Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Politics runs through everything we experience in life. Maybe not necessarily the same politics as we see in Washington D.C., but politics in general. There are always those seeking power, seeking to preserve their power, the wealthy and powerful seeking to secure their position, and those who manipulate the whole thing to get the outcome they demand. Meanwhile, the minority voice pushes back and sometimes in an attempt to quell their frustrations the system may give in a little and create a temporary fix while doing what they can to keep the deep down guts of the system intact. It’s true in Washington, it’s true at the state level, it’s true in local politics, and it’s true in college football.
Three weeks ago I wrote about how already flaws were beginning to emerge in the new college football playoff scheme. Alabama, after losing to Georgia in the conference championship, was still getting in, and other teams who were obviously not up to the challenge looked like they were getting in as well. It made the conference championship game look like it was a moot point when it came to the SEC. And, the match-ups with the schools from the minor conferences, while they should have a chance to prove their worth on the field, created match-ups everyone knew would end the way they did… with the G5 teams getting beaten up pretty badly. The system they created for this year made for a bad first round when it came to Tulane and James Madison being in the mix. I suggested at the time that perhaps the way to do it would be to just let the teams in the playoffs be the conference champs, regardless of ranking, and then have a couple at large teams. But, that too would be very flawed. It would, in fact, only exacerbate the problem.
Then, I got to thinking. The playoff controversy is not being caused by the playoff format. The problem is the regular season ecosystem that prevents Group of Five (G5) teams from proving themselves during seasonal play.
The system is built backwards.
As it stands right now, the power conferences control the money, they control the scheduling, and they control the narrative. They have no incentive to give a rising G5 team a fair shot. So when a James Madison or Tulane goes 12-1, or God forbid has an undefeated season, the critics say, “Well, they didn’t play anyone.” Or, “They don’t draw ratings.” Or, “They’ll get blown out.” And, more often than not, they are correct. But, those same critics support a system that prevents the G5 teams from playing anyone of a higher caliber during the regular season in the first place.
It’s a grand contradiction packaged and delivered by the power and big money of college football.
In other words, the problem isn’t the playoff format. The regular season is the real problem.
First of all, power conference teams have rigged the system so that they can avoid dangerous G5 opponents. A top-25 SEC or Big Ten team gains nothing by scheduling a strong G5 opponent. If they win: “Well, they should have.” If they lose: “The season is ruined.” So, they schedule FCS cupcakes, bottom-tier G5 teams, and they make sure it’s a “home-only contract,” meaning that the G5 or FCS team opponent will only be scheduled to play the Power Conference team at the Power team’s stadium with no return game at the smaller school’s stadium. By doing this the Power Schools still get the revenue of filling their stadiums, they have guaranteed TV control over the game, they keep their competitive advantage, and it eliminates the risk of losing on the road to a smaller program. A road loss to a G5 team is a resume killer, and a home win over a G5 team is resume padding. The system they’ve created protects the Power Conference teams’ playoff resumes and their revenue.
The problem is, G5 teams can’t build a resume without access. Teams like James Madison, Tulane, Liberty, Fresno State or Boise State all face the same wall: They can dominate their conference, and they can even win 10-12 games, but they can’t get two or three meaningful Power Five (P5) games to prove legitimacy. If they had those games, the playoff committee wouldn’t be guessing, or playing favorites – they’d be making their decisions about who gets into the playoffs based on solid on-the-field evidence.
The problem goes deeper than just the domination and control by the Power Conferences. The advertisers and networks want “brand value.” They want those big match-ups between the Big 10 or SEC giants. There is not as much money to be made with games like JMU vs. Oregon State, Tulane vs. Kansas State or Iowa State vs. North Texas. Not necessarily because the game would be that bad of a game, but because the brands would not draw ratings. So, the system is built to protect the brands.
Bringing me back to my original idea…
The solution is not a new playoff system, or more tweaking to the playoff format that still leaves teams out of the final twelve who believe they deserved a chance to prove their merit on the field. The solution lies in the regular season. There should be mandated cross-conference scheduling.
If every G5 conference champion contender was able to play two to three Power Conference opponents per year, the conversation at the end of the year would be entirely different. I want G5 teams to be able to prove themselves on the field of battle, so why not give them that chance during the season so that if they fail you don’t have to include them in the playoffs after the regular season has ended. But, if they pull those games off during the regular season, now it seems reasonable to give them the chance during the post-season. A tougher schedule would give the G5 teams a real resume, give the committee real data, give fans better September football, reduce the “they don’t deserve to be here” argument during the post-season, and force the big conferences to put their money where their mouth is.
And to be honest, in the end it would make college football healthier, and recruiting more competitive across the board.
If in 2025 Tulane had beaten a team like Ole Miss or Kansas State, and played a competitive game versus LSU; or if James Madison had beaten a team like Virginia Tech, played Penn State close, and upset a mid-tier SEC team, the questions about playoff spots would be resolved before the playoffs were upon us. The allowance of these G5 conference champs into the playoffs would have been more digestible. And if they had lost all of those games, there would be no reason to cry when they were denied access to the playoffs. They had their chance to prove themselves, and they didn’t pull it off. As it stands now, G5 teams are judged on conference games, perhaps one P5 opponent, and the feelings that some members of the committee might have in letting them get their chance because of how they got ranked. That’s not a fair system, and at the moment it let’s teams squeak in that may not be able to compete as hoped during the playoffs.
To make it fair, a rising G5 program needs road tests, home tests, National exposure, and real resume games. What they get is one-off road games, no return visits, no chance to host a big opponent, and no chance to build a playoff resume at home. The regular season is structurally designed to prevent G5 teams from proving themselves. Then, the power conferences sit there in their ivory towers and proclaim that the G5 teams don’t deserve a chance because they don’t play anyone. But the reality is, they won’t play them unless it’s at the Power 5 home field, on the terms of the Power Conferences, with their officials, their crowd, and their TV deal.
The root cause of the playoff controversy is not that the playoff is broken. The regular season is protecting the powerful and isolating any challengers. If college football wants fairness, they need to shake up the system at its foundation. They need to mandate cross-conference scheduling, require during the regular season that P5 teams play at least one top-tier G5 opponent, and that some of those games be played at the G5 opponent’s home stadium. Give every G5 contender two to three games versus Power teams, with at least one being a home game. This will give G5 teams a real path to legitimacy, and partly shatter the image that the most powerful and wealthiest teams and conferences are too afraid to allow any challengers any chance to get their heads above the waterline. Then, once the regular season follows what I have recommended, the playoff becomes self-correcting.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We are less than a year away from the 2026 Mid-Term Elections and President Donald Trump’s opposition are pulling out all of the stops. While the progressive left claims Donald Trump is a dangerous dictator, and many of their voting minions believe them, many of the issues that cross the kitchen counter in conversation are beginning to swing in favor of Republican leadership.
While Trump’s use of tariffs were predicted by the Democrats to be an economic disaster in the making, the U.S. economy has grown by more than 4%, much larger than any other country around the world. The tariffs ultimately have narrowed the trade deficit, are stimulating domestic manufacturing, and have brought a massive amount of foreign investments into the United States.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2026 is in position to boost business investment, boost wages, slash the cost of doing business and leave much more money in the pockets of the average American.
By rolling back regulations and increasing domestic energy production the free market will be increasing production and supply even more so in 2026, which in turn will expand output and productivity which increase economic value in the system – a key factor when combating the inflation caused by the Biden administration’s flooding of the monetary system with fiat funds. Real incomes will bounce back, and sweeping tax reductions will leave more in the bank accounts of the American people.
When domestic manufacturing increases the unemployment rate drops, consumerism increases, and prices drop. Meanwhile, thanks to the tariffs, revenue from customs and excise taxes has been climbing massively. Once it all starts rolling more greatly in 2026, success will begin to beget success, and U.S. production will continue to steadily rise. Oil prices have been falling, and that reduction in fuel costs alone has a massive impact on the overall American market.
All of this is important because, through Donald Trump’s name won’t appear on the midterm ballot, but the issues that Americans can see and feel will be. The success of his presidency, regardless of claims to the contrary by his opponents, is something that will influence Americans as they go to the ballot box. And, voters will likely respond in a manner that will favor the Republican Party next November if they feel confident that the President’s policies are working in their favor and that he needs more allies in Congress to continue the trend.
The Democrats fear that Republicans will increase their majority in Congress, and they are doing everything they can to stop MAGA’s momentum. Despite history’s tendency to favor the party not in power in mid-term elections, the historical trend is not set in stone. While the Democrats are hoping for a repeat of the 2018 House meltdown that gave the Democrats a congressional triumph during Trump’s first term second-half, with a lot of help from his successes, a large GOP turnout and a staunch foundation of election integrity to ward off any ideas by the party-of-the-donkey to rig and steal it, I believe this year’s mid-term will swing in favor of Trump.
Democrats, understand, will do everything in their power to regain some semblance of power, be it more government shutdowns, or a threat of yet another Trump impeachment. And, if Democrats don’t take the House or the Senate in this upcoming election, and the prospects of economic improvement and national security largely through President Trump’s immigration policy and updated Monroe Doctrine continues to show great success, 2028 may be a bleak year on the horizon for the Democrats, as well.
I am not necessarily predicting a “red-wave.” The congressional gerrymandering war may temper some of the advances that Republicans hope to achieve. Then again, the reactionary position of the Democratic Party may also work against them. In California, for example, in order to combat redistricting efforts in Texas, and other red states, the deeper gerrymandering of an already deep blue case of political gymnastics has possibly created more Democrat Party heavy districts, but the blue votes have been diluted across the State to achieve the desired outcome. If President Trump’s economy continues to roar in the right direction, the Democrats may actually lose some of those districts in the Golden State because many voters are willing to step over to the other side when their wallet is in the conversation. And, perhaps, the California Governor’s Mansion may even be in play as well if Trump’s approval rating keeps rising and the disapproval of the rudderless Democrats keeps dropping to historic lows.
While the Democratic Party is notorious for getting out the vote in mid-term elections, Trump’s allies are ready to turn out in record numbers as well. They know that the decision to bring Trump back to the White House in the last election must be defended. Republican voters heavily favor Trump’s policies. Independents are leaning toward the President. And Democratic voters, other than the craziest WOKE, commie, hard-left ones, are leaving the party in droves.
But, it all hangs in the balance over if the economic signs of improvement in 2026 come to pass. And improvement alone is not good enough if the public can’t see it. The improvement must be visible to the average voter despite the media’s and Democrat Party’s claims to the contrary.
America’s enemies hope for other disrupters, too – natural disasters, sudden national security disruptions or the rise of some kind of scandal that they can sink their teeth into. But, barring any unforeseen crises, and with the expectation that the economy will continue to visibly improve, all signs point to both Houses of Congress increasing the Republican majority by the time the mid-term elections are over.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The progressive left’s play with words just shot them in the foot. The Democrats and their socialist allies depend upon optics more than truth, so they parse words in the hope of making you have one perception when the reality might be something different. With that in mind, in retaliation against Trump’s use of the National Guard to assist ICE in the execution of immigration law, they call it the use of the military in our cities. They want the reasons behind the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878 to bubble fearfully inside your head.
The Posse Comitatus law came at the end of Reconstruction to limit the use of the U.S. Army after it was used to occupy The South after the War Between the States. The term posse comitatus is Latin for “power of the country,” referring to citizens having the preferred option of calling upon the sheriff, local law enforcement, and if necessary the local militia to keep the peace rather than a standing army under the control of the federal government. The law was passed after pressure from Southern Democrats calling for restrictions on the use of the military in internal affairs. The act also reflected a long-standing suspicion that was shared by the Founding Fathers of the use of standing armies to enforce civilian law, which is also rooted in English common law and colonial history.
The Democrats, from day one of Donald Trump’s presidency, have argued he is a wannabe dictator willing to use the force of the federal government in an authoritarian manner, so when he sought to deploy the National Guard to assist in the execution of immigration law, his opponents saw their opportunity and screamed that he was using the military against the American People. According to Congress, there are exceptions to the domestic use of the military by the federal government, like:
- The Insurrection Act: Allowing deployment to quell rebellion or execute federal law
- Disaster Response: When assisting, but not leading law enforcement
- Counter-Drug Operations: In a support role, only
- Border Support: Logistical roles, but may not be used to police civilians
Basically, the understanding in American Law is that the military may be used to assist, but generally they have no policing powers (arrest, search, seizure, or investigation of civilians unless authorized by law).
In the past, the use of the military domestically has become a topic of debate during times of major riots, civil unrest, border enforcement strategies, pandemic or natural disaster responses, and terrorism events within U.S. territory.
Getting back to the Democrats using optics and perception for their narrative, rather than actual truth, their aim from the beginning has been to create in the minds of Americans a totalitarian military minded system being pushed by Donald Trump. That’s one of the reasons they have called him a fascist, and a modern-day Hitler. They want to stir up images of Nazi soldiers marching through the streets of America – a police-state enforced by military rule.
So, with that narrative in mind, the line between who the military is and who the militia is has been blurred. The Democrats have been relentless in their use of language calling the militia the military. But, the National Guard is not the military. It is the militia.
Aside from a narrative filled with illusory optics and perception, the Democrats have also deployed a massive lawfare campaign. Yes, they’ve been hitting Donald Trump with lawsuits ever since he first emerged on the political scene, but during this second term the lawfare has been ratcheted up targeting pretty much everything he does. The lower courts have been pretty consistent in ruling against the President, but more often than not he wins once it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Among the most recent cases to reach the Supreme Court is Trump v. Illinois. The High Court ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, and the media is calling it a big defeat for The President. But, because of the language used in the ruling, using the word “military” rather than “militia” when it comes to the National Guard, the ruling created an interesting unintended consequence. The language of the ruling changes how a President of the United States may execute federal law when it comes to the use of military resources.
President Trump deployed the National Guard to Chicago in early October of 2025 using 300 members of the Illinois National Guard, plus additional Guard members from Texas. The justification used by the Trump administration was that the deployment was necessary due to political and civilian obstruction to federal immigration operations. The Guard was deployed to support ICE facilities and personnel, including at the Broadview ICE facility. The deployment aligns with the U.S. Constitution where in Article I, Section 8 it calls for the militia being used to execute federal law.
President Trump also publicly stated that Chicago’s violent crime justified federal intervention, considering the level of violence to be “rebellious,” which makes the deployment of the militia (National Guard) consistent with the Article I, Section 8 power to “suppress insurrections.”
Once the Democrats launched a lawsuit against the deployment of the National Guard to Chicago, U.S. District Judge April Perry blocked the deployment almost immediately ruling that the administration had not identified lawful authority for using the Guard in this manner, despite the fact that the White House had already identified constitutional authority in Article I, Section 8.
Once the case got to the U.S. Supreme Court, the court ruled 6-3 not to lift the injunction, leaving the block in place while litigation continues. The unsigned order stated:
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.”
The three justices who dissented were Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
From an original intent point of view of the U.S. Constitution, according to Article I, Section 8, Congress may call forth the militia (which, according to the Militia Act of 1903 is the National Guard) to:
- Execute the laws of the Union
- Suppress insurrections
- Repel invasions
When called into federal service, the Guard falls under the authority of the President of the United States as Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2). Therefore, if the Guard was deployed to assist ICE in executing federal immigration law, the deployment fits squarely within this clause. If the Guard was deployed to suppress violent crime rising to the level of insurrection, it also fits.
Article IV., Section 4’s “Domestic Violence” Clause requires that the state legislature (or the governor if the legislature cannot convene) must request federal support to quell “domestic violence.” This clause, which is likely what the Democrats are using when they claim President Trump may not use “troops” inside the states without their permission, only applies when the purpose is to restore order that has not risen to the level of insurrection, and when the federal government is not executing federal law. This may also be the clause some of the Supreme Court justices were focusing on, but it’s a misapplication if the stated purpose was to execute federal immigration law, or suppressing insurrection-level violence. During the Whiskey Rebellion during President George Washington’s time in office the violence in that instance was considered to reach the level of insurrection, and Washington used the militia for the purpose of executing a federal tax – both serving as historical precedent supporting President Trump’s use of the National Guard in Chicago.
In the ruling the Supreme Court stated that the government failed to identify the authority allowing “the military” to execute the laws in Illinois, which brings us back to the progressive left’s use of language for optics. The National Guard, when federalized, is not the same as the standing Army. It is the constitutional militia according to U.S. Law – the very force the Founding Fathers intended to be used instead of the standing army for domestic law execution. The Court’s language implies that the Guard is the military, and since it is the military it cannot execute laws unless using a law that allows it; therefore, the President must first justify using “the military.” This flips the logic of the Founding Fathers on its head.
From a historical point of view, the Founders desired that communities used local authorities first. Then, if federal law needed to be executed domestically, the President may utilize federal civil officers and then the militia. The military may be used only as a last resort. The Court’s response seems to reverse this order, justifying military use before militia use – directly opposite of constitutional design.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling misreads and misapplies the Constitution by treating the National Guard as if it were a standing army. As previously stated, under Article I, Section 8, the militia is the constitutionally preferred force for executing federal law and suppressing insurrections. By implying the President must first justify the use of the regular military before federalizing the Guard, the Court has inverted the Founders’ intended hierarchy of force and undermined the very safeguards they built to prevent domestic military rule.
In the end, when trying to convince the American People with a narrative that called the militia (National Guard) the military, and by using that same language in the ruling by the Supreme Court regarding Illinois v. Trump, the language of the ruling instructs that the regular Armed Forces must be used first before the President can bring out the National Guard. In other words, because of their screaming and trying to convince you that the National Guard is the military, the Supreme Court’s ruling using that kind of language may actually lead to the use of active-duty military units domestically – an unintended consequence they brought about themselves due to their games with language.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
It’s the end of a long, wonderful Christmas. The torn wrapping paper is now kindling in the wood stove. The tree lights are unplugged. My wife stretched, rose from the couch, and drifted off to bed. The dogs are busy with their new toys. The leftovers are in the fridge, and I’m finishing a bowl of fruit salad while catching up on a football game I missed earlier in the week.
Outside, the rain has finally eased after a day of showers and a morning mix of hail and snow. Our Bible study wrapped up a couple hours ago, and most of the gifts have already found their places around the house… except for my new watch, hats, mini‑golf set, and football card still sitting on my desk. We opened most of our presents on Christmas Eve with a turkey dinner, then saved the best three for this morning, followed by a ham lunch and a late snack as we played billiards in the game room. It was a full day, and we are happily exhausted.
Christmas is celebrated by more than two billion Christians around the world. And while the season has picked up its share of cultural add‑ons – trees, mistletoe, gift‑giving, feasting, and certain aspects of Santa Claus – the heart of Christmas remains a 2,000‑year‑old event: the birth of a Jewish child of the line of David in Bethlehem who would become a rabbi, a miracle worker, and ultimately the Savior who died on a Roman cross at Calvary.
The first followers of Jesus never believed they were creating a new religion. They were Jews who recognized Him as the long‑awaited Messiah foretold in what we now call the Old Testament. They rejected the accusation of blasphemy from the religious authorities and became the first Christians.
As the Gospel spread into Africa, the Middle East, and southeast Europe, believers came to understand that while Christianity shared its roots with Judaism, it was something distinct. The Messiah had not come as a warrior king, but as a humble child destined for the cross. The restoration of Israel would come, but not until His Second Coming.
Christians still honor Israel as God’s chosen people, yet believe they have been grafted into God’s family through the blood of Jesus. And they hold that the only way to the Father is through Christ, meaning that anyone who desires eternal life with The Father in Heaven must accept Him as the Messiah, which became the ultimate and most pure Lamb on The Cross.
That is the true meaning of Christmas: the celebration of the Savior’s arrival. God in human flesh. A Messiah born to die for the sins of the world. A gift, but one that must be received.
Some belief systems spread their message by the sword. But the true sword of the Christian faith is not violence, it is the Word of God. Ephesians 6:17, “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Then in John 1:14 the Bible states, “…the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us…” Jesus is The Word, and The Word is the Sword of the Spirit. While others advance their ideology through force (The Sword), Christians advance theirs through a Sword of Peace – the transforming power of Christ.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The story of Christmas isn’t about Santa, Christmas Trees, family gatherings around a big meal, or sleigh bells ringing. This is about the most prophesied radical invasion in human history: when God stepped off His Throne in Heaven, traveled to Earth to wrap Himself in flesh, was born in the most humble manner, and rescued the world drowning in sin.
The world into which Jesus was born was dark; politically, spiritually, and morally. Joseph and Mary were poor, and engaged to marry. They lived while the Roman Empire ruled the Holy Land with an iron fist. Israel was under occupation, not only by Rome, but by the deceitful powers of human nature and the Prince of Darkness. The Jewish religious leaders were corrupt, and protective of their power, not realizing they were tools of the god of this world.
Deliverance was needed, and deliverance was at hand. It had been prophesied. But, the people of the world weren’t ready for the kind of deliverance God had in mind.
They expected a warrior.
God sent a baby.
Luke Chapter 2 tells us that Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem for the census, which also lined up Christ’s birth with Micah’s 700 year old prediction of Him being born in Bethlehem.
But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for Me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times. (Micah 5:2)
She was pregnant, but she was a virgin. She had been visited by the Holy Spirit, and she was not only carrying a child, but the Child.
The Messiah.
The One foretold by Isaiah: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)
God With Us.
There was no room at the inn.
So the King of Kings was born in a stable, laid in an animal’s feeding trough (manger), surrounded by animals.
Why?
Because God wanted to make it clear:
He humbly came not as a member of the elite, but as a child of the most humble beginnings. He came for all, but only if you would believe upon him. There was no fanfare, or kings holding him up to the sky. There was simply a bright star. And, the angels didn’t appear to kings. They appeared to shepherds, the lowest rung of society.
Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy… (Luke 2:10)
And suddenly the sky exploded with praise:
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men! (Luke 2:14)
The story that would lead to the path to Salvation from Sin had begun.
The Savior had arrived.
Herod tried to kill Him. Satan tried to tempt him and corrupt Him. The world tried to ignore Him. But Jesus came with a mission. He lived a sinless life. He died a substitutionary death. He bore the sins of the world, past, present and future. His cross was slammed upon the ground and he was nailed to it, only for Jesus Christ to rise in victory on Calvary, and ultimately to Heaven where He Lives because He conquered death.
Christmas is the beginning of the rescue.
He died so that we may have everlasting life. He died so that the bondage of sin may be broken. He died so that we may surrender to Jesus. Christmas isn’t about gifts under a tree. It’s about the gift that hung on a tree. The cross was always the destination. Bethlehem was just the starting line. He was born to die a horrific death so that we may be saved and live forever.
Jesus came to save.
To redeem.
To restore.
And He’s coming again… not as a baby, but as a King.
Are you ready?
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
My dear friends, let me tell you the story about a Christmas Miracle that happened at Trenton back in 1776…
You have to picture the scene. It’s December 1776. The American Revolution is hanging by a thread, and I mean a thin, frayed, nearly broken, thread. General George Washington’s army is cold, hungry, and demoralized. The Patriots have only won three of the first eleven major battles of the War for Independence. The British think the whole rebellion is basically over. They’ve pushed America’s small remainder of troops across New Jersey, right into Pennsylvania.
They’re already writing the obituary for the American cause.
And who’s sitting pretty for Christmas in Trenton?
Not the British regulars. Not even close. They outsourced the job. They hired German Hessian mercenaries, professional soldiers from Hesse‑Kassel, to babysit New Jersey for them.
Because nothing says “we understand the American people” like sending foreign rent‑a‑troops to occupy their towns.
But General Washington had been learning on the job, and realized it was time to think outside the box. He had developed an incredible amount of grit during all of the failures. He was ready to stop losing, and his new path to victory had vision that nobody saw coming. After all, he had something the British command didn’t: the willingness to take a risk so bold it bordered on insane.
While the Hessians were relaxing after Christmas celebrations, Washington was preparing the most daring move of the war. In the middle of a brutal winter storm that included the whole enchilada: ice, snow, sleet – he led 2,400 men across the Delaware River. A frozen Delaware River. They had to break up the ice and not only float men, but equipment too, across the river in the frigid weather complete with howling winds. Two men died just from exposure as they marched across the New Jersey landscape after the crossing had been completed. And the other two armies didn’t make it across. It was all up to Washington and his men; with bleeding feet and limited ammunition.
But Washington was determined because he knew that if he didn’t strike now, the Revolution was finished.
Despite getting there later than planned, in the morning hours of December 26, Washington’s forces hit Trenton like a thunderclap. The Hessians, commanded by Colonel Johann Rall, were caught completely off guard. While there is no historical evidence supporting the idea that the Hessians were fighting off a hangover after a day-long Christmas celebration, many historians consider that was a probability… you know, considering how the Germans love their beer, and everything.
The Americans moved fast: wide eyed, sober, coordinated, and disciplined.
The Hessians tried to rally, but it was too late.
By the time the smoke cleared:
• 22 Hessians were killed
• 83 wounded
• 800–900 captured
The American casualties?
Only a handful were wounded, including future President of the United States, James Monroe, who had to have an artery clamped to save his life.
The final tally wasn’t just a victory. It was a statement.
The Battle of Trenton was small in scale but enormous in impact. It revived American morale, proved the Continental Army could win, and set the stage for another victory at Princeton a week later. For historians, the two battles served as a turning-point in the war. The British thought the rebellion was collapsing, and Washington showed them it was just getting started.
This was the moment the Revolution got its second wind.
This was the moment America said: “We’re not done yet.”
So when you hear people talk about the American Revolution as if it were inevitable, realize that the upstart Americans were big-time underdogs. Victory was far from inevitable. It was held together by courage, audacity, leadership, and Faith in God. As the Declaration of Independence proclaimed in its final stanza, they were fighting “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” They refused to quit even when the smart money said it was over knowing that God was with them, and because liberty was worth the fight.
Washington and his troops didn’t just cross a river.
They crossed the line between defeat and destiny.
And that, my good friends, is the real story of Trenton.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
(Help fund my radio programs… become a $9 Patron)