Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I’ve seen a lot of lunacy in my time. I’ve watched the Left melt down over everything from red hats to Trump serving fries at a hamburger restaurant. But the whole Subway Sandwich thing is peak Trump Derangement Syndrome. We’re not talking about a sandwich anymore. We’re talking about a full-blown psychological collapse masquerading as political discourse.
You’ll remember the recent lunacy, I am sure. A member of the Department of Justice, the very institution tasked with upholding law and order, went full toddler in public. Not metaphorically. Literally. Screaming like a banshee, veins bulging, eyes wild. And then, in a moment of pure, unfiltered leftist rage, they hurl a sandwich at a federal officer.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: assault on a law enforcement officer? Surely that’s a crime. Surely there’s accountability. But no. No grand jury would touch it. Not because the facts weren’t clear. Not because the evidence was lacking. But because the tantrum was politically blessed. You see, when your rage is anti-Trump, anything goes.
This wasn’t about lunch. This was about the Left losing its last shred of impulse control. The sandwich was just the projectile. The real weapon was their unhinged ideology; an ideology so warped by hatred for one man that it overrides basic human decency.
We used to live in a country where adults acted like adults. Where public servants didn’t behave like caffeinated toddlers at Chuck E. Cheese. But now? Now we’ve got DOJ officials throwing food and foaming at the mouth like it’s a punk rock concert in 1993.
This is not just embarrassing. It’s dangerous. When political tantrums are given immunity, when law enforcement is treated like a punching bag for ideological rage, we don’t have a republic, we have a banana republic merged with a three-ring circus. And the clowns aren’t funny anymore.
There may be no statute for “criminal temper tantrums,” but maybe there should be. Especially when those tantrums are directed at officers of the law. Especially when they’re drenched in political idiocy and institutional hypocrisy.
So no, the sandwich thrower wasn’t indicted. But the real indictment is of a culture that’s lost its mind. A culture where rage is virtue, and restraint is weakness. A culture where the Left’s mental disorder is not only tolerated – it’s celebrated.
And that, my friends, is the real crime.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In court cases that make it to the United States Supreme Court, an argument you might sometimes hear is “common use.” The term basically begs to ask the question, “which firearms are considered covered by the Second Amendment?” An originalist like me might laugh at the fact that the question is asked in the first place. But, the reality is, it is a long-standing question.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the common use question basically asks, “Which firearms are protected by the Constitution?” And if you dig further, the question becomes, “In the Second Amendment what does the clause refer to with the word arms?” Does it include stun guns? Martial Arts hand weapons? Bladed weapons?
The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, which is the first American English-Language Dictionary, and the one closest to the era of the Founding Fathers, defines “Arms” as being:
- (1) Weapons of offense or armor for defense and protection of the body.
- (4) In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.
- (*) Sire arms are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, etc.
So, from a resource point of view from the era the right to keep and bear arms as articulated in the Second Amendment includes all weapons and equipment that may be used for offense or defense including protective tools or apparatus. So, using those definitions the common use argument is an unconstitutional one. Using the term “arms” in the Second Amendment means anything that falls within those criteria:
- Guns of any kind
- Blades of any kind
- Other weapons including stun guns, pepper spray, etc.
- Protective devices like body armor or shields.
During congressional debates and the state ratification conventions the discussions regarding the Second Amendment never specifically listed what kinds of weapons were covered by the language of the Second Amendment. James Madison introduced the amendment to the House of Representatives, and while no specific weapons were discussed, what was discussed was the importance of preserving the right to keep and bear arms primarily for the purpose of preserving the ability of the militia to fight tyranny. Madison and others equated an armed populace as being a safeguard against standing armies that may be used by a potentially tyrannical federal government. If the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is specifically so that citizens may serve as guards against federal tyranny (necessary to the security of a free state) then one could presume that means all citizens must have arms comparable to those of a soldier – not just hunting weapons.
The Ratifying Conventions in each of the States experienced similar discussions:
- Virginia Ratifying Convention
- George Mason warned against disarming the people: “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” Mason would also later comment, when asked who the militia is, “They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- The discussion assumed that the people would have military-grade arms suitable for militia service.
- The proposed amendments from Virginia to the Second Amendment explicitly referred to the militia and private arms.
- Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention
- The minority report proposed language that concentrated on self-defense and militia roles.
- New York Ratifying Convention
- Declared that the militia should always be armed and that the people had the individual right to keep arms at home.
Not a single discussion limited arms to specific weapons or used a common use style argument. And, no debate stated that the Second Amendment was limited to arms need for militia use, or personal self-defense, or personal use for other reasons. The firearms protected by the Second Amendment, then, would include all weapons, including those in common military use at the time. Or as Ted Nugent once said, “The Second Amendment does not exist in case the deer rise up.” The scary weapons being labeled as assault rifles by opponents of gun ownership also are included when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.
During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and the debates regarding the Articles of Confederation less than a decade before, while the discussion of firearms did not directly land on the chamber floor, they were discussed indirectly when they discussed the militia concept. The militia, in fact, was a central discussion and was understood as being the body of the people armed with common military arms of the day.
Today’s judicial yardstick regarding allowable guns, however, includes the “common use test.” Under that standard courts seek to determine whether a weapon is in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. According to the politicians and the general attitude of the courts is that even in common use, weapons can still be regulated where they are determined to be “dangerous and unusual.”
The argument is a modern one that emerged long after the ratification of the Second Amendment. Such an argument was never uttered during the debates over the Second Amendment, nor any of the discussions regarding the importance of the militia which includes every American Citizen capable of keeping and bearing arms. If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure the right to keep and bear arms because the use of those firearms are necessary to secure the freedom we have, then that means the common use argument is unconstitutional. Our right to keep and bear arms, if it is necessary to defend us against improper use of federal authority, must include weapons of war – the very firearms that those who oppose the private ownership of guns in our society are trying to (and in many cases have succeeded in) ban through federal law.
Shall not be infringed is definitive language. It means that every single federal gun law is unconstitutional. The federal government is the potential tyranny, so how is it they should be allowed to dictate to us what we can own, how we carry our arms, and that we must get a background check before we can even be considered as a potential purchaser of any firearms?
Then we have to ask, at what point does federal intrusion into our lives trigger the use of our right to keep and bear arms? The Declaration of Independence says, after all, we not only have the right to overturn government if it becomes tyrannical, but we have the duty to do so. The problem is, the argument to stand against the government can be patriotic or insurrection depending on who you are talking to. Conservatives will argue that the government under Biden was the kind that must be pushed back against. Democrats and their allies argue that the Trump Administration is lurching toward authoritarianism, and the use of National Guard personnel to assist ICE, or to clean up Washington D.C. is a clear sign of the federal government’s use of a standing army against the American People.
The Constitution gives us a clear picture of where the boundary lies.
According to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution the federal government may use the militia for:
- Executing federal law domestically
- To quell insurrection
- To repel invasion
And according to Article IV., Section 4:
- To guarantee a State maintains a republican form of government
- To protect States from invasion
- With approval by the State legislature, or Governor when the legislature cannot convene, to quell domestic violence (which would include rioting and general criminal activity).
The right to keep (own/have) and bear (carry, including concealed carry based on the 1828 Webster Dictionary’s definition of the word bear), therefore, according to the Founding Fathers exists for citizens for personal protection, property protection, hunting, and participating in standing against a tyrannical government when the government exceeds its constitutional limitations and only a use of arms can remedy the situation. The Declaration of Independence warns us, however, not to do such things lightly. “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”
The arguments being launched currently during Donald Trump’s second presidential term claims the federal government has crossed those constitutional lines, and that Trump’s Administration is the epitome of a dictatorial government, and that it even enters the realm of fascism. So, let’s look at those current arguments regarding whether or not the current federal government under President Trump is remaining within constitutional limitations:
- Use of National Guard to assist ICE.
- Article I, Section 8 allows the use of the militia to “execute the Laws of the United States.”
- Use of National Guard to clean up Washington D.C.
- Washington D.C, is a federal property and the President has the authority to use the militia to protect federal properties.
- Use of National Guard in cities for purposes other than executing federal law.
- The use of the militia in municipalities that lie within State territory to protect federal properties are constitutionally allowed.
- The use of the militia in cities to clean up crime in a manner like it is being used in Washington D.C. would require, according to Article IV., Section 4, approval of the State’s legislature, or the Governor, if the legislature is unable to convene. The city has no say in the matter.
So, while I agree we must “keep our powder dry” whenever dealing with the federal government and its potential tyranny, no matter who is in office, and we have the right to keep and bear any firearm or weapon as per our Natural Right to keep and bear arms, we are to be:
- Responsible and prudent with that right.
- Recognize the government’s role in our lives and not jump to potentially dangerous conclusions just because we ideologically disagree with the politicians in charge.
- Due to our responsibility to preserve and protect our republic, we have the right to be armed with weapons that are equal to or exceed the federal government’s weapons. The Federal Government can make no law limiting the ownership of our firearms. That said, as James Madison indicates in Federalist Paper #45, our Natural Rights are a local issue, so if any laws do need to be made regarding firearm ownership, those laws may be made at the State level – but even the States are required to recognized the right to keep and bear arms is a Natural Right and there is a line they are not supposed to cross. And it is our responsibility to hold them accountable and make sure they don’t cross that line.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Wednesday morning a shooting occurred at the Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The gunman killed himself after killing two children, injuring fourteen children, and injuring three adults during the school’s “first all-school Mass of the year.” The shooter fired his weapons through a window into the church during Mass, specifically into the area where the children were praying. He was confirmed to be in possession of a rifle, a shotgun, and a handgun. While there was a smoke bomb found at the scene, it had not been set off.
The killer, Robin Westman, who had changed his name from Robert claiming to be transgender, left behind a manifesto, and posted online images of firearms with the words “Kill Donald Trump” written on them. The shooter was in his early twenties, and changed his name to reflect his transgender name of Robin when he was 17 in 2020.
In his manifesto, Westman expressed personal despair, suicidal ideation, and rage against society, America, and “bills, jobs, and society at large.” In addition to his hatred for Donald Trump, in his writings he expressed hatred for Christianity – writing “F*** everything that you stand for.” Some reports indicate a possible tie to Satanic extremist groups like the “Order of Nine Angles,” and the “764” cult.
The manifesto was posted in a video before the attack, a video YouTube has since taken down. In the manifesto images in the video of some of the writings were written in Cyrillic. Diane Nerozzi of the New York Post translated some of the pages. In his manifesto and other writings:
- He spoke of “murdering filthy Zionist Jews.”
- Wrote slogans such as “Free Palestine.”
- Wrote, “I hate those entitled, penny-sniffing k*kes.”
- Mused about assassinating President Trump and the Jews.
- Decided that “killing children and innocent civilians would bring him the most joy.”
- Said he had been suicidal for several years, and wanted to take others out with him.
- Wrote: “I don’t want to do it to spread a message. I do it to please myself. I do it because I am sick.”
- Also in the journal: “I don’t think I could just take myself out. I would need to do something with my final act.”
- Named groups he considered “greedy” executives, including Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
- Stated he was racist against Jews and people of color, and had thoughts about school shootings since the seventh grade.
- He wrote he was inspired by Sandy Hook and Adam Lanza.
- Wrote, “I don’t want to dress girly all the time but I guess sometimes I really like it. I know I am not a woman but I definitely don’t feel like a man.”
- According to the FBI, Westman “glorified past shooters, hated God and religious conservatives, and specifically targeted Catholic churchgoers.”
- In one video uploaded by Westman, a body target on his wall had an image of Jesus Christ on the head of the target.
After all of that information was released, the Minneapolis Police Chief claimed, “I have no information to share on a motive.”
No motive? No admitting that the leftist Cultural Marxist progressive ideology might have had a hand in sending this loony over the edge? Even John Miller of CNN in a dishonest speech to Jake Tapper that “it’s now clear the…shooter did not have a specific motive and there won’t ever be a specific motive because his manifesto was kind of rambling and he hated everybody.”
Not only was there an apparent motive, it was also planned, considering this was the first opportunity at the school he graduated from and the school that his mother used to work for to attack children. It was, after all, their first all-school Mass of the school year.
Chalk one up for the progressive left’s “nothing to see here” attitude. But don’t worry, they will find a false claim of fault somewhere – and then call for more gun control.
Info Wars has reported that federal deep state forces have attempted to cover-up the terror attack by scrambling to take down the shooter’s various online pages.
The Anti-American Swamp’s accomplices in the leftist media also made sure to go to work on the story, ensuring that they honored Westman’s feminine “pronouns.” The Washington Post, ABC News, NBC News, Daily Mail, and others referred to the young gunman as a “she” and “her” to accommodate his mental illness. The Minnesota Star Tribune referred to Westman as his mother’s “daughter.” One CNN reporter (CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez) straight-out lied about the firearms used, claiming in a statement that the semiautomatic firearms used could fire “dozens of bullets” with a single pull of a trigger. That kind of function is only available with a fully automatic, a firearm that is nearly impossible to get one’s hands on (for most people in most circles). He’s either an ideologically-conditioned liar, a complete idiot, or so uninformed he knows so little about guns that he’d be better off reporting about rock fights.
The anti-Christian ideological Left’s guns were firing both barrels after the shooting as well, with the Democrat Mayor of Minneapolis Jacob Frey slamming Christians for praying after the shooting, mocking Christianity by saying that the victims already prayed while they were being targeted. His verbal attack followed the request for prayer by the church that had been targeted, whose call for prayer, they said, was during an “impossible situation.”
- “In this time of darkness, let us commit to being the Light to our children, each other and our community.”
The media and leftist politicians failed to mention that two years prior the non-profit schools, including Catholic schools, in Minnesota requested from Democratic Governor Tim Walz funding to help with security at their schools (you remember Walz – the bug-eyed “let’s put condoms in boy bathrooms” running-mate of Kamala Harris during her failed 2024 presidential campaign) like they were already doing for public schools. The letter referenced recent shootings and attacks against private schools, such as the other trans shooting at a Christian school in Nashville. Truth be told, the best security would have been to simply put guns in the hands of a number of members of the church staff – good guys with guns are always affective in stopping bad guys with guns.
President Trump, in response to the shooting, signed a proclamation honoring the Minneapolis Catholic School victims shot down by the twisted individual, and proclaimed that flags need to be flown at half-staff. Trump’s Director of the FBI, Kash Patel, stated that the FBI is investigating the shooting as domestic terrorism and a hate crime targeting Catholics.
Jessie Watters delivered in his opening monologue, “…two years ago another trans 20-something walked into a Christian school in Nashville with a rifle and shot 3 kids and 3 adults. They [the media] buried the manifesto and locked down the case…we’ve seen trans shootings in Colorado and in Maryland. They even shot up an ice facility in Texas. And it seems like half of Antifa is trans. A couple of they/thems just got popped for firebombing Teslas….statistically, the trans population has been prone to violence. That’s not villainizing, that’s reality…the left is weaponizing trans kids and turning them into culture warriors. And they’ve been turned loose against the church, schools, and Trump…[it is a] trans…militant wing, and it’s out for blood. They’re taking lives, defiling churches…there’s a growing trans epidemic and they [leftist leaders and media] won’t admit it. They created a crisis and then lie about it and blame you for not being compassionate. But their fake compassion is getting people killed.”
This is the consequence of “affirming” the sickness, rather than treating it. We need to call out those pushing this evil, and exclaim from the mountaintops that they have blood on their hands. This transgender gunman was able to do what he did because he was encouraged to be sick, and lived in a “trans refuge” State. The delusion of gender confusion is being fed for political reasons, and now people are dying because of the Cultural Marxist attempt to destroy God’s creation (men, women, and family).
The establishment Democrats and their leftist allies have revealed that they believe our children belong to them. That those children must be fed a steady diet of “transgender” delusion and sexual fantasy. And it all began with the agenda to normalize homosexuality, celebrating debauchery and X-rated acts of public exhibitionism in front of children and strangers. It has been a celebration of sin – pride – and indoctrinating young people during the first two decades of their lives with non-stop sexual deviancy. These kids were taught at an early age that fat, hairy men wearing lipstick and some straps of leather is an example of civil rights, and anyone who even questions it are bigots, haters, and deserve to be canceled…or worse. While the homosexuals flaunt their masturbatory excess in front of everyone and Democrat-controlled teachers’ unions and Hollywood and all of the other institutions the leftists have infiltrated call it “virtuous,” drag queens will continue to poison our society, and specifically our children, with strip-teases and twerking in front of kindergartners during “story time.” If we don’t stop this madness the Democrat-controlled medical community will continue to call chopping up children’s genitals the “affirming” thing to do, and continue their practice of mutilating bodies and sterilizing them forever because if you don’t you are some kind of hater. They ruin lives. They destroy childhood. And they are somehow succeeding in calling this madness normal, and convincing a certain segment of the population that it must be celebrated. It is as the days of Noah, the fall of Greece and Rome, and Sodom & Gomorrah, with sexual overindulgence and exploitation overtaking common sense and common decency. And they did it with creeping incrementalism. From the occasional gay kiss to gay marriage to “love is love’ to full blown gay orgies in plain view. And if you don’t agree, they’ll put you out of business for not baking their cake, get Christians fired from their jobs, and close down Christian businesses and non-profits for daring to question them. They say they are calling for compassion, but the homosexual (and other sexual deviancies) political agendas seek seizing the culture, seizing political power, and crushing anyone who dares to stand in the way and dare to even make a comment that they claim offends them.
They denounce you as a bigot for speaking the truth, and for truly having compassion for these folks by warning them of the dangers of their behavior. I refuse to condone the insistence that a child can be born in the wrong body, I refuse to be accused of committing violence against trans people with my words or thoughts, I refuse to let them have God’s rainbow, and I refuse to embrace their homosexual idolatry. I don’t care if my contemporaries tell me that it is a subject that we shouldn’t touch, and I refuse to call these sexual deviancies anything other than what they are: habitual sin and satanically driven.
And no, that does not mean I hate homosexuals. God wants everyone to embrace salvation, and if you are willing, He will embrace you with salvation – but when you come to Christ, the conviction of the Holy Spirit will create conflict. That’s why when homosexuals give their lives to the Lord, they become former homosexuals. Light and darkness cannot occupy the same space. The light of the Lord extinguishes the darkness of sexual sin when one dies unto themselves and places it all in God’s Hands.
My message to my opposition on this is that you don’t have to continue to pray at the altar of Pagan idols. You don’t have to embrace the idiotic erasure of sex, or sexual normalcy. You don’t have to live lives with an ideology that leads many to suicide, murder, and loneliness. God accepts you as you are, but if you come to Him, he will change you to be the person He Created you to be.
And understand, I understand the plight. I grew up around the homosexual community and I understand the pain of such a plight. I understand how sexual sin is like a drug addiction, becoming a never-ending need for more and more, to become as nasty as possible, and then more – and more often than not for the purpose of poking God in the eye.
Which means we need to get our churches in order. God’s people cannot fight the spiritual enemy if they set one foot in the world, and fly those flags and fall into the trap. How can we get our cultural house in order and our political house in order if we don’t get our godly house in order?
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As of August 2025, at least five countries have publicly backed or nominated President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, along with multiple individual legislators and political figures across the globe.
U.S. Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) nominated Trump for his role in Middle East diplomacy. Buddy Carter (R-GA) cited Trump’s ceasefire efforts between Iran and Israel. Members of European Parliaments, Norwegian and Swedish, nominated Trump for the Abraham Accords and Serbia-Kosovo peace talks. World leaders have praised Trump’s roles in brokering peace agreements such as the Abraham Accords, his involvement in South Asian and Middle Eastern diplomacy, and his efforts to reduce global tensions through direct negotiations.
The countries who have nominated or endorsed Trump:
- Pakistan – For mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan.
- Cambodia – After brokering peace between Cambodia and Thailand.
- Israel – Prime Minister Netanyahu submitted a formal nomination citing Trump’s diplomatic efforts.
- Armenia & Azerbaijan – Jointly endorsed Trump following a U.S.-brokered peace accord ending their territorial conflict.
- Rwanda – Publicly praised Trump’s peace-building efforts, though formal nomination status has not yet emerged.
In the case of Azerbaijan and Armenia, the historic agreement was signed after decades of conflict. Until President Trump got involved, there seemed to be no end in sight. When the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev signed the peace agreement together before the cameras and in the presence of President Donald Trump in Washington D.C., Azerbaijan’s President Aliyev said, “We are today establishing peace in the South Caucasus. Today, we are writing a great new history.”
Armenian Premier Pashinyan added that the agreement represented “opening a chapter of peace, laying foundations to a better story than the one we had in the past.”
“The countries of Armenia and Azerbaijan are committing to ending all fighting forever,” Trump said at a joint press conference with the two leaders. “They suffered greatly for so many years, many tried to find resolution, the European Union, the Russians, never happened. But with this accord we finally succeeded in making peace.”
The fighting escalated while Biden was President, where in September 2023 Azerbaijan used a lightning military campaign to reclaim full control over the Karabakh region. Over the last year efforts to normalize relations began, but never seemed to fully develop. After Trump got involved in negotiations the former adversaries managed to mend fences with the U.S. benefiting from the peace agreement.
The EU said it welcomed the deal, calling the signing a “way to lasting, sustainable peace for both countries and across the entire region.”
The two countries agreed in the peace agreement to create a major transit corridor that will be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. It will connect mainland Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan region, which borders Baku’s ally Turkey via Armenian territory and is separated by a 32 kilometer patch of Armenia’s territory.
According to the White House, the new transit corridor will “allow unimpeded connectivity between the two countries while respecting Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and its people.”
For Baku, the corridor offers a direct land connection to the Nakhchivan region, strengthening ties with Turkey while consolidating post-war gains through infrastructure diplomacy.
Azerbaijan benefits because it creates a crucial transport and logistics hub on a global scale.
For Yerevan (the capital of Armenia) the transport route provides an opportunity to further integrate into wider trade networks, diversify Armenia’s economy, and attract foreign investment. Geopolitically, the agreement and the corridor helps Armenia normalize relations with its neighbors.
The new Trump route will operate according to Armenian law with the U.S. subleasing the land to a consortium for infrastructure and management. Trump on social media wrote that the agreement will “fully unlock the potential of the South Caucasus region.”
The peace agreement sends a strong message to Moscow regarding the two countries’ commitment to finding a solution among themselves, while redirecting their foreign policy focus to the West.
In the past Russian efforts to repair relations have failed, and now false allegations and a misinformation campaign has been launched by Russian media regarding the two Caucasus leaders.
Not only has President Trump been negotiating peace around the world, but he has been working on bringing peace here in America as well, beginning with Washington D.C.
August 11, Trump signed an executive order to temporarily takeover Washington’s municipal police department prompting a surge of law enforcement agents in the city. The result has been hundreds of arrests, a murder rate that has dropped to zero since the clamp down, and peace in the city not seen in over a century. The President deployed over 800 National Guard troops, who have been joined by guardsmen from six other states.
The move to return to law and order in Washington D.C. is supported by existing law which allows the President to act unilaterally in the city for 30 days. Any action beyond the 30 day limit requires congressional legislation. We have to remember, Washington D.C. is a federal property, and while it may have some allowances that mimic sovereignty, it is a federal city on federal property that was established by federal law with both Constitutional and legislative sources giving authority to Congress for its laws, and to the President for executing those laws. While there has been talk about President Trump expanding his efforts to help get other cities around the country under control so that they too may achieve the kind of safety and security emerging in Washington D.C., except in the case of protecting or managing federal properties in those cities, federal law enforcement presence in those cities would require permission from the legislatures of the States as per the United States Constitution, Article IV., Section 4.
The Epoch Times took to the streets of Washington to ask business owners for their reaction regarding if the move by President Trump in Washington D.C. has had a positive or negative impact, with mixed reactions I am sure were rooted in which political ideology they supported. Overall, however, while peace in Washington D.C. has been on the rise with criminal activity at all-time lows, some business owners stated they worried about retribution from both criminals and politicians – a sign that a firm hand must be maintained in the area without letting up at all. One hopes that Congress will be able to secure legislation to continue federal influence on law enforcement in the City of Washington.
In the Epoch Times article, one individual stated, “It does feel quieter. It does feel safer to walk around.”
Fox News has been reporting a boom in restaurant business as tourists and locals return to the city for social festivities and nights-out without fear of being carjacked or mugged.
Washington’s “lighter sentencing for offenders younger than age 25” has created a very violent environment. Law and order arises when political systems tighten their laws, call for accountability, and place more law enforcement presence on the streets. And if city leadership is not going to apply such strategies, then Trump decided he would.
Since Trump’s efforts began, homeless camps have been cleared from the streets, and crime has plummeted to all-time lows. On August 21 The President toured the U.S. Park Police facility in Anacostia, thanking a crowd of about 300 federal and local agents while pledging to continue to make the city safer and more beautiful. “We’re going to have the best capital ever,” he said. “It’s going to look better than it ever did.”
The response from President Trump’s opponents have been fascinating as their reactive venom and hysteria seems to be calibrated not on what is right or wrong or which level of success is reached, but simply because that success of whatever Trump’s latest policy might be belongs to Trump. The New York Post explains that “the new hard-left Democratic Party offers no counter-agenda to explain its furor.” They simply oppose everything Trump backs – even when they know he’s right.
From peace deals to the President’s recent Alaska summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to his foreign trade policies to his crack-down on crime in Washington D.C., the Democratic Party politicians and their allies in the media and elsewhere have launched rabid objections while offering no alternative as they spew their poison. They screamed about Trump’s tariffs, but have not backed off at all under projections of $300 billion in new revenue as a result. Foreign businesses have promised to invest between $10 trillion and $15 trillion within the United States, and the Democrats went into a frenzy. In 35 minutes President Trump disabled the Iranian nuclear program that was on the verge of having nuclear warheads that they were willing to not only point at Israel, but at the United States and Trump did it in a manner where few Iranians and no Americans died with no subsequent war or need for U.S. presence developing after the strike. Still, the Democrats cursed Trump for his actions. As Trump’s influence has the Republican Party seeking to eliminate the Democratic Party’s gerrymandering madness in Texas, California Governor Gavin Newsom has threatened to “Punch Republicans in the mouth.” Peace deals have emerged across the world to the point that there is talk that Trump deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, and the Democrats call for war. It is amazing that President Trump, who is a master negotiator, and is now also an international peacemaker, faces such rabid opposition who is fuming louder than ever before. While European leaders have fallen in line regarding NATO, tariffs and peace agreements, domestically Trump’s opponents call him a Hitleric authoritarian. The funny part about it is that Donald J. Trump is sort of like Godzilla in the movies that, when attacked by nuclear weapons, simply got stronger. That’s Trump. Nothing destroys him, not a raid on his home, not 93 lawfare indictments, not efforts to manipulate elections through fraud or striking him from state ballots, not two impmeachments, and not even two assassination attempts. Each time he has responded defiantly, with his fist in the air, stronger than ever. And while his opponents hate him more, America is on the rise and the world is more at peace with Donald J. Trump in the White House.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Ancient Greece, political philosopher Solon understood what Americans who support the radical madness of the leftwing progressive losers have forgotten: liberty is not the absence of restraint, but the presence of order. Without law, freedom becomes a mirage – chaos masquerading as choice. Today, as President Trump seeks to restore the foundational pillars of American society — secure borders, safe streets, and a respect for law — we find ourselves confronting a political movement that treats disorder not as a threat, but as a virtue.
The Democratic Party once claimed they were the party of working-class Americans. Now, all of their pretending has been thrown away and they are revealing what they really are: the party of deconstruction. Defund the police. No cash bail. Decriminalize theft. Reduce penalties for assault. These are not reforms — they are regressions. They are the dismantling of the very framework that protects the innocent, empowers communities, and upholds the rule of law.
Let us be clear: law and order are not partisan slogans. They are constitutional imperatives. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every state a “Republican Form of Government,” which presupposes the rule of law. The Founders did not envision a Union where mobs dictate policy, where criminals are coddled, or where the government abdicates its duty to secure life, liberty, and property.
President Trump’s policies—whether targeting the lawlessness in Washington D.C., securing our southern border, or restoring respect for law enforcement — are not radical. They are restorative. They are rooted in the same principles that animated Madison’s Federalist No. 51: that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels. And when government refuses to govern, anarchy fills the void.
The opposition to Trump’s law-and-order agenda is not merely political — it is philosophical. It is a rejection of the American idea that freedom must be guarded by justice. It is a rebellion against the Constitution itself, which binds us not only to liberty, but to responsibility. With Freedom comes Responsibility.
So to those who oppose the restoration of order, I ask: What is your alternative? A society where laws are optional? Where criminals roam free? Where the state is powerless to protect its citizens?
Solon warned us. The Founders codified it. And President Trump is acting on it.
Because without law, there is no freedom.
Commitment, Sacrifice, Personal Growth and the Protection of Divine Providence
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After perusing a post from my old church about an upcoming golf tournament, which shows a few known personalities as attendees, one of the comments down below complained: “Nothing screams family values like Lorenzo Lamas who’s been married and divorced like 6 times. The guy that was on Hot or Not using a laser pointer on women to judge their body parts. To each their own, I guess.”
I responded, “The wonderful thing about faith in Christ is that in God’s eyes once you give your life over to Him those things in your past no longer matter. I don’t know Lorenzo Lamas’ past, and I pray for him and you regarding your relationship with the one and true living God. While Lorenzo Lamas has never publicly stated he had accepted Christ, in addition to this golf tournament he accepted the lead role in a Christian film about Apostle Thaddeus, and also appeared in God’s Club, a film about religious faith and other Christian themes. Perhaps his beliefs have been evolving. He has been speaking positively about the faith of Christianity and appears at a number of Christian events hosted by Christian organizations, so perhaps he is seeking a meaningful engagement with Christianity. To attack him about his past as he seeks growth is not a very positive thing. But then again, I’ve seen your stuff before and you are a documented hater of Christianity and conservative politics. I will pray for you.”
The attitude the commenter was exhibiting is also common with those who suffer from the effects (or one might say “derangement syndrome”) of being exposed to the current rash of Cultural Marxism, DEI, WOKEism, and other Progressive Ideology related thought-processes. As we’ve seen in arguments by people like Nikole Hannah-Jones in her highly inaccurate 1619 Project, the assumption is that if the people behind something were flawed, or if there were any flaws associated with it along the way, then it’s a failure and not worth pursuing or knowing – everything about it is flawed so it must be abolished or reinterpreted. If that was the case, nothing would be worth our attention.
We change, often, as we begin to recognize truth, and when we become wiser as a result. I am glad I am not the guy I was a decade ago, or a lifetime ago. Thanks to commitment to what is right, sacrifices I have made, and my journey as laid out by the Lord, I am a better person and a better servant to the Lord. The wonderful thing about being a Christian is that past flaws don’t matter when everything is placed in the Hands of the One and True Living God. No matter how horrid our past was, the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us, and we start all over as a new creature.
The Story of Apostle Paul is a great example of that: a horrid past, yet once he changed he was so committed to the task at hand that he was willing to endure an incredible amount of suffering.
Born in Tarsus, a Roman city in Cilicia, around 5 A.D., Saul of Tarsus was a devout Pharisee, educated under Gamaliel, a respected Jewish teacher. He became a zealous persecutor of Christians, approving of the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7:58), imprisoned believers, and sought to eradicate the early church (Acts 8:3; Galatians 1:13).
On the road to Damascus to arrest Christians, Saul encountered a blinding light and heard Jesus speak (Acts 9:3-6). Temporarily blinded, he fell to the ground and heard a voice:
“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
“Who are you, Lord?”
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”
The blindness remained, so he was led into Damascus by his companions, and for three days he neither ate nor drank. In Damascus, a disciple named Ananias received a vision from the Lord instructing him to go to Saul. Ananias hesitated for Saul had a reputation for violence against Christians. Surely, no murderous tyrant like him could ever receive favor from the Lord. But, the Lord reassured him: “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
Ananias found Saul at the house of Judas, and laid hands on him saying, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road, has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he regained his sight. He was then baptized, ate, and regained strength.
Saul began preaching that Jesus is the Son of God, and the Messiah who was God in the Flesh when he lived on the Earth. He astonished those who knew him as a persecutor.
He would later become Paul the Apostle, author of much of the New Testament and a tireless missionary to the Gentiles.
After his conversion Paul was committed to his ministry, even willing to suffer greatly for it. According to 2 Corinthians he was frequently jailed for preaching about Christ, beaten five times receiving 39 lashes from Jewish authorities, and three times he was beaten with rods. In Acts 14:19 the Bible discusses how Paul was stoned, and left for dead in Lystra. He also survived three shipwrecks; once spent a day and a half adrift at sea. On his journeys to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ he also faced danger from rivers, robbers, Jews, Gentiles, cities, wilderness and the sea. He dealt with false brethren, and endured hunger, thirst, cold, exposure and sleepless nights. In Philippi he was imprisoned after casting out a spirit (Acts 16:22-24), experienced a riot incited by silversmiths who lost business due to Paul’s preaching (Acts 19:23-41), was nearly killed by a mob in Jerusalem and then was arrested and falsely accused of defiling the temple (Acts 21:27-36), was imprisoned for two years under Roman governors Felix and Festus, was shipwrecked on his way to Rome and then imprisoned under house arrest for two years (Acts 28:30-31), and it is believed he was martyred in Rome around 64-67 A.D. under Emperor Nero. He also suffered from a “Thorn in the flesh,” a persistent affliction that was never removed despite prayer (2 Corinthians 12:7-9), carried constant concern for the spiritual health of believers and the churches he had planted (2 Corinthians 11:28), and faced constant rejection and betrayal by some companions and various false teachers. Paul’s life is a profound testament to someone who seemed undeserving of forgiveness, but received it and then not only changed his life but became a valuable vessel for the Lord to use – and during that time he was resilient, convicted, and maintained grace under fire. His sufferings did not only mark his journey, they magnified the message he carried.
And much of the same can be said regarding the commitment to truth and godly principles by the Founding Fathers who put it all on the line because they were committed, were willing to sacrifice, and believed theirs was a task given to them by God.
The Signers of the Declaration of Independence were lawyers, merchants, farmers, physicians, and ministers – united by a radical commitment to liberty. Signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776 was an act of high treason against the British Crown, punishable by death. Their pledge of their Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor was a serious one, and in many ways, prophetic.
During the Revolutionary War most of the signers either:
All of them faced potential suffering because of their commitment to liberty, and many of them suffered directly because of their signatures. Some of the notable cases were:
While many later became governors, judges or senators, and six signers went on to sign the U.S. Constitution, several died in obscurity or financial ruin despite their early prominence.
While their sacrifices were not uniform, the risk was. These men gambled everything on an idea because they were committed to it. They were willing to sacrifice everything for it, and many did indeed pay dearly for their commitment to liberty. Their stories, like Apostle Paul’s, were all significant because they (like Paul) believed they were carrying out the Will of God.
I wonder today; how many of us have that level of commitment and willingness to sacrifice to stand up for what’s right and godly, and preserve liberty against forces that seek to destroy it? And how many of us began with a story that may not be the most righteous. We made our mistakes, we had our flaws, but by the Grace of God we grew, changed, and many of us are now committed to the fight for liberty and a return to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Again, I ask; “How firm is our commitment?”
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary