Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
One year ago, on September 10, 2025, Christian Patriot Charlie Kirk was shot and killed by a gunman. The assassination took place at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah as Charlie was speaking at an outdoor campus event with about 3,000 people in attendance. He was doing what he loved – inviting critics to challenge him face-to-face at a Turning Point USA (TP USA) event. His “Prove Me Wrong” tent debates had become something to see. Thousands would gather – from both sides of the political spectrum. It was something he had done many times. But on that day, an assassin would take a shot at him, scoring a fatal bullet wound to the neck. News spread rapidly. Charlie Kirk had been the target of a political public assassination.
Over the years I had the opportunity to meet Charlie twice. On the second occasion, in 2019 at the Unite I.E, Conference in Ontario, California, we got the chance to talk a little bit, and he purchased two of my books. I told him his money was no good with me, but he insisted on paying for them, and he expected me to autograph them. When we talked, it wasn’t about politics, or about him. He asked me about me. Charlie was particularly interested in the Constitution Classes I hosted around Southern California. Before he departed with a group of security personnel around him, we shook hands, snapped a photo, and I gave him one of my business cards.
I was already following him online, but my main radio hero at the time was still Rush Limbaugh. Two years later, Rush passed away, and I was sure the radio torch would be passed on to Charlie. For the most part, it was. Charlie’s radio presence seemed to increase, and I began to see his name popping up at events much more often. While I taught U.S. History at a private school in 2023 through 2024 a Turning Point USA club was started on campus, and I was acquainted with the local TP USA representative. I was sure, at the time, that Charlie Kirk was becoming a household name.
When the assassin’s bullet took Charlie’s life, I was surprised at how many people came to me asking me about who he was. Most people I knew outside my Constitution-Class-World were not familiar with his name. In fact, the farther away the person was from believing in Christianity and conservative politics, the more likely they had no idea who he was.
Suddenly, his name sparked a lot of interest. Who was he? Why would Charlie Kirk be the target of a public execution by an assassin’s bullet?
What amazed me even more was not that so many people seemed to not be as familiar with him as I supposed, but the intense reaction that rose up from the foul ranks of the political left. Hate rose up, with people celebrating his violent passing – reactions so disgusting that it even led to hundreds of people being fired from their jobs, or disciplined, due to their public vitriol regarding Charlie Kirk, and what he represented. He became the face of the Trump Derangement Syndrome crowd. He was, in their eyes, the leader of the “Christian Nationalist” movement (which only exists in their minds). Charlie was being called a Nazi, Fascist, and bigot.
Sure, during his lifetime, many progressive left commie Democrats called him these kinds of names to his face at the events on college campuses, and elsewhere, but now that he had been so horribly killed the attacks against hime reached a crescendo.
Fortunately, on the other side of the ideological spectrum the number of tributes was mind-blowing. Political and public leaders from around the world, including President Donald Trump, stood firm around TP USA and Erika Kirk, Charlie’s widow. A celebration of Charlie’s life rose up so powerfully that it almost drowned out the hatred and disgusting celebrations of Charlie’s death. TP USA was suddenly on everybody’s radar, and American Patriots (Christians and Non-Christians, alike) stood together to celebrate Charlie’s life and accomplishments, showing an incredible amount of love for Erika, and the organization that Charlie had co-founded, built, and operated.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination touched off a countrywide conversation about political violence, and an incredible wave of Christian revival that rocked the U.S. from sea to shining sea. As legislators around the country began launching ways to honor Charlie, the age of WOKE and the Cancel Culture buckled under the weight of conservatism’s new found appreciation for Freedom of Speech. Prayer gatherings formed. Large worship events appeared. Young people were being emboldened by the death of a man who had spent his adult years challenging cultural norms. The new generation was rejecting the immoral foundation of Wokeism. Charlie Kirk had given many young Americans the courage to stand firm on their beliefs in the public square while he was alive, and in his death Charlie inspired many more, launching a wave of newfound conviction and boldness that was fueling an incredible political and Christian revival.
Courage, I think. is the right word.
The Tytler Cycle came to mind. Alexander Tytler, a Scottish political voice alive during the dawn of the American Experiment, offered that there is a series of steps that a nation goes through when it comes to rising out of bondage, and ultimately returning to it. From bondage a society must first experience an increase in Faith – a search for unity and deep moral groundings. From that faith comes the courage to fight for liberty, and then there is a rise in prosperity once that freedom is achieved. The system’s success then leads to so much prosperity that the culture becomes more focused on material things and selfishness. Personal responsibility becomes a thing of the past as the members of the society become complacent and apathetic. As the public loses touch, the government’s power centralizes. Independence becomes more controlled until government programs and intrusion in the lives of the citizens creates a dependency on government. Government then gains complete control, leading the people back to bondage – the condition from whence they began.
In my Constitution Classes, when teaching about the Tytler Cycle, I asked the class where they thought America was at present time. Somewhere between apathy and dependence? In total dependence? How close to bondage have we come to? Then, I ask if it is necessary for us to suffer through bondage, or can we cut straight across to spiritual awakening?
Could the death of Charlie Kirk have accomplished that very thing? As Charlie’s legacy continues to be written, is it possible that in death his impact will move America in a direction that will avoid the sting of full collapse and bondage?
No matter what becomes of this country following Charlie Kirk’s death, one thing is for sure: His assassination a year ago will be looked back upon by historians as being ranked among the more significant moments in history. Traumatic. Unforgettable. Course-changing.
After Charlie’s death the videos of his events and debates roared through the internet – building an audience wider than during his life. Many credit him with bringing in huge numbers of young voters for Donald Trump’s elections. Charlie was known worldwide, having been in contact with leaders like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
He was friends with Vice President J.D. Vance, and his bold ability to stand in the public square proclaiming Faith in Jesus Christ was inspiring and effective. He advocated for Faith, marriage, and parenthood. American Exceptionalism was something he talked about constantly, and his knowledge of the Bible and the Constitution was like no other. He challenged the cultural leftist push about race, gender, and politics – passionately defending his position. His was a crusade. A movement. And that movement is still moving forward. A year after his death, love of God and Country is still on the rise. A year after his death his organization, TP USA, is still educating and inspiring young Americans. A year after his death his message has become global in ways his opposition feared. His message of the Love of Christ, America’s greatness, and the dangers of socialism continues to reverberate across the land and through the halls of school campuses.
Shortly after Charlie’s death the growth of TP USA exploded, with the organization reporting a 300 percent rise in church partnerships, a 200 percent jump in Club America groups in high schools, and a 64 percent increase in the number of college chapters. Thousands of schools are represented, and thousands attend TP USA events. Donations are up to support the organization’s activities, and Kirk’s “happy warrior” style of debate is being emulated across America. His legacy is one of standing firm on one’s beliefs in a calm, positive and courageous manner. Despite the extreme political hateful rhetoric against Kirk, his legacy is growing. Despite the leftist attacks, Americans are becoming more unified, and eager to learn more about the U.S. Constitution and Christianity as a result of Charlie’s life. In his death his political movement has grown in ways that the political left never dreamed of. Their attacks have backfired, and conservative Christians have become bold and steadfast in the wake of the rhetoric and glimpses of political violence. A new generation has grabbed the baton from Charlie, exclaiming, “We won’t back down.”
This is not to say that the opposition to Charlie’s message is going away anytime soon. Socialism is on the rise in American politics. Protesters continue to clash with police and conservative groups. Democrats refuse to honor Kirk’s passing on this first anniversary, though many are willing to condemn his assassination. The leftist side of the political spectrum has become more violent in its rhetoric, despite Charlie’s message of building bridges through education and debate. They reject his model of defending our values in America unapologetically, adopting instead an oppressor-oppressed view of American History.
When the opposition attacks, his message was clear. Stay calm. Let the lefties be the one’s losing their mind during the conversation. Ask questions, not only to understand what you are up against, but so that the leftwing opponent eventually contradicts themselves when faced with truth and logic. Rather than react emotionally, respond with reason and truth. While you may not change the minds of those you are talking to, some of those watching will recognize the truth when confronted with it.
Kirk said, “You’re not just debating a person. You’re performing for the audience of everyone else. And I try to do that at our prove-me-wrong events.”
Charlie inspired in such a way that people would walk away with “a fire in [their] belly that was so contagious,” says TP USA spokesman Andrew Kolvet.
The fire continues to burn.
As Charlie would remind us: Romans 8:28 – And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Trump has asked for the whole beef situation to be looked into. He signed two executive orders, the first calling for a 90-day review of policies affecting ranchers, and the second focusing on competition, processing capacity, and interstate sales of federally inspected meat. He understands that a large part of the beef industry’s challenges and high prices is tied to supply and demand. That’s why he gave a tariff-free beef deal to Brazil and Argentina. It was all about getting beef prices down by increasing supply while he works on bringing back American beef.
Domestically, the problem is many-fold. The large meat processors have created a competition problem, and many government policies have created not only an increase of a cost of doing business, but obstacles that stand in the way of getting meat to consumers. In short, between the meatpackers and the government, there are too many obstacles between beef producers and consumers. So, the Trump administration is working to eliminate the obstacles while creating an environment that benefits consumers.
One of the results, if things go as planned, will be providing the opportunity for ranchers to process, package, and sell meat without the over-regulation or requirements to deal with massive meat-packing companies across state lines – while still making sure food-safety standards are maintained.
President Trump has directed the Agriculture Department to expand investigations into possible Packers and Stockyards Act violations, and has directed the Department of Justice to look into potential antitrust cases. The plan is to eliminate the bottleneck that exists between the rancher and the market. Let the free market do its thing. Encourage direct competition and create an avenue for getting beef to market without all of the unnecessary obstacles and additional costs that don’t exist for any reason other than adding cost to the process.
The key is always unleashing free market principles. Managed deregulation and allowing the market to do its thing without government overly imposing itself into the process always results in prosperity and a thriving market. President Trump understands that, and that is why these reviews and directions by Trump are happening. He recognizes that beef prices are too high, and the reason is largely due to leftist policies that handcuff the market, and rewards massive corporate meat-packers. Get corporate obstacles out of the way, get government out of the way, and let the ranchers do what they do best – produce beef, and bring it to market.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Fraud in American elections is rampant, and if we are ever able to achieve full election integrity with the passage of laws like the SAVE America Act and tightening down on mail-in voting (keeping it restricted to absentee ballots) the Democratic Party might begin to suffer a loss of electoral victories in a manner similar to the Federalist Party after 1800. The truth is, most Americans reject their radical agenda, and the only way they have been pulling off as many victories as they have has been through voter fraud and illegal alien voting.
One of the key instances of election fraud happened during the 2020 Presidential Election. I believe that election was won by Trump. But, irregularities, shenanigans, and straight out fraud twisted it in Biden’s favor. The narrow wins by Biden in Swing States, the ballot box stuffing, and the fact that he got more votes than any presidential candidate in history up to then, and since, all stink of corruption.
Dr. Douglas Frank performed a deep analysis regarding the election, and I agree with his findings. In a nutshell, his findings reveal “that just isn’t normal.” All fifty states possess markers for election fraud at some level.
I also agree with Mike Lindell’s evidence, as well. I spent a good share of time talking to Tina Peters before she was jailed for daring to reveal and share evidence of election fraud in Colorado.
But, if you dare say the things I am saying, you are a pariah. The 2020 Election seems like it’s a sacred cow that nobody wants to even touch. To say anything about it other than it was the most safe and secure election in history makes you, in their eyes, a conspiracy theorist and insurrectionist. The subject is so taboo to the mainstream media and anyone who is holding hands with the political establishment that they were willing to stage their own Reichstag Fire type of event, ruining the lives of patriotic Americans in the process. The stage was set at The Capitol on January 6, 2021. It was a trap to ensnare MAGA supporters, agitating them into a reactionary state with planted government personnel, Antifa, and a lot of loud and fiery mechanisms along with deceptive optics and a cherry picking of the video. The Hollywood Production was presented as the worse attack against America since Pearl Harbor. According to the Democrats and their partners in the media it was the worst insurrection-type action in America since the secession of the Southern States in the 1860s. Democratic politicians claimed to be hiding and crying and fearing for their lives as a bunch of elderly MAGA supporters walked between ropes like they were on a tourism visit. The cameras were snapping and videoing when some of them got angry because flash bangs were exploding in their faces and members of the Capitol Police were egging them on. Agitation spelled reaction, and the reaction was filmed as insurrection even though those who began the whole confrontation arrived long before the folks that had heard Trump speak. Trump supporters from the Ellipse wondered what was going on as they arrived as the initial agitators were breaking windows before the crowd had even arrived.
Now, Maria Bartiromo seems to have crossed the line regarding her consideration of reporting of election interference. She wanted to discuss the evidence that Trump was touting in his speech on the air, but she was told not to pursue any story tying China to 2020 election fraud. The warning by FOX News against her pursuit of the story was sent by text, among other things. She was told a story about China’s influence in 2020 was off limits. She took a screenshot of the warning, and shared it with the White House to show that the media, even FOX News, was giving into the fear being perpetuated by China. In response, FOX News fired her.
The news that Maria Bartiromo was fired by FOX News began to circulate after she vanished from the being on the air after August 9, 2026. The trigger was President Trump’s July 16 primetime address, where he revealed that China carried out the largest compromise of American election data in history. Reports indicate that FOX executives had instructed staff not to cover claims made by President Trump during the July address about election interference, particularly regarding China’s role.
When Bartiromo shared internal FOX communications with the White House, essentially “betraying” her employer by exposing network directives to suppress certain stories, on the surface one might understand why they fired her. As an employee of any company, you are not supposed to share internal communications with the outside world. In this case, however, we are talking about a network essentially colluding with the Chinese Communist Party by seeking to suppress the truth. She believed she was doing the right thing for the country, the law, and as an honest journalist when she took a screenshot of a text message from a FOX Business executive telling producers to kill a story about China and the 2020 election, and sent it to senior White House officials.
This incident occurred against the backdrop of FOX’s possible sensitivity to election-related coverage due to significant lawsuits from Dominion Voting Systems (which FOX settled for $787.5 million in 2023) and Smartmatic. The network, we have been told, was likely being particularly cautious about content that they figured might further expose them to legal liability regarding election claims. Except, this wasn’t a report by some candidate seeking office, or information released by sources that may or may not be considered legitimate. This was information provided by the federal government, and discussed by the President of the United States. Fear was not a factor. This is a clear case of colluding with the rest of mainstream media, and the Chinese Communist Party.
The firing of Bartiromo demonstrates the willingness of the media, even FOX News, to still refuse to seek the truth about election integrity issues. To me, it seems like a clear case of a suppression of information that could support claims about election irregularities, which in my mind makes me wonder if the media’s role as an accomplice is more sinister than we’ve been led to believe.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Remember when Don Lemon and gang invaded a church to protest one of the church’s pastors who worked for ICE? They entered the church, took over the service, refused to leave and shouted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!” The agitators screamed at crying children, blocked parents from retrieving their children from Sunday School, and one of the activists told a child their parents were Nazis and going to hell.
A federal grand jury indicted 38 of the invaders on two charges: violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (passed for abortion clinics, but protects access to churches as well), and violating the Ku Klux Klan Act which criminalizes efforts to deprive Americans of their fundamental rights – including the free exercise of religion.
The activists are claiming they are not guilty and that their actions are protected by the First Amendment. According to their motion, “The Constitution does not contain any exception to free speech in churches…There is no alleged conduct that crossed the line into violence, threats or anything that went beyond free speech. The protest was limited to pure speech and assembly.”
The defendants also argue that “there are no allegations supporting the conclusion that defendants’ actions were intended to interfere with freedom of worship.”
The argument by the activists is based on a number of flawed assumptions, with two in particular I would like to key in on.
They frame their “right” to free speech and assembly on whether or not the First Amendment contains an “exception to free speech in churches.” The second assumption is based on what their “intentions” were.
When it comes to our Natural Rights, they exist not because of the language in the First Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution. We were endowed by our Creator with our Natural Rights. The First Amendment does not grant, define, or guarantee any of the five rights enumerated in the amendment. They belong to us naturally. The right to free speech and assembly, however, also carry another component that the activists don’t seem to understand.
A right stops being a right when it interferes with another’s right. For example, I may have the right to swing my arms, but I don’t have the right to swing my arms into someone’s face. My right to swing my arms stops at the tip of the nose of the other person, and actually even further away because they have the right not to be struck in the face, or feel that they are under the threat of such action.
The agitators cited Snyder v. Phelps to combat that argument, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that protesters carrying offensive signs near a military funeral did not interfere with the funeral. The difference is that the protesters in the Snyder case remained on public property about 1,000 feet away from the church that the funeral was being held at. They did not enter the building or interrupt the service while going down aisles and screaming in the faces of those in attendance.
As for their claim that they had no “intent” to interfere with a religious worship service, try that argument when you get pulled over for speeding. “But officer, I didn’t intend to drive too fast.” Whether they, in their minds, intended to or not (and they obviously did intend to disrupt the service), the fact is that they did. And since the left hates God so much, and don’t understand what “God-given Rights” means, from their point of view what they did was no different than interrupting a city council meeting with their antics. I am not sure they truly understand the severity of their actions. I am not letting them off the hook, here – I am simply pointing out that to them God does not exist so worshipping Him is a silly action that needs not be protected.
The reality is, the hard left hates Christians, hates Christianity, and hated that pastor for daring to have anything to do with ICE because they hate Trump and America. They wanted to frighten people. They wanted to terrorize the worshippers and upset them as they did. They’ve decided in their minds that anyone who disagrees with them is an enemy and the ends justify the means. And, regardless of “intentions,” the fact is the worshippers felt terrorized, they believed it might be an active-shooter situation, they feared for their own safety and the safety of their children, and they were horrified at being screamed at that they were Nazis and going to Hell in their own church which is supposed to be a safe place.
I know people that got into a public argument and with their words threatened to “kill” the person they were arguing with, and were hit with a charge of a “terrorist threat.” But somehow in the minds of the lefties, terrifying families, frightening children, and screaming they are there to “shut this down” isn’t the same kind of offense?
The worst part is that the perpetrators are so out of their mind under the spell of the cult of leftism that they don’t understand how evil what they did truly is. I truly believe they are completely ignorant of the seriousness of their actions, and they truly do not understand how what they were doing was exactly the kind tactic used by the Nazis, Soviets, and other tyrannical horrors in history to instill fear in their opposition as a precursor of the murderous actions that would be committed against their victims.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During the Obama and Biden presidencies, the Democrats renamed over 650 specific geographic natural physical features, human features, public places, and military locations. Most changes targeted alleged ethnic, racial, or sexist slurs, while others eliminated references to Confederate figures, or historical figures that somehow offended somebody. Mountains, peaks, lakes, streams, canyons, islands, schools, streets and valleys all became targets. The cultural renaming extended even beyond geography, with women becoming “birthing persons,” among other games with language.
Now, Democrats rage over Trump’s decision to rename Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” despite the fact that the lake occupies nearly half of American territory. That said, Canada can keep calling it Lake Ontario, for all I care.
Trump’s opponents conveniently forget their own renaming frenzy. When Barack Obama changed the name of Mount McKinley to Mount Denali, they cheered – proclaiming it to be a restoration of its “Native American” name. Never mind that they were simultaneously eliminating “Native American” names elsewhere as “cultural appropriation.”
The hypocrisy is staggering, and it doesn’t just reside in changing the names of things.
They complained when Trump appointed Todd Blanche to attorney general because the two have “too close of a relationship.” He was Trump’s personal lawyer, they screamed. Trump’s giving positions to his friends and family, they cried. They said nothing when Obama appointed his best friend Eric Holder to AG. They still say nothing about the fact that President John F. Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, to AG.
They argue that Trump is waging an illegal war in Iran. Where were their arguments when Obama waged an undeclared war on the Afghan-Pakistan border, took out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and ordered 500 assassination takeouts with drones? A couple of those assassinations, by the way, were Americans – and not all of the targets were terrorists.
Bill Clinton didn’t receive arguments from the media and Democrats when he hit the Serbians in the name of saving Bosnia and Kosovo from “genocide.”
They complain about his White House Ballroom despite the fact that all Presidents have made changes and renovations to the White House in one way or another. They complain about the events he’s held, claiming he’s wasting taxpayer money when, like with the Ballroom, those events were paid for with private money. How many events and restorations to the White House did Democratic Presidents have – which, by the way, were each paid with taxpayer dollars.
The contradictions are not hard to recognize, and the reason is simple. It’s never been about the action. It’s only about who performs it. If Trump is authoritarian for renaming a lake, what does that make Obama and Biden who renamed over 650 places? While I appreciate tradition, the selective outrage reveals a whole lot of truth. They will oppose anything Trump does, even when it mirrors their own actions.
In the end, the only question we should be asking is if President Trump has the constitutional authority to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America. The answer is, he’s head of the executive branch, so he can rename plenty of things inside the federal government’s own paperwork and signage. What he can’t do is force Canada to adopt the new name, rewrite international agreements, or demand the rest of the world’s mapmakers comply. He can call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and change the name of Lake Ontario on government paperwork that comes out of the executive branch to Lake America all he wants – but whether or not everyone else wants to follow his lead… well, that is totally up to them.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
One Juror Against Madness
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. If you were to pay attention to social media, you may easily be led to believe that a large horde of folks posting online believe that Lindsay Clancy is innocent, didn’t know what she was doing, or even that her husband was the one who actually strangled the woman’s three children. It is not in our best interest to listen to a loud corner of the internet that is likely less than 100ths of a percent of the population because they seem to be louder than everyone else. Common sense and discernment should be our guide along that wacky trail.
The Lindsay Clancy murder trial became a focal point of public attention as it progressed. The question was not whether or not Clancy killed her own children. The question became whether or not she knew what she was doing. I’ve never understood how a woman could ever turn against her own children, yet we see it happen over a million times a year in abortion clinics in the United States each year. This is where Clancy’s case really reaches deep inside our psyche. If she was not out of her mind to the point that she didn’t know what she was doing, how is it a mother could look her children in the eyes and kill them, one by one? How is it possible that we’ve reached such a low point in our culture? It begs us to ask, has abortion so desensitized us to death, and the value of a child’s life, that we now have mothers killing their children in cold blood after they are born, well into their childhood, as well?
Eleven jurors believed her to be not guilty by reason of insanity. They believed there was reasonable doubt. They believed it was possible that Lindsay Clancy did not know what she was doing regarding her actions as she was killing her children. They believed despite evidence that she planned the killing, and carried out each one in a manner that took planning and significant time to carry them out while the other children watched and waited their turn to die, somehow she was incapable of reasoning that she was killing her own children.
Defense Attorney Kevin Reddington argued at trial that Clancy shouldn’t be held criminally responsible because she was suffering from severe postpartum psychosis and hallucinated a voice telling her to carry out the killings and to kill herself.
One juror disagreed. One juror believed she was completely aware. One juror believed there was no doubt at all that she was fully aware of her actions, and that she carried out the heinous murders without remorse.
One juror stood against the majority.
Judge William Sullivan had no choice but to end the trial without a verdict. Before the mistrial became final, defense attorney Kevin Reddington was provided one hour to seek relief from a justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The request for relief was denied.
Reddington called for the single juror to be removed. Judge Sullivan denied the defense request to question the single juror who disagreed with the “not guilty by reason of insanity” majority opinion of the jury. Reddington accused the juror of lying that there was no doubt. The jury was hopelessly deadlocked, and because of one juror the trial ended in a mistrial.
A woman decided to kill her children, and failed to finish herself off in a botched suicide attempt. Whether there were voices in her head, or not, her three children are dead by her hand. Voices in her head, or not, she made the decision to kill her children. Eleven members of the jury bought her story that she couldn’t help herself. Nine women and two men bought the argument, but one man didn’t. One man on the jury wasn’t going along with the claim that a voice, heard only once, led a woman to “unknowingly” strangle the life out of her own babies.
That one man stood up to the mob and kept a killer from being rewarded for claiming insanity. And think about his courage. The hard-left mob out there, despite being only a fraction of a percentage of the population, could go after him and his family – and he knows that. But he believed in doing the right thing. He was targeted by the defense as a one not following the law. The vindictiveness is stunning. Our country is in a dark period. Abortion devoted itself to the sacrifice of innocent blood, and now the barbarism of abortion has led to this. Life is no longer precious to some folks. Death has become a normal activity, and the purposeful killing of a child in the womb has even been declared to be a “right” by some people. I believe that abortion, the normalization of killing our children in the womb, and the devaluation of the value of a child’s life, led to Lindsay Clancy viciously planning the killing of her three children – and only one juror was willing to stand up for what’s right and call it what it was. Murder.
The husband of Lindsay Clancy, Patrick Clancy, issued a statement saying he is grateful to the Court and the jurors for their hard work. The loss of his children is something he will never recover from.
President Trump said regarding the case, “I assume there’s going to be another trial. It’s a terrible situation. Look, she did a horrible, horrible thing. Can’t be worse. But you’ll find out what the price to pay is. There’ll be a price. It’s going to be a mental institution or jail or something. But I guess they’re going to go through another trial. It’s too bad.”
Clancy had been charged with three counts of first-degree murder after she admitted to strangling her three children. Her insanity defense included claims that she suffered from postpartum psychosis at the time of the January 2023 killings. What she suffered from, however, is a culture that celebrates the death of children. Feminism has taught society that motherhood is a kind of oppression, and women need liberation from it. The hard-left has long sought to replace motherhood and the family unit with the collectivism of “the village.” A woman doesn’t need a man or children – all she needs is to be strong and fierce and escape the prison of marriage and motherhood.
With that kind of madness being pumped into the brains of the women in our culture, how long did they believe it would take before it would all manifest into the destruction of the lives of beautiful children by the hands of their own mothers? How long would it take until the barbaric desensitization of the death of unborn children would transfer into something as grisly and barbaric as the Lindsay Clancy murders?
Shortly after the Lindsay Clancy case, a two-yeard old little boy named Barrett “Bear” Walsh was found hanging from a basement inside his family’s Illinois home. The mother, Corie Walsh, faces three counts of first-degree murder of her own child.
Coincidence?
Witnesses told investigators that Walsh was highly invested in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. According to the detention filing, Walsh was discussing the Clancy case with friends in a group text only hours before her son’s death.
The defense team representing Walsh claims she was experiencing a psychotic episode.
Regardless, another child is dead by the hands of their own mother.
She decided her two-year-old son must die.
She retrieved a rope, tied it in a noose, put that noose around his neck, and dropped him and watched him die.
Psychotic episode? The word psychotic is correct, and that exactly is why she should be found by a jury to be guilty and removed from society.
God help us.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary