Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created in November 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Before DHS, national security responsibilities were scattered across more than 20 different agencies with poor communication and coordination between them. The new department consolidated these agencies under one roof, including the Coast Guard, Secret Service, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This merger was the largest government reorganization in over 50 years, designed to break down the intelligence-sharing failures that had allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed.
Since its creation, DHS has focused primarily on preventing terrorism, securing borders, enforcing immigration laws, and responding to natural disasters. The agency created the color-coded terror alert system (later replaced) and established the Transportation Security Administration, which dramatically changed airport security nationwide. While terrorism prevention remains its core mission, DHS has evolved to address new threats like cybersecurity, domestic extremism, and emerging challenges like pandemics. The department’s effectiveness has been debated, with critics pointing to privacy concerns, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and questions about whether centralizing so many agencies has actually improved security outcomes.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was established on March 1, 2003, as part of the massive government reorganization following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The agency was created by merging the investigative and interior enforcement functions of two legacy agencies: the U.S. Customs Service (previously under the Treasury Department) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (formerly under the Justice Department). This consolidation was designed to improve coordination and eliminate the intelligence-sharing failures that had allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. Initially called the “Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement” (BICE), the “B” was quickly dropped, and the agency became known simply as ICE. With approximately 20,000 employees and an annual budget of around $8 billion, ICE operates more than 400 offices throughout the United States and in 46 other countries.
ICE’s mission focuses on enforcing federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration primarily within U.S. borders. The agency is organized into three main operational directorates: Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which investigates transnational criminal organizations and terrorist networks; Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which detains and removes undocumented immigrants; and the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), which provides legal services to the agency. Unlike Border Patrol agents who patrol the nation’s borders, ICE personnel operate primarily in the interior of the country, conducting targeted enforcement operations, investigating customs violations, and managing detention facilities for those awaiting immigration proceedings. Over its two decades of existence, ICE has evolved to address emerging threats while maintaining its core mission of protecting national security and public safety through immigration and customs enforcement.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created in November 2001 as a direct response to the security failures exposed by the September 11th terrorist attacks. Prior to TSA, airport security was a patchwork system managed by private security companies hired individually by each airline. These companies operated under regulations set by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but standards were inconsistent, pay was extremely low leading to high turnover, and screening procedures varied dramatically from airport to airport. The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, signed just two months after 9/11, federalized this system, creating TSA as a new agency within the Department of Transportation (before being moved to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security in 2003). In its first year, TSA rapidly deployed a federal workforce of over 55,000 screeners and implemented standardized security protocols across the nation’s commercial airports.
Since its creation, TSA’s role has evolved beyond just screening passengers and baggage at airports. The agency is now responsible for securing all modes of transportation, including rail, mass transit, highways, and pipelines. While its most visible presence remains at airport security checkpoints where travelers encounter standardized screening procedures, liquid restrictions, and advanced imaging technology, TSA has developed a multi-layered approach to security. This includes Federal Air Marshals on flights, intelligence gathering and analysis, canine teams, and partnerships with other law enforcement agencies. The agency has continually adapted to emerging threats, implementing new technologies like full-body scanners and enhanced ID verification requirements while attempting to balance security needs with the efficient movement of millions of travelers daily.
The Transportation Security Administration has faced criticism over its screening practices and perceived inconsistencies. One notable program that drew scrutiny was the “Quiet Skies” surveillance initiative, which monitored travelers deemed suspicious but not on any terrorist watchlist. In June 2025, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ended the “Quiet Skies” program, revealing it had cost taxpayers approximately $200 million annually without preventing a single terrorist attack since its inception. The program was also criticized for potential politicization, with allegations that it was used to target political opponents while excluding certain individuals connected to known or suspected terrorists. Criticism in social media and memes online depicting TSA agents screening nuns and children while letting “terrorist types” walk on by emerged. Even The Naked Gun series of movies often parodied airport security, with scenes of normal families being frisked and scanned with a wand as gun-toting terrorists walk through the metal detector without even a glance. These concerns highlighted questions about TSA’s risk assessment priorities and resource allocation.
Regarding passenger screening protocols, TSA has continually evolved its procedures in response to emerging threats. The agency has implemented various screening measures over the years, including restrictions on liquids and electronics, based on intelligence indicating terrorist groups’ interest in concealing explosive devices in commercial electronics, clothing, and cosmetics. Despite the TSA’s standardized screening approach sometimes resulting in public criticism when seemingly low-risk individuals received enhanced screening while other potentially suspicious travelers passed through with less scrutiny, the agency has maintained that its risk-based security approach focuses on behavior and threat indicators rather than profiling. Even so, the effectiveness and fairness of these methods have been subjects of ongoing public debate.
From conservative perspectives, a push to privatize TSA remains an option as the current partial shutdown has seen the departure of hundreds of agents, and long lines at many airports just to get through security. The argument is framed as a common-sense solution to government inefficiency and political gamesmanship. Ben Carson argues that the current system “turns efficient, convenient air travel into a political football,” with government shutdowns making “metaphorical hostages of airline passengers” by creating hours-long waits at security checkpoints. Conservative pundits and political figures point out that airports already using private contractors through the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) maintained short wait times even during recent DHS funding disputes, while TSA-run airports experienced significant delays. They advocate for a model where TSA would focus on “intelligence and counter-terrorism while allowing the private sector to focus on efficiency and customer experience,” arguing this would insulate air travel from partisan budget battles. The Trump administration’s 2027 budget proposal reflects this approach, calling for expanding SPP to smaller airports and cutting approximately 8,400 TSA positions (about 14% of the workforce).
Progressive commentators view the privatization push with skepticism, framing it as an ideologically motivated attempt to weaken unions and enrich private contractors. AFGE Union representatives argue that Republicans’ “ultimate goal” is to “eliminate union protections and privatize the TSA” so “their millionaire buddies can make more money by having contracts,” which would lead to “not better security, not better screening for anyone, but just more possibilities for gaps in the system that terrorists can get through.” Progressives point out that even if screening were privatized, the federal government would still need to oversee security standards, meaning federal workers and costs would remain. The fact is, during the current DHS funding dispute, ICE (the agency Democrats are targeting) remains fully funded through separate legislation. The left, it seems, to go after ICE and President Trump’s immigration policies, are willing to compromise national security with the TSA funding crisis.
Trump responded by bringing in ICE agents to handle some of the TSA responsibilities, and Republicans have argued the current crisis reveals the need for at least a private sector partnership when it comes to airport security. While progressive Democrats are claiming their ire is regarding ICE, Republicans have responded by generally supporting strengthening the immigration enforcement agency and expanding its role. The use of ICE agents at the airports demonstrates ICE’s versatility and importance to national security. Progressives, meanwhile, strongly oppose expanding ICE’s presence anywhere, much less in airports, viewing the latter as an inappropriate mixing of functions that could intimidate travelers and create a chilling effect, particularly for immigrant communities. They contend ICE agents lack proper training for passenger screening and that their presence at airports represents an unnecessary militarization of civilian spaces.
President Trump has been a vocal and forceful proponent of using ICE agents to supplement security at airports, framing it as a necessary and pragmatic response to what he describes as a “manufactured crisis” created by political opponents. He has repeatedly stated that while Democrats in Congress “play political games” with Department of Homeland Security funding by holding it hostage over immigration enforcement, he would not allow the American traveling public to suffer the consequences of “long lines and chaos at our airports.” From his perspective, deploying highly trained ICE personnel was a logical solution, as he has emphasized that these agents are “some of the best law enforcement professionals in the world” who are fully capable of handling screening duties while maintaining national security.
Trump’s view is that this move exemplifies his administration’s commitment to “results over rhetoric” and his willingness to take decisive action when Congress fails to act. He has praised ICE agents for stepping up and “filling the gaps” left by TSA workers who walked off the job during the funding dispute, portraying it as a demonstration of their versatility and dedication to protecting Americans. The President has argued that this situation proves the fundamental inefficiency of government bureaucracy and reinforces his long-standing belief that private sector solutions and flexible inter-agency cooperation are superior to rigid, unionized federal workforces. For Trump, using ICE at airports was not just a temporary fix but a demonstration of how his administration “gets things done” by prioritizing security and efficiency over political correctness and bureaucratic resistance.
From a constitutional perspective, privatizing ICE is necessary. While national security is within the realm of the federal government, and more specifically the executive branch, aviation is not. Technically, there are no expressly enumerated powers regarding aviation, though opponents to the opinions of constitutional originalists will argue that aviation is implied by the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause. I believe, if aviation must fall within federal authority (and I am not suggesting it shouldn’t be), then Congress needs to propose an amendment to the Constitution and the States need to ratify it to codify the authority. Even so, there is a legitimate argument that federal bureaucracy without any private partnership may not be the best way to go when it comes to airport security. A hybrid model where both federal standards and administration are combined with a private workforce may be the best avenue not only for efficiency, but to ensure the TSA is not used as a political tool by anyone in Congress in the future.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The opponents of President Donald Trump are accusing him of war crimes because he told Iran that if they don’t work with him he will bomb Iran back to the Stone Age. The verbal threat was one that told the Islamic leaders America was willing to end their civilization. Critics of Trump immediately launched into rhetoric that called the president “insane,” suggesting he might use nuclear weapons on Iran, and that his attacks on Iran were “unconstitutional,” and “criminal.” Steven Simon of Responsible Statecraft even accused Trump of threatening genocide in Iran.
Senator Chuck Schumer called Trump an “unhinged madman.” Bernie Sanders said Trump is “dangerous and mentally unbalanced.” A long list of Democrats are accusing President Trump of war crimes, and House Democrats are discussing invoking the 25th Amendment to seek removing Trump from power because of Trump’s threat to “wipe out Iran’s civilization and unleash hell on Tehran.”
House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated it was their “patriotic duty” in “stopping the madness.”
Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wrote on social media, “This maniac should be removed from office.”
Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA) said, “He must be removed.”
The 25th Amendment, according to the Constitution, requires a majority of the President’s Cabinet (or a body created by Congress), and the Vice President to agree that Trump is unfit for office, and if Trump were to offer an opposing view that he’s fit for office in writing, two-thirds of each chamber of Congress would need to vote in support of removal. So, the 25th Amendment threat is an empty one, at best.
While opponents call Trump’s threats “mad rants” and “calls for genocide,” the reality is Trump’s threats are the only language that Islamic madmen understand. The threats by Trump were specifically regarding Iran’s infrastructure (bridges, desalination plants, power plants), the very same kind of actions being used by Ukraine in their war (of which the Democrats don’t consider war crimes) as stated by Jessie Watters on The Five, recently. If the targets Trump is threatening to hit are war crimes, then by that standard a long list of Presidents (most of whom were Democrats) are then guilty of war crimes from past wars America has participated in.
“Well,” said a well-intentioned neighbor of mine, “the war in Iran is unconstitutional because Congress did not declare war. The War Powers Act requires the President to get congressional approval before conducting war.” Article II establishes the President as Commander in Chief and an examination of the Constitutional Convention and history provides that means he is able to wage war without Congress micromanaging his actions from their legislative desks. As for the War Powers Act, the law is unconstitutional on its face. The only method that may be used to change constitutional powers to the President is a constitutional amendment, not a piece of legislation.
Islam is an enemy that lies, deceives, and takes advantage of weakness. So, President Trump has taken a firm stance, and unlike prior presidents he does not bluff. Trump’s methods are simple. Put pressure. Enter into diplomacy. If diplomacy fails, apply more pressure, and attempt more negotiations. If the other side is still refusing to be reasonable, apply the consequences that are necessary to ensure compliance. That is what Trump is doing with Iran.
Unlike other enemies, Islamists largely base their decisions on what they believe the will of Allah is. If they believe their defeat is so strong that Allah wants them to back off for a while, then they will. Only military strength against them can bring them to that conclusion. Iran’s threat to the region, once they agree to Trump’s terms, will be temporary because that is how Islam operates – and Trump understands that. But they’ve got to really believe that Allah is against them continuing to fight if they are going to stand down. As Shiites, however, Iran’s leaders believe in an apocalyptic vision of worldwide chaos if a global caliphate is to emerge. So, they’ve got to be convinced that even chaos raining down from the Heavens is not even in their best interest. Only the threat of complete annihilation will get them to stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons and their willingness to defy the world. Trump understands this, so he made the threat – not in the name of genocide, but realizing that is the only language the revolutionary military leaders of Iran are willing to understand.
Without the threat, and without Iran believing that Trump is willing to do exactly what he says, there would be no chance of Iran ever coming to the table of diplomacy and seriously considering an actual agreement to the terms Trump has laid out.
What is funny about it is that the Democrats freaking out that Trump is seriously willing to wipe out an entire civilization is actually helping the president, because if fellow Americans believe he is willing to wipe Iran out, Iran’s leaders will be more likely to believe so, as well.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
You can’t reason with the unreasonable, and Iran’s leadership has been unreasonable the entire way. Islam, or at least the leaders who refuse to participate in the modern version of getting along at the dinner table, knows only a firm hand.
President Trump, unlike the past week-knees of Presidents who preferred paying Islamic madmen Tribute Payments (hence, Obama’s pallets of cash to Iran) or cowering under the threat of Muslim Terrorism, has a firm hand and has proven he is willing to use it if necessary. After pretty much cornering Iran into a position where their only chess move remaining on the board is to surrender, the Islamic revolutionary regime has decided to go down fighting – so, President Trump has ordered a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and nearby waters to enforce a ceasefire with Iran and get ships moving in and out of the Persian Gulf so that the oil can flow again.
Understand, America has all the oil we need. We do not depend on the movement of oil in and out of Iran and her Middle Eastern neighbors. But, we live in a global market, and when supply is restricted by theocratic madmen who refuse to cry uncle when pushed against the wall, prices worldwide rise and as a result President Trump is more than willing to apply pressure in other spots and take military action when necessary.
The blockade of ship traffic to and from Iranian ports not only should get other ships in the area moving, but also starve Iran of its final economic lifeline. The hope is the move will convince Iran to honor negotiations, while opening up movement and navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports. The blockade, in particular, will also make sure Iran cannot sell any oil, and is designed to serve as a punishment against Iran for threatening to attack other ports in the region. The move was in response to Iran’s military declaring the “security of ports in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is either for all or for none.”
Iran’s leaders also put out the message that Iran will “firmly implement a permanent mechanism to control the Strait of Hormuz.”
President Trump warned that Iran’s remaining force of small boats “will be immediately ELIMINATED” if any of those vessels even approach the U.S. naval blockade. Trump indicated the same system to knock out drug dealer boats in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean would go into action.
Vice President J.D. Vance in Pakistan spent hours in negotiation with Iranian officials, but the Iranians failed to fully comply with U.S. demands according to Vance. And, Iran added their own new demands, none of which the United States will consider.
European countries have stated they will not participate in the blockade, again leading Trump to comment how our allies are not behaving as allies, and the president has stated the U.S. government may reexamine its relationship with NATO as a result.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The FOX News “Gutfeld” show featured a video of attorney and Trump critic George Conway emotionally stating he was willing to spend his children’s inheritance to fund efforts to “save democracy,” specifically highlighting his financial support for Joe Biden’s 2024 campaign. He said in the video, “I thought to myself: I want my kids to inherit a democracy. And so, I wiped the tears away and I drove to the fundraiser and I gave them the check.” Conway’s donation was $929,600 to the Biden Victory Fund – the legal maximum. Conway called it a bargain to support the “rule of law.” Once a Republican, Conway had become a prominent “Never Trump” figure and ran as a Democrat for Congress in 2026, focusing on opposing Donald Trump.
Greg Gutfield asked his guests about the idea of saving democracy, with only one noting the country is not a democracy, but then mistakenly calling our system a “Democratic Republic.”
This exchange reveals a fundamental misunderstanding that has plagued American discourse for over two centuries. American society has been convinced we live in a democracy, with little understanding of the crucial difference between a republic and a democracy. This confusion began early, despite James Madison explaining the difference five times in his Federalist Essays. The Founding Fathers consistently warned about the dangers of democracy, and even Old Europe at the time recognized these dangers, though they believed an oligarchy under royalty and an established church was preferable.
As I explain in my book, “Repeal Democracy,” majority rule through democracy historically always ends in tyranny. In a democracy, population centers control the vote, establishing a system where cities dictate policy to the rest of society. This is precisely why the Founding Fathers were careful not to create a democracy.
A democratic-republic is a representative system where officeholders are directly elected by the people, and today’s America closely resembles that. But, it was never designed as such. The Pledge of Allegiance isn’t to the “democratic-republic for which it stands.”
A republic, while incorporating some democratic principles, contains checks and balances designed to guard against the excesses of democracy. It prevents any part of government from becoming too strong or centralized. A republic ensures proper distribution of power. In a democracy, the vote controls everything. In a dictatorship or monarchy, a single leader rules, and while some rulers may be benevolent, history shows that tyrants eventually seize power. In theocracies, religious leaders hold all power, and in other oligarchies, some group always rules with an iron fist.
In a republic, nobody rules completely. Factions are set against each other so that none can dominate. Minority voices are amplified, and the democratic voices of population centers are challenged by other groups. Our Senate was designed with only two senators per state to ensure that states with large populations couldn’t rule over less-populated states. Originally, Senators were chosen by state legislatures (a method eliminated by the Seventeenth Amendment) to ensure that states held a voice in Congress and to provide a rural perspective in the federal government.
The House of Representatives and State Houses are populated by members democratically elected, so larger cities tend to have a stronger voice in those chambers. But at the state senate level, as with the U.S. Senate, representatives were historically not chosen based on population but by geography. In many cases, this meant one state senator per county – a method disallowed after the 1964 Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court ruling. The original method ensured representatives having a rural perspective also had a seat at the table – a natural check against the voice of population centers in the other chamber.
Even the President was not originally elected democratically. He was chosen by electors selected by congressional districts and state legislative houses. The method of choosing electors belonged to state legislatures (Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 2) – removing pure democracy from the equation. We know this system as the Electoral College, and while it still avoids a direct national popular vote (which would enable the largest cities to dominate), it has changed from its original form. The Electoral College evolved from electors voted by the people to electors established by parties who vote according to the popular vote of each district. Even the winner-take-all method that exists in all but two states was not originally followed. Each elector was applied based on their individual vote to the number of electors the candidate received.
Constitutional amendments require ratification by states – another method that moves away from pure democracy. In most countries, constitutional changes can be achieved through legislative votes or direct democratic vote. Consequently, the average age of constitutions worldwide is seventeen years, compared to our Constitution’s endurance of more than two hundred years.
The key to the Founders’ design was checks and balances and separation of powers – not just between branches, but between levels of government. The states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to establish a written constitution, and part of the agreement was that states would remain involved in governmental processes. During the Philadelphia debates, delegates considered state approval. The states were viewed as members of the union with rights similar to individual citizens, with the aim of ensuring states maintained oversight over the federal government they were creating. The goal was to prevent the federal government from making decisions without state approval.
As a result, the voice of the states influenced nearly all federal government policies:
Budget: Federal spending was established including the states’ voice in the Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and payment from states for spending was approved through indirect taxation (pre-16th Amendment).
Taxation: Tax law was established through the states’ voice in the Senate (pre-17th Amendment), and income tax was paid indirectly through states based on population (pre-16th Amendment).
Elections: Prescribed by state legislatures, except where Congress might regulate (Article I, Section 4), with states also having a voice through the U.S. Senate (pre-17th Amendment). States determined the election of electors for President (Article II, Section 1). Votes were first counted locally before being sent to central counting at state and federal levels to maintain local control. Congress was prohibited from interfering with how state legislatures prescribed Senators could be elected (Article I, Section 4), a provision violated when Congress proposed the 17th Amendment.
Appointments: New federal executive positions required approval/confirmation by the U.S. Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2), the states’ voice prior to the 17th Amendment. Similarly, federal judges require Senate confirmation.
Treaties: The President may negotiate and sign treaties, but validation needs Senate ratification (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2).
Local Legislation: Federal powers are enumerated powers by the Constitution, so local issues belong to local governments, except in cases directly impacting the union.
In short, the Founders understood that one of the best ways to guard against the consolidation of federal power, which historically leads to tyranny, was ensuring states stood in the way of such power. While the federal government was given significant authority regarding war, maritime law, trade with other countries, and other external matters, it was largely not authorized to interfere with domestic issues without state approval.
The enemies of liberty and proponents of centralized tyranny understand this, which is why they’ve been systematically dismantling Constitutional checks and balances, with major assaults during the Andrew Jackson years, Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, through the New Deal and Great Society eras, and with each argument against states having a voice to “save our democracy,” including recent calls for eliminating the Electoral College.
Calls for “saving our democracy” advocates increasing tyranny and centralized control without minority voices having any influence. “Save the democracy” calls for the enslavement of regions of the United States that lack large populations, consequently losing the Rule of Law to absolute rule by a tyrannical majority.
Even our allies call for “saving democracy.”
To save the country, we need to abandon democracy and return to being a republic.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The leftist push that outsiders like me recognizes as an open door towards communism, Islamization, and globalism has claimed another European country. In recent elections, Hungary voted Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally for President Trump, out of power after sixteen years of holding office, signaling a move away from policies that have drawn the ire of the European Union’s institutions. Péter Magyar’s Tisza Party also achieved a victory securing a two-thirds majority in parliament. With approximately 138 seats in the 199-seat legislature, the party has the mandate to amend the constitution and can pass major legislative changes without needing coalition partners.
Steve Bannon has called Orbán Europe’s “Trump before there was Trump.” Orbán’s policies stood firm for Hungarians, with a restrictive stance against Muslim immigration, and declaring that “Islamization is constitutionally banned in Hungary” with the intent to protect Hungary’s Christian culture. Orbán’s policies also supported traditional family values, pushing back against the homosexual and transgender agendas as well as implementing other anti-WOKE policies.
The European Union often criticized the Budapest government for diverging from the mainstream EU approach. Against EU calls, Hungary under Orbán refused to provide military aid to Ukraine, opposed Ukraine’s proposed EU accession, and rejected sanctions against Russia not because Hungary stood as an ally of Russia, but because Orbán’s government believed such actions harmed the European economy more than Russia.
In response, the EU has frozen funds to Hungary, excluded Hungarians from various EU programs, and imposed a daily €1 million on Hungary for protecting its borders against the invasion of illegal migrants, and taken Hungary to court for the Hungarian ban on promoting gender ideology in schools. Hungary has even been threatened by Brussels that its voting rights in the EU will be taken away if it does not comply.
Orbán’s Fidesz Party, however, has since been defeated by the Tisza Party. The victory of Péter Magyar’s pro-European Tisza Party signals a shift leftward, even though the Tisza Party claims to be conservative as well – just not as “right-wing” as Orbán’s party and its loyal voters. The victors claim they still maintain some skepticism toward EU institutions, but they believe the best way to handle the hard-leftists in Europe is through cooperation, rather than confrontation.
Orbán’s defeat in Hungary leaves Poland alone as the most significant bastion of conservative governance in Europe. The Law and Justice (PiS) party has maintained power with its strong national sovereignty stance, skepticism toward EU federalism, and resistance to progressive immigration policies. Poland has consistently clashed with Brussels over judicial reforms and migration quotas, positioning itself as a defender of national sovereignty against what they characterize as EU overreach, and the Islamization of Europe.
Italy under Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party represents another conservative stronghold. Meloni has embraced positions on immigration, cultural issues, and national identity that align with Trump’s approach, though she has had to moderate some positions to maintain stability within Italy’s complex coalition government and the EU framework. Meloni was one of the European leaders who endorsed Orbán before his defeat.
Other countries with varying degrees of Trump-aligned conservative leadership exists, but with less influence as Hungary’s Orbán had wielded.
The Czech Republic under Andrej Babiš’s ANO party, which has taken skeptical positions on immigration and EU integration remains in power, and in Slovenia under Janez Janša (though he’s currently in opposition) a conservative voice still maintains some kind of influence.
Parts of the Balkan region where conservative national sovereignty movements have gained influence also are on the rise, but the loss of Hungary in the war to save Europe is a serious blow.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There’s something fascinating about conspiracy theories, isn’t there? While some occasionally turn out to have a kernel of truth, and every once in a while one of them becomes a headline that was true all along, most spiral into elaborate narratives that defy logic and evidence. As conservatives who value constitutional principles and limited government, we should approach these theories with both healthy skepticism and critical thinking.
The Moon Landing and Flat Earth: When Observations Contradict Narratives
Let’s start with the most easily debunked theories. The moon landing conspiracy and flat earth theory fall into what I call “observational conspiracies” – they directly contradict what we can observe and verify.
For the moon landing, the evidence against the conspiracy is overwhelming:
The lunar laser ranging retro-reflector arrays placed on the moon during Apollo missions are still used today to measure the distance to the moon with millimeter precision. In fact, the fact that those reflector are there was once highlighted in an episode of “The Big Bang Theory” titled “The Lunar Excitation” that aired on May 24, 2010.
In this episode, the main characters set up an experiment on the roof of their apartment building to bounce a laser off the retro-reflector arrays left on the moon by the Apollo 11 astronauts.
Leonard invites Penny to watch, and she brings along her new boyfriend Zack, who is portrayed as not particularly intelligent. Zacks asks about the experiment: “How can you be sure it won’t blow up?”
The question highlights Zack’s lack of scientific understanding, as the laser being used was nowhere near powerful enough to damage the moon. Leonard sarcastically responds, “Don’t worry about the moon. We, we set our laser to stun.”
The characters successfully fire the laser and detect its return signal 2.5 seconds later, which excited the scientists but didn’t impress Zack.
Later in the episode, Penny complains to Leonard about Zack’s intelligence, saying, “Yes he was! He thought you were going to blow up the moon!”
The episode actually featured a real laser prop on an equatorial mount, though a powerful enough laser to actually reach the moon would have been too dangerous to use on set.
The show’s depiction of the experiment was based on real science—astronauts on Apollo 11 did indeed position reflectors on the moon’s surface in 1969, and scientists have been bouncing lasers off these reflectors to measure the distance between Earth and the moon ever since.
Also, to get back to our proof regarding visiting the moon, the 382 kg of moon rocks brought back have been independently verified by thousands of scientists worldwide as being non-terrestrial. And, the Soviet Union, America’s Cold War adversary, tracked the missions and acknowledged their success.
Modern imaging from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has photographed the Apollo landing sites.
The flat earth theory contradicts basic physics we can observe daily. As a constitutional conservative, I value empirical evidence over unfounded claims, and when it comes to the moon, and the flat earth theory, the evidence against the conspiracies is overwhelming.
9/11: The Cognitive Dissonance of Competence vs. Conspiracy
Here’s where things get interesting. Many who believe 9/11 was an inside job simultaneously argue that President Bush was among the most incompetent presidents in history. The cognitive dissonance is staggering – how could someone they consider bumbling mastermind one of the most complex conspiracies in history?
I have a retired SEAL and CIA friend who offered an interesting perspective on Building 7. He told me that after the 1993 World Trade Center attack, Building 7 was constructed with munitions in the walls. If the towers were attacked again, they could bring down Building 7, which contained critical intelligence they didn’t want accessed by enemies. While I don’t doubt my friend’s testimony, I’ve never found evidence to validate his claim. I suppose that would be my version of an unproven theory. But, to be honest, it sure seems much more plausible than the theory that the federal government secretly placed munitions in the walls of two bustling office towers and timed the explosions perfectly with the arrival of the inbound planes on that fateful day.
The 9/11 Commission Report documented numerous intelligence warnings that weren’t properly connected or acted upon. This points more to institutional failure – something conservatives should be concerned about – than conspiracy. It’s easy to connect the dots with hindsight. When one is in the middle of a situation, the vision regarding what could have been done, or should have been done, is not as clear.
JFK: Where Documented History Meets Speculation
The JFK assassination presents a more complex case. Many point to Executive Order 11110, which conspiracy theorists claim threatened the Federal Reserve’s power. The reality is more nuanced:
EO 11110 didn’t actually threaten the Federal Reserve’s authority to create money
It only delegated to the Treasury the authority to issue silver certificates against existing silver holdings. The order was part of a broader transition away from silver certificates that began before JFK and continued after his death
What gives this theory more credibility than most is that the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that JFK was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy,” though they couldn’t identify the conspirators. This official acknowledgment of possible conspiracy is noteworthy. While files have been released, and we don’t have all of the answers, for those who dig their nose deeply into these kinds of historical events, the fingerprints of the CIA is all over it.
Chemtrails: The Kernel of Truth Phenomenon
Chemtrails illustrates perfectly how conspiracy theories often work. Yes, governments have conducted weather modification experiments:
- Project Stormfury (1962-1983) attempted to weaken hurricanes
- Cloud seeding is used in some regions to enhance precipitation
- The UK conducted dispersal trials between 1955-1979
However, these documented programs are limited in scope. The theory that aircraft are spraying harmful chemicals for population control lacks credible evidence. Contrails, in most cases, are simply water vapor that freezes at high altitudes and can persist depending on atmospheric conditions. That said, is it possible that some of the “chemtrails” are up there for nefarious reasons? As with the lack of evidence to support the claim that chemtrails are largely nefarious, we can’t say for sure that every single trail we see isn’t.
A Conservative Approach to Conspiracy Theories
As a constitutional conservative, I tend to approach conspiracy theories with discernment. I consider them as possible, but I try not to take a binary view of either it is 100% or it is 100% not true. Sometimes, the answer lies somewhere in between.
The most credible theories tend to:
- Make the fewest assumptions (Occam’s razor)
- Are falsifiable (can be proven wrong)
- Have supporting evidence from multiple independent sources
- Don’t require impossibly large conspiracies that would inevitably leak
The reality is that governments do sometimes act in secret and against public interest, as we’ve seen with programs like COINTELPRO, MKUltra, and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. But these documented conspiracies are typically limited in scope and eventually come to light; unlike the grand, all-encompassing conspiracies that remain perpetually secret despite involving thousands of people.
Our constitutional framework provides checks and balances precisely because our founders understood the nature of power. While we should remain vigilant about government overreach, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing every elaborate conspiracy theory that comes along. Healthy skepticism combined with critical thinking serves our constitutional principles better than either blind trust or unfounded speculation.
The truth is often more mundane, and more telling, than the conspiracy theories that capture our imagination. And as a constitutionalist, I believe we should be more interested in the documented ways government exceeds its constitutional authority than in speculative theories that require us to suspend disbelief.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary