Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Constitution is often referred to as a “living and breathing document.” My friend and constitutional colleague Alan Myers, who co-hosts with me on Constitution Radio each Saturday, likes to quip: “Of course it is living and breathing. It isn’t dead.” While I appreciate his attitude, that is not what the purveyors of the phrase mean.
When advocates call the Constitution “living and breathing,” they liken it to a living organism. They argue that, like us, it grows, expands, and evolves with time. As a living being learns, adapts, and changes with its surroundings, so too, they claim, should the Constitution. But this metaphor is misleading. The Constitution is not a living organism, nor was it ever meant to be. In fact, the Founding Fathers deliberately rejected that very idea.
The Founding Father sought to escaping the fluidity of English Common Law, which was considered to be living and breathing. English Common Law was not written down but understood by the people, shaped by cultural shifts, parliamentary acts, and judicial rulings. The British Constitution adjusted itself like an organism, bending to the whims of society and politics. The Founders saw this fluidity as a flaw. If the supreme law of the land could be altered by politicians, judges, or popular sentiment, it could be manipulated into tyranny.
Thus, the American Constitution was written on parchment for all to be able to read. Fixed in text. Agreed upon by the States. Changeable only through amendment. And the amendment process itself was not designed to be a casual process. It requires the approval of three-quarters of the States, ensuring that change reflects broad consensus among the parties who wrote and ratified the Constitution in the first place, rather than changes being made based on fleeting passions.
The Constitution is a compact between the States, creating a federal government designed to serve both the people and the States. Its powers were intentionally limited, checked and balanced to prevent tyranny.
The States were originally deeply involved in its operations. Senators were appointed by state legislatures, ensuring that the federal government could not act without the States’ consent. Treaties, appointments, and other federal actions requires Senate approval, and in the beginning those Senators served the voice of the states. Even the President was not chosen by direct democracy. Citizens voted for electors, some of whom were appointed by state legislatures, and those electors selected the President. This system kept the States engaged while restraining the dangers of pure democracy.
The Founders understood that democracy, unchecked, can be dangerous. America was established as a republic, using democracy sparingly and always within a framework of checks and balances. At the federal level, most of those checks were managed by the States.
If the Constitution were truly “living and breathing,” its meaning would be defined by politicians and judges. Sadly, over the last century, that is precisely what has happened. But this was never the original intent. The Constitution was meant to be a written, stable foundation, anchored against the tides of whim, preserving liberty by limiting power, and maintained by a powerful presence of the voice of the States… a presence over the last century and a half eroded by those screaming that we must save our democracy, which is the very thing that will destroy the republic if we don’t stop its advance.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Governor J.B. Pritzker’s new Illinois law shielding illegal aliens from federal immigration enforcement has triggered constitutional alarm bells, with DHS warning it violates the Supremacy Clause of Article VI in the U.S. Constitution.
Governor Pritzker’s signing of HB 1312, a bill barring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from making arrests in or near courthouses, hospitals, daycares, and university campuses, has ignited a firestorm of legal and constitutional criticism. The law also allows residents to sue federal agents for alleged civil rights violations, a move critics say is designed to obstruct lawful federal immigration enforcement.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has responded forcefully, warning that the law directly contradicts federal immigration statutes and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI, Paragraph 2 states, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
This clause makes clear that constitutionally authorized federal law supersedes state law. Immigration law, being a federal prerogative authorized by Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9 cannot be nullified or obstructed by state legislation. Article II instructs the President of the United States to “faithfully execute the laws of the Union,” and Article I, Section 8 grants the use of the militia (National Guard) to execute the laws of the United States. Therefore, the State of Illinois has no constitutional allowance to legislate against federal immigration law, nor the execution of immigration law. As a result, DHS officials have accused Pritzker of violating his oath of office, which requires him to support the Constitution of the United States – which includes the Supremacy Clause.
Pritzker’s rhetoric at the bill signing ceremony was equally provocative, framing the law as a moral stand against President Trump, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and Border Chief Gregory Bovino. “The best of us are standing up to the worst of them,” Pritzker declared, casting federal immigration enforcement as a threat to compassion and justice.
But critics argue that this is not about compassion. It’s about their partisan battle against President Trump, and desire to dismantle American sovereignty. Instead, progressives favor a vision of global governance with porous borders and diminished national identity. This worldview echoes the ideological aims of communism and the utopian borderless society imagined in John Lennon’s “Imagine.”
The constitutional implications are profound. If states can selectively nullify federal law based on ideological disagreement, the rule of law collapses into a patchwork of partisan defiance. Sanctuary policies, like Illinois’ new law, do not merely challenge immigration enforcement, they challenge the very structure of federalism.
Regardless of partisan political party viewpoints, the U.S. Constitution has the final say over political meanderings. The Supremacy Clause exists to prevent precisely this kind of fragmentation, ensuring that constitutional federal law remains the backbone of preserving and protecting the union. There is, after all, a separation of powers between federal and state constitutional authorities. When state leaders defy that line in the sand, they not only undermine immigration enforcement, they undermine the Republic itself and the importance of the role of the federal government as well.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As a Navy veteran, I will be watching today’s Army-Navy Game. The game, however, is more than a game. It’s an observance of the importance of our armed forces and a shining example on the football field of the Brotherhood of Liberty’s Defenders.
Today, as Army and Navy take the field, we will be watching a living symbol of the strength, sacrifice, and brotherhood that undergird our Republic. From an American perspective, the importance of our military cannot be overstated: they are the guardians of the liberty with which our Creator has endowed us, and the defenders of the constitutional order that secures those blessings for generations yet unborn.
Our Founding Fathers understood that liberty is not self-sustaining. It must be defended against tyranny abroad and preserved against corruption at home. The Constitution grants Congress the power to raise and support armies and maintain a navy, not as instruments of conquest, but as shields for freedom. Every soldier, sailor, airman, guardian, coasty, and marine stands as a living testament to the principle that liberty requires vigilance, courage, and sacrifice.
The Army–Navy Game is unique because both sides share a deeper allegiance: not to victory on the scoreboard, but to the defense of our constitutional republic. These young men who clash in spirited rivalry today will tomorrow stand shoulder to shoulder in the same cause; protecting the Constitution and the people it serves. Their brotherhood transcends uniforms and branches, rooted in shared duty, shared sacrifice, and shared love of country.
As patriots who understand that the foundation of this great country is a godly one, we recognize that true liberty is a gift from God, and we give thanks for those who risk their lives to preserve it. The Army–Navy Game reminds us to pray for our military, to honor their service, and to remember that their unity reflects the higher unity we are called to in Christ.
The cheers, the rivalry, and the pageantry are all expressions of joy in a tradition that celebrates not division, but devotion. When the final whistle blows, the victors will sing their alma mater second, and the defeated first. This ritual embodies humility, respect, and fraternity; values that echo the very spirit of our Republic. In the end, the Army–Navy Game is not about who wins or loses, but about reminding us that liberty is safeguarded by men and women who are willing to stand together, bound by duty, faith, and love of country. Their brotherhood is our shield, and their sacrifice is our inheritance.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President George Washington warned in his 1796 Farewell Address about the danger of foreign entanglements. He believed it was not in the best interest of the fledgling country to engage in permanent alliances with foreign powers since those commitments could drag America into costly wars and compromise our independence. He urged America to remain free to make decisions based on its own interests rather than be bound by the rivalries of Europe. The United States’ position was fragile, after all, not only because this was still a developing country, but because we were surrounded by the holdings of powerful European empires. Washington believed that any permanent alliances or other entanglements could drag America into conflicts not of her own making. In short, he desired that we avoid treaties with foreign nations because they could force America into wars that did not serve its interests. By steering clear of European rivalries, the U.S. could remain politically and economically independent. That is not to say he opposed foreign relations. Temporary alliances, especially during times of emergency, were acceptable. It was longer-term commitments that he believed limited freedom of action.
The key component in all of Washington’s thinking was “America’s Interests.”
The United States lacked a strong military at the time, so foreign wars would have been disastrous. He believed that the best way to preserve the unity of the states and the stability of the union the country needed to focus on domestic growth. This is not to say that Washington believed in a weak military, or that we should never engage in global power struggles if necessary. He also said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”
President Washington’s peace-through-strength line was delivered during his First Annual Address to Congress, January 8, 1790. While he believed we should avoid foreign entanglements, he also urged the need for a strong defense policy. Having fought in the Revolutionary War, he understood the dangers of relying on a weak, part-time militia. America needed to be strong, and able to protect its people and put America First.
Washington was not advocating for constant warfare, but rather for readiness as a safeguard because military preparedness discourages conflict because adversaries respect strength.
George Washington’s counsel shaped U.S. foreign policy for over a century. When France and Britain went to war against each other, President John Adams followed Washington’s advise and not only refused to get involved, but even disallowed any statements from the U.S. Government that may be construed as giving favor to one nation over the other during the conflict. While Vice President Thomas Jefferson called for the U.S. to take sides, Adams refused to do so. When Jefferson became elected President, he kept America out of the wars in Europe, only engaging in a conflict with the Islamic caliphate on the Barbary Coast whose sea-going vessels were raiding American ships on American trade routes and taking American Sailors hostage to serve as slaves.
James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, after the War of 1812, sought to bring America back to its normal path of remaining focused on domestic concerns. During his presidency issues of trade restrictions, maritime rights and defending U.S. sovereignty dominated his attention. During that same time, Latin America began entering into its own revolutionary era. The Latin American independence movements began in earnest during the 1810s, right in the middle of Madison’s presidency. These revolutions were inspired by Enlightenment ideals, the American Revolution, and the weakening of Spain due to Napoleon’s invasion of Europe.
While Madison, though he sympathized with the independence movements, was cautious, it was James Monroe who tied U.S. policy to New World independence through the Monroe Doctrine.
The wave of revolutions and declarations of independence surging throughout the New World by 1823 had led to most of Spain’s colonies in Latin America to achieve independence. Watching what was going on, President Monroe declared The Monroe Doctrine in a speech on December 2, 1823. It was a bold statement of American foreign policy, asserting that the Western Hemisphere was off-limits to European colonization or interference.
The Monroe Doctrine was comprised of three principles:
• The Americas were no longer open to European colonization (an anti-colonialism position that mirrored the anti-colonialism actions of the American Revolution).
• Any European interference in the Western Hemisphere would be considered hostile to U.S. interests.
• The U.S. would not meddle in European affairs.
Though the U.S. Navy was small and America lacked the military might to enforce these claims, Monroe believed the doctrine was vital as a political warning. Britain’s Royal Navy, which also opposed renewed colonization, provided an informal enforcement mechanism, giving Monroe’s words weight.
The Monroe Doctrine was initially symbolic, but over time it became a living policy tool, reshaped by presidents to fit new circumstances:
• James K. Polk (1840s): Invoked the Monroe Doctrine to oppose European interference in Texas, California, and Oregon, tying it to Manifest Destiny.
• Theodore Roosevelt (1904): Added the Roosevelt Corollary, asserting the U.S. right to intervene in Latin America to stabilize economies and prevent European involvement. This marked a shift from defensive policy to active intervention.
• Woodrow Wilson (1910s): Applied the doctrine to justify interventions in Mexico and the Caribbean, emphasizing democracy and stability.
• Cold War Presidents (Truman, Kennedy, Reagan): Recast the doctrine as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere. Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a direct application of Monroe’s principle.
• Post-Cold War Era: The doctrine became less about Europe and more about global powers. Reagan and later presidents used its spirit to oppose communism and terrorism in the Americas.
Under President Donald Trump, the Monroe Doctrine has been revived. The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine sends the original message, “Don’t mess around in our backyard,” but adds, “Don’t run evil operations with your global buddies in our backyard or we’ll be knocking on your doorstep.”
Trump’s administration is currently emphasizing The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in relation to Venezuela and Cuba, framing it as a rejection of outside influence, particularly from Russia and China, in Latin America. While the doctrine is no longer a rigid policy, it remains a symbol of U.S. hemispheric leadership, invoked when foreign powers challenge American influence in the region.
The move has some Americans nervous that President Trump seeks regime change in Venezuela. The leader of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, who has served as President since 2013, succeeding communist dictator Hugo Chavez, is also among those who believes that President Trump is considering invading the South American country.
On December 10, 2025, a highly trained team of U.S. Marines and United States Coast Guardsmen seized an oil tanker off of Venezuela’s coast in an effort to enforce sanctions against Venezuela and to disrupt the country’s illegal oil trade. American forces from helicopters repelled upon the deck of the ship, with weapons drawn, and detained the captain. President Trump announced the operation on Wednesday shortly after it happened from the White House. The tanker seized, The Skipper, was sanctioned in 2022 by the Biden administration due to ties to Iran and Hezbollah. It is equipped with electronic warfare technology that the Trump administration says poses a real threat to American forces in the area.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the “vessel will go to a U.S. port and the United States does intend to seize the oil. However, there is a legal process for the seizure of that oil, and that legal process will be followed.”
The operation seizing the vessel came only hours after the United States smuggled the Venezuelan opposition leader out of the country, Maria Machado. She won the most recent presidential election in Venezuela, but President Maduro refused to step down. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize as the CIA smuggled her out of the country, and whisked her to Norway where she accepted the prize. In her acceptance speech, Machado remarked when asked about America at Venezuela’s doorstep, “Venezuela has already been invaded. We have Russian agents. We have Iranian agents. We have terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, operating freely in accordance with the regime. We have the Columbian guerrillas, the drug cartels, that have taken over 60% of our population.”
The very fact that she was able to escape sends a message to Maduro that there are holes in his security, and likely opposition personnel residing inside that security apparatus which likely means Maduro’s tight grip over his military is not as full as he thinks. Meanwhile, a couple American F-18s are patrolling the coast of Venezuela. Even more chilling is the list of foreign invaders operating on Venezuelan soil at the behest of President Maduro.
U.S. military assets are massing in Puerto Rico, joining forces already present in the Caribbean. “Growlers,” which provide electronic warfare support, are among those assets joining the growing fleet of equipment in that region, along with a nice collection of F-35s. The White House, however, denies that war is on the horizon. Leavitt commented, “He wants peace, and he wants to see the end of illegal drugs being trafficked into the United States and taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans across our country.”
As per Machado’s statement regarding the foreign personnel operating in Venezuela, Maduro is harboring drug cartels, guerilla fighters, Russian KGB agents and radical Islamic jihadists just a hair over a thousand miles off the coast of Florida.
President Trump’s handling of the rising Venezuelan crisis has been measured, as is all of his international tendencies, squeezing Maduro slowly through the thing that will hurt him most – the money. Stopping the drug trafficking and oil transports is what the seizure of the tanker was all about. The Venezuelan dictator’s illegal oil exports are the primary source of funding for his regime. With that money he bribes his military, bribes politicians, and lives a luxurious lifestyle as his people starve and live like folks in any failed communist state just before the walls come crashing down.
With sanctions by the United States increasing, twenty-two drug boats destroyed as they traveled to the U.S. packed with illegal drugs, and the United States Navy floating near Venezuela’s coast the pressure on Maduro is increasing. Middle Eastern accomplices and Russia’s Vladimir Putin are offering for Maduro to flee to their regions. But the big picture goes way beyond Maduro, the Middle East, and Russia. What is going on is President Trump’s necessary extension of the Monroe Doctrine. For the safety of the United States, it is important that we ensure the Western Hemisphere is not being infested with enemies from the Eastern Hemisphere seeking to destroy The West. We are not only checking Russian and Muslim intrusion, but we are also battling against Chinese infiltration of The West as Russia and China have begun conducting military drills together in the Pacific Ocean. In response, beyond the Venezuelan tanker seizure which will continue hopefully to more sanctioned tankers, U.S. bombers have been joining Japanese fighter jets over the Sea of Japan. The seizure of the tankers hurts China, and the military operations with Japan keeps them honest… for the moment. The sanctioned Venezuelan oil, after all, is mostly being sold to China, and the Chinese have been building massive refineries in Venezuela. Seizing the tankers stops a part of the oil flowing into China.
An American presence in Latin America sends a message to China, Russia, Islam, and even Columbia. President Trump from the White House said, “He’s gonna have himself a big problem if he doesn’t wise up,” when asked about Columbia’s leadership. “Columbia’s producing a lot of drugs. They have cocaine factories that make cocaine as you know that flows right into the United States. So, he better wise up, or he’ll be next.”
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive global infrastructure development strategy launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping, aimed at connecting Asia, Europe, and Africa through vast networks of railways, roads, ports, pipelines, and digital links to increase China’s geopolitical influence; and Columbia has bought into it. President Trump’s actions in Latin America goes way beyond drugs, communist regimes and foreign influence. He’s attempting to break China’s global empirical scheme, and seizing tankers off the coast of Venezuela and making Columbia nervous is just a small part of the overall operation. Americans are already dying because of China’s influence south of our border, and President Trump’s operations are a reasonable response to the Far East’s invasion of The Western Hemisphere.
Democrats are beside themselves over Trump’s operations, largely because they are also indirectly in cahoots with the global mess festering at our back door. Maxine Waters went so far as to accuse Trump of being a murderer, and calling for him to be brought up on charges for taking national security actions you would expect a good President of the United States to take. She went even farther saying that he is required to go to the Congress of the United States before conducting such operations. Maxine Waters, like her Democratic colleagues, continue to thumb their nose at the Constitution with their claims. Congress has no authority to micromanage the actions of the President, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. He is well within his authorities as Commander in Chief.
The mess wouldn’t even exist if the Biden administration hadn’t opened the southern border wide open with open border policies. President Trump is operating in accordance to his “America First” foreign policy, a policy that is among a long list of reasons he was elected back into office in 2024.
The goal is not a land war in Venezuela, or anywhere else in Latin America. That is just the usual rhetoric you hear from the Democrats and their media allies. It’s about pressure, and getting the bad elements festering in the Western Hemisphere to take a hike, which is exactly what it looks like Maduro might be doing. And, the plan is working properly to move to a position that keeps our backyard relatively free of invaders from the other hemisphere. It’s about stopping the making of drugs, and the running of drugs, and the smuggling of oil so that the money and influence can flow into the hands of enemies like China who seek the destruction of America. President Trump has decided he’s just not going to allow that. Under Trump, we are simply not going to allow the evil players of the world to bring their problems to us, and especially to bring them inside our country and taking the lives of Americans.
Despite claims to the contrary, I don’t believe this is the endless war scenario that we’ve seen the United States engage in during past administrations, including the neo-con regime of George W. Bush. These operations are necessary in the current climate. President Trump is making real-life decisions based on what is best for Americans, despite electoral threats and the screaming of his political opposition. President Trump is doing something we haven’t seen in a very long time. He is operating as a real leader on the worldwide stage. And before we get all bent out of shape, understand that while we know a lot about what is going on – I just laid much of it out for you – President Trump and his team knows more than we do. President Trump has shown he hates war and wants peace, but he also operates on the same wavelength of George Washington. Be firm, be ready for war, and take care of America, but only do so when it is directly influential in our interests. In other words, rather than go and fight other country’s wars around the globe, we need to be taking care of America’s domestic and international interests, and his actions in Latin America is definitely doing both. How many Americans’ lives are being saved with Trump taking out drug boats? How many more lives will be saved when Venezuela finally falls out of the grip of communism, Columbia finally is pushed back against when it comes to their production of drugs, and China, Russia and Islam is sent packing and returns to the Eastern Hemisphere with their tails between their legs? President Trump is operating on an America First platform, and if it ticks off a bunch of Democrats and a few libertarians freaking out because they think it means war, so be it. When you look at the big picture, President Trump is doing exactly what he ought to do, what we voted him into office to do, and what every spineless President before him refused to do.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For months, the world was told Gaza was on the brink of famine. Headlines screamed of starving children, of food shortages, of Israel supposedly blocking humanitarian aid. The narrative was clear: Israel was committing genocide by daring to respond to the October 7 attacks.
But it was all a lie.
Recent revelations confirm what many suspected from the start: Hamas manufactured the famine narrative, weaponizing hunger as propaganda. A report by a Palestinian activist now shows that Hamas deliberately hid tons of baby formula and nutritional shakes inside warehouses, allowing civilians to starve while the terror group advanced its claims of “genocide” to undermine Israel.
Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, an anti-Hamas activist, exposed the deception. He shared video footage showing stacks of infant formula and children’s nutritional shakes stored in Gaza warehouses; supplies that could have alleviated suffering but were instead hoarded.
He explained that Hamas’ goal was to worsen the crisis, initiate disaster, and force the return of the UN’s aid distribution mechanism away from the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). In other words, Hamas starved its own people to manipulate international opinion and regain control of aid flows.
In short, as suspected by conservatives and the Trump administration, and claimed by Israel, Hamas manufactured hunger so that they could manufacture outrage.
After the breakdown of a truce in March, warnings of famine spread rapidly. Images of emaciated children shocked the world, prompting U.S. involvement and the establishment of the GHF to distribute food inside Gaza. Yet the aid was not reaching ordinary citizens. It was being diverted, controlled, and weaponized by those in power.
The fragile cease-fire itself collapsed further when Hamas failed to release the body of the last remaining hostage, claiming it could not locate the captive. Meanwhile, chaos engulfed food distribution centers. Shootings and deaths occurred almost daily, with Hamas openly warning Palestinians not to approach GHF sites. Denying food to civilians at that point was not hidden. It was Hamas’ policy.
Alkhatib accused Hamas of exploiting the hunger crisis, using Palestinians as collateral in its war against Israel. His words cut through the fog:
Despite widespread reporting on hunger, Israeli officials consistently denied that their military campaign was causing famine. Instead, they pointed to Hamas’s looting and manipulation. Yet international media and UN officials downplayed Hamas’ role, attributing thefts of aid trucks to “armed gangs.”
But who controls the gangs? Who orchestrates the chaos? Even with many of its leaders killed, Hamas maintains an iron grip over Gaza. The terror group thrives on deception, using women and children as shields, and hunger as a weapon.
The famine narrative was never about feeding children. It was about feeding propaganda. Hamas starved its own people to paint Israel as the villain, to sway global opinion, and to regain control of aid distribution.
The tragedy is real: Palestinian civilians suffered. But the responsibility lies not only with the fog of war, nor with any Israeli blockade, but with Hamas itself… a terror organization willing to sacrifice its own population for political gain.
The deception has been exposed. The question now is whether the world will finally hold Hamas accountable for weaponizing hunger and perpetuating suffering in Gaza. Then again, for the world to know, the leftwing media machine would have to be willing to report the truth, first.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Internal Threat to the Republic
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The progressive left, which began dominating the Democratic Party during the dawn of the twentieth century, has always been a group pushing for collectivism. With each passing decade their similarities with their more radical mates on the left-side of the political spectrum has become more and more pronounced. Now, it’s pretty hard to distinguish between today’s Democrats and hardcore socialists and communists.
Along with their radical political desires a violent rage has also surfaced. The emergence of Donald Trump on the political scene has had them so out of whack, since he was such a devastating stick in their spokes, that one might even say that they’ve become downright violent. The manifestation of their violent thoughts have burst into plain view through Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the recent attacks against ICE as they work to carry out their legal immigration duties.
Since Donald Trump has returned to the White House this year, disturbing trends of violent rhetoric and anti-American language have emerged even more among progressive Democrats. These trends are something that should concern every American who cherishes liberty, constitutional order, and civil discourse. While accusing President Trump, MAGA Republicans, and conservatives of extremism, today’s prominent Democrats have engaged in such extreme rhetoric that it borders on incitement and sedition.
The most glaring example came in November 2025, when six Democratic members of Congress, Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and Representatives Jason Crow, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Chris Deluzio, released a video urging military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.” The timing and tone of the video, coupled with National Guard operations in cities, ICE operations. and President Trump’s military actions in the Caribbean including taking out drug boats, led many to interpret this as a veiled call for defiance against the Commander in Chief. Trump himself called the video “seditious,” and the FBI has since launched an investigation into the elected politicians involved.
This is not an isolated incident. Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen recently tweeted, “Where are our military folks? The Commander in Chief is in the hands of our enemy!” That statement in any other era and under any Democratic President would be seen as dangerously suggestive of a military coup.
Meanwhile, Democrats continue to claim that Trump and his supporters are the true threat to our country, despite the record telling a different story. From Rep. Maxine Waters urging mobs to harass Trump officials in public spaces, to Rep. Ayanna Pressley declaring “there needs to be unrest in the streets,” the left’s rhetoric has repeatedly crossed lines of civility and legality.
Even when confronted with these examples, Democrats like Rep. Jasmine Crockett deny any link between their words and political violence. “I challenge somebody to go and find a clip of a Democrat invoking violence,” she said. The Republican Party obliged, compiling a list of incendiary statements from her colleagues that includes calls to “bury them below the Capitol,” “choke them out,” and “punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.”
This pattern reveals a deeper truth: the progressive left is not engaged in a battle of ideas, but a campaign of control. They project authoritarianism onto their opponents while embracing tactics that undermine debate, demonize dissent, and flirt with violence. Their strategy is not persuasion. Theirs is a campaign of intimidation and a threat of violence from the radical segments of their base.
As a conservative Christian and constitutionalist, I do not call for division, and I certainly do not call for violence. But I do call for clarity and well-defined contrast. We must recognize the danger of political rhetoric that erodes the foundations of our Republic. The Constitution is not a partisan document. It is an American document for all Americans that established our system of governance, and as a result (if followed) is the safeguard of liberty for all Americans. When elected officials suggest defying lawful orders or incite unrest, they betray that sacred trust.
That said, when Presidents Obama and Biden were in office, I was definitely on alert, and agreed with the statement “keep your powder dry.” While I do not subscribe to the recent violent rhetoric of the progressive left Democrats, I don’t believe embracing the opposite extreme is wise, either. But the Founding Fathers were clear. While standing against tyrannical government is not only a right, but a duty, in the Declaration of Independence is also says, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms which they are accustomed.”
Thanks to the Constitution we have tools of processes to take care of correcting tyrannical elements inside our system – and I am not talking lawfare and a frivolous use of impeachment as we’ve seen used by the Democrats. I am talking about election, informed involvement in our civic duties, and battling in the arena of ideas. If you don’t like the persons in the arena or holding office, so be it. Then work to replace them by debating policy. Let us uphold the rule of law, not mob rule. And let us never forget that liberty, once lost, is rarely regained without great cost.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary