Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The first time I personally faced off with Antifa was when they appeared during my third speaking event for the College Republicans at UC Riverside. Antifa lined the stairs to the venue, forcing four brave students to escort me through what felt like a battlefield. I remember thinking, “The flak gets heavier when you’re over the target.” That day confirmed for me that I was doing something right as a constitutionalist.
While Democrats claim Antifa doesn’t exist, I can tell you from firsthand experience that they do. They are real, organized, and well funded.
Antifa is not your typical leftist organization. They are anarcho-communists, intent on tearing down the American system so that they can raise a new communist order from the rubble. They claim all they are doing is protesting, but what we are watching is insurrection. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes the federal government without state approval to suppress such insurrections when they threaten the United States.
Antifa is a militant force, encouraged to get arrested, trained to be violent, and it is becoming clear that they are funded through laundered taxpayer dollars. We’ve seen their chaos in Portland, Seattle, and even North Carolina, where a masked individual opened fire at a Donald Trump supporter’s home.
Their violence is emboldened by rhetoric from the radical left and their Democratic Party counterparts. Whether through Antifa, or other extremist channels, they are signaling their intent to silence opposition by any means necessary. According to InfoWars, “They want to kill us.”
Texas congressional candidate Jolanda Jones told CNN, “I’m from the hood…I’m gonna go across your neck.” Was that a veiled reference to the horrific shooting of Charlie Kirk?
In Los Angeles, schoolteacher and prominent anti-ICE activist Ron Gochez warned, “They are not the only ones with guns in this city.” Another video revealed an elementary schoolteacher pointing her fingers to her neck in an obvious mocking of Charlie Kirk’s murder.
These aren’t simply individuals with isolated outbursts. The theme runs through the left as a part of a broader movement that trains to be disruptive, destructive, and, in their own words, “ungovernable.”
The message is clear: the radical left is embracing political violence. Whether through Antifa or other extremist channels, they are signaling their intent to silence opposition by any means necessary.
Candidates like Jay Jones openly fantasizing about murdering political opponents has drawn no condemnation from the Democratic Party. There has been no accountability. Instead, they mock the assassination of Charlie Kirk and entertain fantasies of a “successful” Trump assassination attempt.
They have a darkness within them. They are chasing evil in ways that go way beyond insurrection. What we are seeing is moral collapse. They are crossing a line that is not reversible. And as they unleash chaos while daring President Trump to respond, I’m reminded of the schoolyard bully poking a kid in the chest, daring him to take the first swing. I pray that we handle this with wisdom and resolve. Constitutionally, the Trump administration has every authority to treat this as insurrection and deploy the National Guard if necessary. The lower courts may fumble, but the Constitution is clear.
One thing is certain: the American people are watching. And come 2026, they’ll have their say in the Midterm Elections – not with bricks or Molotovs, but with ballots.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The media has always been tainted, or at least during my lifetime. Back when I was a kid the left had it contained on three major networks. Then, Rush Limbaugh broke radio wide upon for conservative thought, and the advent of cable television added more voices. But, even though the left permeated the ranks of radio and television journalists, they at least tried to look like the facts mattered back then. Now, journalism has become a game of “gotcha” instead of “get the facts”? A good example is the recent textbook case of the left-wing media complex trying to smear Tom Homan with a rumor so thin it couldn’t hold up a cocktail napkin.
You know Tom Homan. He’s pulls no punches. He’s the perfect Border Czar. Straight shooter. No-nonsense. The kind of guy who actually believes in enforcing the law. And because of that, the left hates him. So what do they do? They float a nasty, unsubstantiated rumor that he accepted a $50,000 bribe. The claim is it got handed to him by undercover FBI agents. No true evidence exists of this rumor. There are no charges. No indictment. No trial. Just hearsay and headlines.
And who’s pushing this garbage? The usual suspects. A big one has been George Stephanopoulos, the Clinton consigliere turned Sunday morning inquisitor. He tried to corner Vice President JD Vance on ABC’s This Week, asking about a so-called FBI tape that nobody’s seen, nobody’s authenticated, and nobody’s confirmed. Vance, to his credit, didn’t flinch. He called it what it was: a smear. A distraction. A reason why fewer and fewer Americans tune in to the mainstream media circus.
“You’re insinuating criminal wrongdoing against a guy who has done nothing wrong,” Vance said. “Let’s talk about the real issues.”
And this is the kind of shadow-chasing that is important to Stephanopoulos while the government is shut down. Troops aren’t getting paid as they should be. Low-income families are wondering where their next meal might be coming from (though I believe safety nets like welfare should be administered by the States, not the federal government – that’s just a constitutional authority thing, with me). But ABC wanted to talk about a bribe that didn’t happen.
And then, when Vance got going, the ABC team cut Vance off. Mid-sentence. Boom. Commercial break. Because when the truth doesn’t fit the narrative, the left hits the mute button.
Then, we get to Bill O’Reilly, the former FOX News personality. He confronted Homan directly, in front of a live audience, with no plan to cut him off like ABC did to Vance. No teleprompters. No spin. Just a question: “Did you take $50,000?”
Homan looked him dead in the eye and said: “I didn’t take $50,000 from anybody.”
Then he dropped the hammer:
“Day one I came back, I recused myself from any discussions, of any contact or any monetary decisions like that because I used to have a company that did consulting…I took a significant, huge pay cut to come back and serve my nation…I am not enriching myself doing this job.”
That’s what integrity looks like, folks. That’s what service looks like. And that’s why the left can’t stand him.
They can’t beat Trump or his people on policy. They can’t beat him on results. So they try to beat him with rumors. But here’s the thing: Tom Homan doesn’t care what they think. He said it himself:
“I don’t care what people think about me, I never have because I know who I am. I work for the greatest president in the history of this nation in my opinion. And we’re doing the right thing every day.”
Boom. Mic drop. That’s how you handle fake news.
It’s the same B.S. as usual; the media trying to sell you a scandal. I get asked these questions all the time about what I think about what the media says. I always respond: “Who said it, is it backed by facts, or is it just another leftist attempt to deceptively attack a patriot?”
In the end, truth wins. And Tom Homan? He’s still standing.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
As we watch the lefties violently march around our city streets and assault ICE agents, as we grasp that they really do think that men can be women, and as we continue to shake our heads as their Trump Derangement Syndrome reaches epic proportions a new confrontation with a story that cuts to the heart of our national character has emerged. The FBI has announced the arrest of NBA Hall of Famer and Portland Trail Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups, alongside Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier, in connection with a sprawling illegal gambling operation tied to none other than La Cosa Nostra, the Genovese, Gambino, and Bonanno crime families. Yes, you heard that right. Organized crime, woven into the fabric of professional sports.
Sure, we’ve seen this kind of thing before. The Black Sox scandal that has kept Joe Jackson out of the Hall of Fame comes to mind. But with the rise of gambling, especially sports gambling of late, did we really think that the envelope wasn’t going to be pushed in this manner?
According to FBI Director Kash Patel, this is a “historic arrest” that exposes a criminal enterprise stretching from the hardwood to the underworld. Forty individuals have been taken into custody. The NBA, once a symbol of American athletic excellence, now finds itself entangled in a web of corruption that threatens the integrity of the game and the trust of the people.
Billups, a five-time All-Star and NBA champion, was taken into custody for his role in illegal poker games. Yet, astonishingly, he still stood on the sidelines coaching his team against the Timberwolves. Rozier, meanwhile, was absent from the Heat’s game against Orlando, his arrest cloaked behind a hamstring injury. Ironic, considering he faked an ankle injury during one of the gambling scams where he pulled himself out of a game early so that a bunch of people could bet the under regarding his game-play, and then count the winnings at his house with his cut.
While I hear that the NBA is cooperating, we have heard no official statements from the teams. No accountability. Just silence.
Realize, this isn’t just about basketball. It’s about the erosion of virtue in our institutions. It’s about the slow bleed of honor from the veins of our republic. When sports icons become pawns in criminal syndicates, when multimillion-dollar franchises turn a blind eye, we must ask: where is the moral backbone of this country?
We are not spectators in this republic, we are its stewards. Only a virtuous people, after all, can truly understand freedom and appreciate something as precious as our Constitution. Fortunately, we have the Trump administration on guard shining a light on the shadows.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If Trump was a King he would:
Not have allowed the “No Kings” rally to occur in the first place.
Increase regulations against the business sector rather than reduce them as he has been doing. By the way, the Democrats believe in increasing regulations against the business sector, while also using progressive taxation to tax them into extinction. You know, like communism did in the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba and the list goes on and on and on.
Suspend the First Amendment’s principle of Free Speech. You know, like the Democrats and their allies have done on College Campuses, Social Media, and pretty much everywhere else they could cancel speech that disagrees with their narrative by calling it misinformation and disinformation.
Suspend the First Amendment’s principle of Free Press by shutting down all of the leftwing media with a wave of his scepter. You know, forcing the media to report the way he wants like the Democrats and their allies have done by infiltrating and taking over most of the mainstream media with their hard left journalists and opinion pundits who report their ideology like it isn’t fake news.
Weaponize the IRS to target his political enemies. You know, like the Obama administration did when conservative groups applying for non-profit status were flagged and delayed.
Force schools to teach ideologically-tilted lessons. You know, like Biden did when he threatened to cut off school lunch funding if school districts did not adopt a gender dysphoria indoctrination curriculum.
Mandate vaccinations. You know, like Biden and his accomplices tried to do during the COVID scamdemic – where Americans were forced to decide to obey or lose their jobs in many cases, some of those as members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were forced out of service and cadets expelled for refusing the shot. According to Military News, the Army ended the military pay and benefits for more than 60,000 National Guard and Reserve Soldiers who refused the COVID-19 shot, an authoritarian action that affected more than the servicemember – it affected their families.
Use intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents. You know, like the Democrats did when the FBI surveilled Trump’s campaign under questionable pretenses during the 2016 election.
Pack the Supreme Court with loyal ideologues. You know, like the Democrats have threatened to do every time a ruling doesn’t go their way, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to do during his presidency, and like the leftist Hamiltonian Federalist Party actually did during the Midnight Judges scandal.
Use drones to kill Americans who don’t agree with him – without trial, without due process. You know, like Obama did in 2011 when his administration authorized a drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, in Yemen. Weeks later, another strike killed his 16-year-old son. Citizens. No charges. No courtroom. Just executive power and a missile.
Use the government to buy out companies. You know, like Obama did with General Motors.
Use the government to control banking, regulate lenders, and dictate financial behiavior in the name of protecting consumers. You know, like Obama did with the Dodd-Frank Act, which gave federal agencies sweeping power over banks and mortgage to combat so-called “predatory lending.”
Use law to dictate to private industries and force your participation. You know, like Obama did with the Affordable Care Act, which compelled individuals to buy insurance and pressured businesses to comply or face harsh penalties.
House detained illegal aliens tightly in cages (including children). You know, like Obama did.
Raise taxes to give the government more power to spend and redistribute wealth in a communist manner. You know, like the Democrats have.
Declare climate emergencies to bypass Congress. You know, like the Democrats and their internationalist leftist allies have to push through radical authoritarian environmental policies without legislative approval.
Ban gas-powered cars and stoves. You know, like progressive states and cities have started doing in the name of climate justice – regardless of cost or practicality (and we can throw incandescent light bulbs and a whole list of other products on that list, too).
Use executive orders to erase borders to win elections and create chaos so that more federal government involvement in local communities is required to control the situation – and then proclaim that police need to be defunded which creates even more need for federal influence. You know, like Biden did when he reversed Trump-era immigration policies and created a humanitarian crisis at the southern border and in each of our cities.
Force banks to report your transactions over $600. You know, like the Biden administration proposed to monitor Americans’ financial activity under the guise of catching tax cheats.
Redefine words to fit his agenda. You know, like the left did when they changed the definition of “recession” during economic downturns to avoid bad press.
Use the DOJ to prosecute political rivals over things that are not even a crime. You know, like the Democrats did with their lawfare campaign against Trump and his allies where investigations were more about the accusation than any actual criminal activity – and then make sure they had their judges in place to hammer home the verdicts.
Push for digital IDs and centralized currency for more authoritarian control over people’s lives. You know, like globalist Democrats have floated to increase surveillance and control over personal finances.
Use the FBI and civilian agitators to infiltrate opposition rallies, provoke chaos, and fabricate an image of insurrection – then unleash federal officers to hunt down anyone nearby, even passive onlookers. You know, like the Democrats did on January 6, 2021 when they deployed 274 FBI assets, Antifa operatives, and the Capitol Police to ignite a staged riot at the Capitol, even before those who watched Trump speak at The Ellipse even arrived.
… I’m sure you can think of more, if you tried.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Adelita Grijalva won a special election on September 23, 2025 for Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, succeeding her late father Raul Grijalva. She, like her father, is a hard-core leftist Democrat, and so far Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has refused to swear her in. The battle has drawn attention, and has led to Arizona suing Speaker Mike Johnson over it. The lawsuit is no surprise since the Arizona attorney general has been threatening legal action all along. The optics for Republicans look very partisan, and their reasons for not seating Grijalva politically motivated. House Speaker Mike Johnson states that the oath will be administered when the House resumes full legislative business and at the moment their efforts are centered around resolving the current government shutdown. The lawsuit, Grivalva v. Johnson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and is more of a scare tactic than anything, with the hopes that a lower federal court will force Congress to act.
For me, the issue in play here is that if the courts were to remain consistent with past cases, they will dismiss the case using the “political question” argument which disallows courts from intervening in matters involving Congress due to the separation of powers concept. Cases in which the “political question” angle has been used by the federal courts in conjunction with the separation of powers doctrine to both limit and justify congressional actions leading to a dismissal of the case includes:
- Seila v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
- Constitution Association v. Kamala Devi Harris (2020)
- Zubik v. Burwell (2016)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
If the federal courts do not use the political question argument to dismiss this case, and instead rule that Speaker Johnson is in violation of the Constitution or some law on the books the courts would be in violation of past precedent set by the federal court system and would also violate the fact that in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution each House of Congress is tasked with being its own judge of election, returns, and qualifications of its own members and may determine its own rules of its proceedings. In short, regardless of what the courts want to say, Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is fully constitutionally authorized to hold off Grijalva being seated. Granted, I don’t see the reasoning behind it, and I don’t fully agree with Speaker Johnson’s action, but he is constitutionally permitted to take that action, or should I say “inaction.”
When it comes to the legal case, while I believe it should be dismissed on the grounds of “political question,” the Democrats believe they also have past Supreme Court decisions supporting their case which would disallow the House from excluding a duly elected and qualified member; one case being Powell v. McCormack (1969), which held that the House cannot use internal rules to deny or delay seating of a qualified member.
Johnson’s team could argue that the House, not the executive, the member-elect, nor the courts may decide when it is “in-session” for formal acts, a position known as the procedural sovereignty argument. It’s not a case of denying credentials; it’s a case of waiting until things are back in action once the government shutdown is over.
Having not been sworn in, yet, Grijalva cannot officially perform many of the functions of a sitting U.S. Representative: staffing, constituent services, voting, or moving into her congressional office. Granted, since the House of Representatives is in a pro-forma session (in session, but without enough members present to fulfill the quorum requirement, a condition allowed by the first paragraph of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, she would not be able to vote anyway. However, as she has stated in interviews, by not being seated she is more like a tourist in Washington D.C. at the moment.
As a constitutional originalist (of which I am before I am a Republican) and a lifelong Republican, I normally stand shoulder to shoulder with my GOP brethren, especially since the establishment RINOs have been on the run thanks to the appearance of President Donald Trump on the scene. But, I am not so sure in this case. I fully agree that Speaker Johnson’s delay in swearing in Adelita Grijalva has nothing to do with the Epstein files controversy as the Democrats have been arguing. However, agreement on motive or the fact that he can constitutionally does not translate to historical justification or my opinion that in the end it accomplishes nothing.
The reality is that in the past, including newly elected Republicans, the swearing in has been quick, even during pro-forma sessions. I get it, at the moment the Republican majority is slim. Currently there are 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats with four vacancies and the minimum needed to pass many pieces of legislation is 218 seats which means the GOP needs all hands on deck and no more than one defection if they are to pass legislation when no Democrat is willing to cross the aisle on a vote. With such a narrow margin and the need for near-unanimous support from its members, even one more Democratic vote can shift what procedural maneuvers are possible, such as collecting signatures for discharge petitions or forcing certain floor actions.
Johnson has argued that in past situations members were sworn in on scheduled days when the House was called into session, characterizing Grijalva’s case as being different because the House is “out of session” due to the government shutdown. Except, the House is not out of session, it is in pro-forma session. Johnson argues that until they are in full session they don’t have to seat Grijalva and he states that historical precedent is on his side… even though it’s not.
To research the history that Johnson claims is on his side, I first went to the first six presidencies, known as the Founding Father Presidencies.
- George Washington (1789-1797): The First Congress in 1789 seated members as soon as they arrived with proper credentials. Some arrived late due to travel delays, and the Clerk administered the oath individually upon arrival, not waiting for a future “full session.” There were no cases of a qualified member being kept from being sworn in.
- John Adams (1797-1801): The Fifth Congress in 1797 swore in replacements from special elections as soon as their credentials reached the House, according to the Annals of Congress, 5th Congress. Records show that members were sworn on the same day credentials were presented.
- Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809): the Seventh Congress in 1801 also followed the immediate-swearing in precedent. Matthew Lyons of Vermont was reelected while in jail, a victim of the Sedition Act for speaking out against John Adams, but once released from jail, even though the election hung in the balance on the floor of the House of Representatives, he was sworn in at once despite his imprisonment controversy; demonstrating the House prioritized representation of constituents over politics. No delays based on recesses or political disputes approaching or during Jefferson’s presidency appears in the records.
- James Madison (1809-1817): During the War of 1812 the reality of travel delays saw that members often arrived days or weeks after the start of session. Each time, the Clerk administered the oath upon their arrival; even when the House was not in “regular session.” No instance of postponing a qualified member’s swearing-in until full session exists in any of the records.
- James Monroe (1817-1825): During Monroe’s presidency there were several special elections and with each new member the swearing-in was given immediately upon arrival according to the Annals of Congress.
- John Quincy Adams (1825-1829): The pattern continued. Once the member arrived and credentials were presented, the Clerk administered the oath. The only delays occurred when an election was contested, not when the seat was vacant for administrative or political reasons.
The conclusion is that with every Founding Father presidency there were no delays for political reasons, giving no historical precedent for Johnson’s action.
What about since the Founding Era?
In 1794, Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania was excluded because he had not met the requirement in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution regarding citizenship duration. In 1807, John Smith of Ohio was refused to be seated due to allegations of aiding Aaron Burr in his alleged treasonous activities – of which were later dismissed. During the late 1800s there were dozens of disputed elections which led to delays, but none of them for purely political reasons or the argument that the House was not in full session.
A part of the problem is refusing to seat Grijalva actually accomplishes nothing. She can’t vote until they are in full session, anyway. But it does keep her from being able to get her congressional things in order, i.e. staffing, getting into her office, and so forth.
Yes, technically the House controls its own proceedings, and yes the courts have no business dictating to either House of Congress how to handle their own proceedings (which gets us back to that “political question” argument). But, the truth is that, as much as I respect Speaker Johnson and the difficult position he faces during a government shutdown, as stated earlier I can find no historical defense for withholding the oath from a duly elected, certified member of the United States House of Representatives. From the Founding era through the early Republic, every historical precedent shows that once credentials are verified and the election uncontested, the House has a duty to seat the member immediately. The Founders did not design a Congress where political timing or convenience could override the people’s right to representation in the House of Representatives. Yes, technically from a constitutional point of view Johnson “can” refuse to administer the oath to Grijalva at this junction, but that doesn’t mean he “should.”
Even if Johnson’s intention is procedural, the result is that the voters of Arizona’s 7th District are, for now, voiceless in the people’s chamber. That should trouble all of us who believe in constitutional fidelity over party expedience. In the end, while the lawsuit against Johnson should be dismissed, and he should have seated Adelita Grijalva in the first place, I have a feeling this situation won’t be over until the Democrats give in on the government shutdown.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The leftist judges in the Federal Court System have forgotten that Lady Justice wears a blind-fold. Ideology, personal opinion and outside influences are not allowed when it comes to our legal system – only the law matters. But, when it comes to the progressive far-left Deep State, the law and the truth doesn’t matter. Only their hard-left narrative, and pretty much acting in any manner they can that is against President Trump. Therefore, when it came to the indictment of John Bolton, of course the deep state’s judicial arm flexed its muscles. The judge tapped to oversee Bolton’s criminal case is none other than Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee with a track record of torpedoing Trump-era policies and rubber-stamping the radical left’s agenda.
You know Judge Chuang… perhaps not by name… but by action. He’s the judge from the first four years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House who unconstitutionally blocked the travel ban executive order that was based on existing law; McCarron-Walter Act, a statutory authority from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and is now a part of 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a). The Executive Order banned travel from countries that sponsored terrorism, which was not only legal based on the law, but a commonsense national security measure. Then, after that, Judge Chuang turned around and struck down protections against chemical abortions during the scamdemic. He called it “protecting women’s rights.” The blood of dead babies is on his hands because of his judicial activism on steroids.
Now he’s been handed the Bolton case, where the former National Security Adviser faces 18 counts tied to classified information and a compromised email account. And MAGA Republicans and Conservative Commentators are rightly sounding the alarm.
Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee didn’t mince words. He called Chuang a “judicial hack.” Ogles is the legislator who filed Articles of Impeachment against the rogue judge months ago, pointing out Chuang’s rulings against Elon Musk, DOGE, and of course President Trump. This judge doesn’t just lean left. He leans so far left he’s practically horizontal. He is the poster child for judges operating against the Constitution, which is hardly “good behavior,” and ought to be relieved of his duties as a federal judge.
Chuang didn’t just wander and stumble into this case. He was placed there by the anti-American, anti-Trump Deep State maniacs. And if you haven’t seen his résumé, understand that it reads like a DNC donor roll… party leadership, fundraising, and a judicial philosophy that treats the Constitution like a suggestion rather than the supreme law of the land.
This case goes way beyond Bolton and the appearance of Deep State manipulation confirms it. The disturbing pattern is becoming way too consistent. We are continuously seeing a disturbing trend of unelected judges hijacking executive authority, trying to unconstitutionally micromanage Congress and the President, and rewriting national policy from the bench.
Remember, in the beginning the Found Fathers intended the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, turned down a return to the position in 1801 because he believed it to be too weak of a position. He wrote to President John Adams that the court “lacked the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government.” John Marshall, however, unconstitutionally transformed the court into the powerful monstrosity Jay had thought it lacked the potential of becoming and now today we see the dangerous leviathan that it has become. The left back then, and today, can’t win at the ballot box, so they have infiltrated the courts and are using those courts to punish anyone who dares come against the progressive left-wing agenda; especially anyone who supports President Trump.
Will there be justice? Not under Judge Chuang. This is political theater dressed up in a robe. And the American people see right through it, as does the Trump Team. The question is will the Trump Department of Justice be able to pull off any moves to correct the situation?
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary