizenship in heaven. All authority, after all, ultimately flows from God Himself.
The early Christians lived under one of the most brutal regimes in history, yet they paid their taxes. They didn’t compromise their faith, but they didn’t refuse to render to Caesar what was Caesar’s either.
Getting back to the “render unto Caesar” passage (Mark 12:17), we also need to recognize that the verse carries a much deeper meaning than simply acknowledging that coins with Caesar’s image belonged to Caesar. When we consider it alongside Malachi’s teachings about God’s ownership of all precious metals, we discover a profound theological truth.
In Malachi 3:8-10, God accuses Israel of robbing Him by withholding tithes and offerings. This passage establishes a fundamental principle: everything ultimately belongs to God, including our material possessions. As Haggai 2:8 states, “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, declares the Lord Almighty.” This divine ownership claim is foundational to understanding Jesus’ response about taxes.
When Jesus held up the Roman denarius and said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” He was making a profound theological statement about ownership and stewardship. The coin bore Caesar’s image, so it could legitimately be given to earthly authorities. But the deeper implication is that everything, including the coin itself, ultimately belongs to God, who is the true owner of all creation.
In using such argumentation, Jesus subordinates the taxation issue to the greater demand of God upon our lives, but he does not thereby deny the validity of taxation, even that of the potentially abusive Roman system. Nor does he deny that money belongs to God.
Malachi 3:3 further reinforces this principle with the imagery of God as a refiner and purifier of silver and gold, suggesting that God has the right to purify what belongs to Him because He is the ultimate owner. The Hebrew term “segullah” used in Malachi 3:16-17 refers to “valuable property, that which is laid by, or put aside, hence a treasure of silver and gold,” emphasizing God’s special claim over precious things.
So when Jesus said to render unto Caesar, He wasn’t just establishing a practical principle for civic obedience. He was teaching a profound truth about dual ownership: while we have legitimate obligations to earthly authorities, our ultimate allegiance and everything we possess belongs to God. The coin may temporarily bear Caesar’s image, but all silver and gold ultimately bear God’s image as their Creator and rightful Owner.
This perspective transforms how we view taxes not merely as a civic duty but as an act of worship that acknowledges God’s supreme ownership over all our resources, even as we faithfully fulfill our obligations to human governments.
The Pharisees and Herodians were trying to trap Jesus with a politically charged question about paying taxes to Rome. If Jesus said “yes” to paying taxes, He would lose credibility with the Jewish people who resented Roman occupation. If He said “no,” He could be reported to Roman authorities as a revolutionary. Jesus brilliantly turned their trap back on them by first asking for a denarius, the Roman coin used for paying the tax.
When they produced it, He asked whose image and inscription were on it. They replied “Caesar’s,” and only then did He give His famous response: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
This was a masterful exposure of their hypocrisy. As one scholar I once heard explained: “Basically, give Caesar his money that bears his image and give your life to God, because you bear his image.”
The religious leaders were carrying Caesar’s coin, bearing the image of a pagan emperor who claimed divinity, while claiming to serve God alone. By producing the coin, they revealed their own compromised position.
This connects directly to Malachi’s critique of the priesthood. Malachi 3:2-3 specifically addresses the priests, saying God “shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.” The passage continues with God’s accusation that the priests had robbed Him by withholding proper tithes and offerings.
Jesus was essentially saying: “You’re so concerned about whether to give money to Caesar that you’re carrying his image in your pockets, yet you’ve been robbing God of what is rightfully His. You’re more faithful to earthly authorities than to God Himself.”
The religious leadership had become like the money changers Jesus later drove from the temple; those who “exploited the religious zeal of the visitors to Jerusalem” by exchanging foreign coins for Jewish money “at an exorbitant profit.”
They had turned worship into commerce and compromised their spiritual authority for financial and political expediency.
Jesus’ response exposed their misplaced priorities. They were focused on the relatively minor question of whether to pay taxes to Caesar while ignoring the greater issue of their own unfaithfulness to God. They were meticulous about ceremonial purity while being corrupt in their hearts, which was exactly what Jesus condemned them for elsewhere (Matthew 23:23-24).
The deeper meaning of Jesus’ statement is this: If you’re so concerned about giving Caesar what bears his image, then how much more should you give to God what bears His image, namely, yourselves, created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27)? The religious leaders had failed to render to God the things that were God’s, while scrupulously maintaining their relationship with Caesar’s system.
This aligns with Malachi’s broader critique of a priesthood that had become corrupt and unfaithful. Malachi accuses them of offering “blind sacrifices” and keeping the best for themselves while giving God the defective animals (Malachi 1:6-14). Similarly, Jesus exposed the religious leaders of His day as those who “devour widows’ houses” while making long prayers (Mark 12:40) and being careful to tithe even the smallest herbs while neglecting justice and mercy (Matthew 23:23).
In both Malachi and Jesus’ “render unto Caesar” statement, we see a prophetic critique of religious leadership that had compromised its integrity and failed to give God His rightful place as the ultimate authority.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary