Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Benjamin Franklin famously said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters,” linking self-governance directly to the moral character of its citizens. He was essentially saying that only a godly society could keep itself from descending into violent failure.
Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans were deeply involved in their communities intertwining Christianity with liberty and politics. Tocqueville commented that Americans viewed religion as essential for moral guidance in a free society, shaping laws and public life, and fostering associations. Ministers inserted politics into their sermons, while directly staying out of direct politics. Tocqueville noted they combined Christian notions with freedom so closely that one couldn’t conceive of the other, highlighting Christianity’s vital role in American mores and stability. He said regarding his observations, “The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.”
He recognized that Americans felt this way due to the Christian Moral Foundation of their country. He said, “The more I consider the position of America, the more I see in the Union a thing without example, and I despair of being able to fix the attention of my countrymen on any point which I can present to them in a light which is new to them.”
Christianity and the rule of law were viewed by Americans as being directly linked, as Thomas Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence with his line about the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. Tocqueville said, “Christianity, which has rendered all men equal before God, will not be loath to see all citizens equal before the law.”
Religion played a vital role in public life even during America’s earliest foundation. Tocqueville wrote, “In the United States, religion never ceases to warm itself at patriotism’s hearth,” and “eternity is only one of their concerns,” as they bring Christianity to the frontier to spread values.
He noted America as the place where Christianity preserved its power over souls, even as religious ministers withdrew from direct political involvement, finding that this ability for Christianity to be involved without being a direct influence, unlike countries with established religions, had a profound effect. The relationship between Christianity and politics in America actually strengthened religion’s influence on public morals and laws.
Benjamin Franklin explained that for a society to be successful, the culture must prioritize virtue in order to maintain liberty. He believed true freedom required resisting ungodly behavior, emphasizing that a lack of virtue inevitably leads to a rise of stronger control.
Virtue, according to Franklin, is a prerequisite for freedom. Liberty isn’t just a right, but a responsibility, requiring citizens to be self-disciplined, public-spirited, and honest.
Corruption and the absence of godly virtues in the culture have damaging consequences. When people become selfish and corrupt, they lose the ability to govern themselves, creating a demand for rulers (masters) to impose order. Franklin’s quote about a virtuous society serves as a warning that liberty isn’t permanent; it must be actively maintained through individual virtue and good behavior.
In Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography he listed “The Thirteen Necessary Virtues.” He viewed these virtues as being character traits considered morally good and valued for their ability to promote individual and societal well-being.
TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.
SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.
ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.
RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.
FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.
INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ’d in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.
SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.
JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.
MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.
CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.
TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.
CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.
HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.
Knowing these virtues is like having a map for a long journey and adopting them as road markers along that journey. The journey is not only for ourselves, but for the republic in which we are a part of, as well. Regarding the journey, Franklin advised: “My intention being to acquire the habitude of all these virtues, I judg’d it would be well not to distract my attention by attempting the whole at once, but to fix it on one of them at a time; and, when I should be master of that, then to proceed to another, and so on, till I should have gone thro’ the thirteen; and, as the previous acquisition of some might facilitate the acquisition of certain others, I arrang’d them with that view, as they stand above. Temperance first, as it tends to procure that coolness and clearness of head, which is so necessary where constant vigilance was to be kept up, and guard maintained against the unremitting attraction of ancient habits, and the force of perpetual temptations. This being acquir’d and establish’d, Silence would be more easy; and my desire being to gain knowledge at the same time that I improv’d in virtue, and considering that in conversation it was obtain’d rather by the use of the ears than of the tongue, and therefore wishing to break a habit I was getting into of prattling, punning, and joking, which only made me acceptable to trifling company, I gave Silence the second place.”
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers recognized that sometimes, protests get violent. So, in the First Amendment, they proposed and ratified, “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” In other words, peaceful protests are legal. Violent protests are not.
Immigration law is a federal authority, so executing immigration law is a legal action by federal officers. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution indicates that the militia may be used to execute the law, so having the National Guard present to assist is also constitutional and legal. So, ICE operating in the cities, and the National Guard accompanying ICE is legal.
Peaceful protests are legal. But, the moment they get violent, as per the First Amendment, the line of legality has been crossed.
In Minneapolis, when rioters began blocking ICE officers, it became an illegal protest. The moment one of those rioters weaponized her vehicle and attempted to run over law enforcement officers in an attempt to harm them, the use of deadly force became necessary and legal.
As a result of attempting to hit officers with her vehicle, a ICE protester was shot and killed after the vehicle made contact with an officer. The Department of Homeland Security says the officer acted in self-defense.
Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz are claiming, after “seeing the video,” that the Department of Homeland Security is lying, and that they want federal ICE officers out of Minnesota. While I believe in state sovereignty over state issues, and that the federal government has no business operating in a state regarding many issues, when it comes to federal law that is constitutionally authorized, state leadership has no choice but to allow the federal government to operate in their state and execute legal constitutionally authorized federal law.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Democrats were for deposing Venezuelan President Maduro before they were against it. According to CNN, President Trump’s popularity jumped after the capture of Maduro. February 5, 2020, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dared Trump to take action with his Venezuela policy, hammering him because he hadn’t brought the Maduro regime to an end. Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) on January 23, 2019 tweeted, “If Trump cared about consistency, he would make the realist case for intervention in Venezuela (getting rid of Maduro is good for the United States).” Now, both of those Democrats call Trump’s move against Venezuela’s communist regime “reckless,” “dangerous,” “illegal,” “fundamentally corrupt,” and “has nothing to do with American security.”
The Democrats hate Donald J. Trump so much that it doesn’t matter what he does, they will be against it. President Trump this morning said that if the Republicans don’t win the mid-term elections, the Democrats will spend his final two years in office impeaching him. The USA Today on Monday put out an opinion piece titled, “So now Democrats are mad that Trump ousted a dictator?” by Nicole Russell hammering the Democrats for “questioning Trump when he does something that garners applause from world leaders and the very people most affected – oppressed Venezuelans.” Russell’s sub-title to the piece read, “Kudos to President Donald Trump and our military. I hope the president can finish the job and reinstate democracy to the Venezuelan people.” Russell also wrote, “I am cheering along with Venezuelans both abroad and here in the United States. Democrats should be too, though many are not, despite acknowledging Maduro’s evil regime for years and even criticizing President Donald Trump for not removing Maduro. It’s yet another example of Democrats’ hypocrisy: They seem to hate Trump more than they want an oppressed country to be liberated. That’s pretty remarkable.”
During the first term of President Trump a financial reward was offered tied to Nicolas Maduro’s capture. The reward was later increased from $15 million to $25 million during the Biden presidency as part of continuing efforts to pressure Maduro and hold him accountable under criminal indictments. If President Biden had carried out the same operation that President Trump just carried out, and if it had been as successful as this latest action was, the Democrats would have been celebrating, and praising themselves for their operation.
Now, they call it dangerous and unconstitutional because Trump, they say, is waging war without congressional permission (which would be a declaration of war). As I’ve explained before (Democrats Rage Over Venezuela Strike, Calling it Unconstitutional), the President of the United States as Commander in Chief is not required to get permission from Congress before deploying the military for any kinetic action.
The action reminds me of President Thomas Jefferson’s use of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps during the First Barbary War. Jefferson, himself, resisted calling the Barbary conflict a “war” even while authorizing naval force precisely because it lacked a declaration and was aimed at ending unlawful depredations, not fighting a nation in the conventional sense. His move against the Barbary Coast Muslim caliphate, like President Trump’s move in Venezuela, was targeted, limited in scope, aimed at enforcing law and punishing unlawful conduct, and was not intended to be a sustained conflict between sovereigns.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The words “We the People” are iconic. When anyone in the world hears them, they know they come from America. As the opening of the Preamble to the United States Constitution, they declare that the new system of government does not serve a powerful elite or a distant nobility, but the people as a whole.
E Pluribus Unum – “Out of many, one” – captures the same spirit. Proposed by artist Pierre Eugene du Simitiere in 1776 for the first design of the Great Seal of the United States, the phrase was officially approved in 1782 by the Congress of the Confederation, five years before We the People was chosen to introduce the Constitution.
The idea was revolutionary: a single country, a union of states, emerging from many parts – colonies, communities, and a remarkably diverse collection of peoples. It was a paradox the world had never seen before: unity without uniformity.
For most of the America’s first two centuries, E Pluribus Unum functioned as the de facto motto of the United States. In 1956, Congress officially adopted “In God We Trust” as the national motto, yet E Pluribus Unum remained a defining emblem of American identity. Together, the two phrases reveal a profound truth about the American experiment: we are one people under God, a recognition rooted in the Founding Fathers’ political philosophy.
The Founders were overtly Christian and believed the American Revolution would not have been possible without the Hand of God upon it. They held that the success of the new country would be measured not merely by results, but by obedience to God. Through that obedience, they believed, greatness would naturally follow. But they also understood that such obedience required a united people – a Union under one banner, mutually reliant upon the protection of divine Providence. As Scripture warns in Matthew 12:25, “And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
We the People was chosen as the Constitution’s opening line to signify that unity.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The country elected President Trump for results, with the understanding that a firm hand produces measurable outcomes. Progressive talking heads insist everything is static and binary. If you don’t love and accept someone, you must hate them. If you don’t speak only favorably about certain groups, you’re labeled racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, or assigned whatever new phobia they invent. If you refuse to appease your enemies, you’re a warmonger. If you oppose taxing the rich, you must hate the poor. If you questioned Presidents Obama or Biden, you’re an insurrectionist. If you don’t question everything President Trump does, you’re also an insurrectionist. And of course, if you act against another country, even one that has committed war crimes against the United States, you’re suddenly a warmonger guilty of war crimes yourself.
While the commie Democrats operate through partisan theatrics, President Trump and the MAGA movement operate through common sense and measurable outcomes. President Trump campaigned on prosperity and security, and central to that security has been immigration enforcement, the mass deportation of illegal aliens (targeting criminal aliens first), and stopping the onslaught of hostile international activity directed at the United States.
As the New Year took hold, the United States carried out a strike against Venezuela that resulted in Nicolás Maduro and his wife being captured and detained by American forces. They have been indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges including Narco‑Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States. According to President Donald Trump, they will soon face the full weight of American justice on American soil in American courts.
Venezuelans flooded the streets in celebration, popping bottles and singing about freedom, liberty, and a second chance. Democrats, however, still consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome, could not bring themselves to celebrate the fall of a dictator or the end of the collapse of what was once one of the world’s great economies. Instead, they clutched their pearls and launched into a full‑blown meltdown, accusing President Trump of warmongering and claiming he violated the Constitution with his historic action.
Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY) screamed that, “Trump’s unilateral operation last night was an illegal act of war without Congress’s authorization.”
Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) accused, “Without authorization from Congress, and with the vast majority of Americans opposed to military action, Trump just launched an unjustified, illegal strike on Venezuela.”
“President Trump’s unilateral military action to attack another country and seize Maduro, no matter how terrible a dictator he is, is unconstitutional and threatens to drag the U.S. into further conflicts in the region,” argued Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).
Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) also accused President Trump of illegal war activities, saying, “This war is illegal, it’s embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year.”
Except, there is nothing in the Constitution that demands the President of the United States obtains congressional approval before launching any military operation.
The common argument claiming that Congress must approve any military operation is typically pulled from Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power…To declare War.”
Waging war and declaring war are two different authorities. By establishing the President of the United States as “Commander in Chief,” the President was given the authority to wage war when he feels it is necessary. In the Articles of Confederation, the two war powers (wage war and declare war) were established as separate powers, but both were given to the Congress of the Confederation because the President did not possess executive power. He was simply the President of the Congress, serving in a legislative manner, and carrying out ceremonial duties that were mostly symbolic as head of state. But, the Founding Fathers realized that there were many flaws in that system, and that an energetic President was necessary.
It was a balancing act. They feared having a king or ruler who constantly made war, or was willing to use a standing army against the people, but they also realized that giving the President no power to operate unilaterally in certain situations was dangerous as well. The President must be able to operate without asking for permission from the legislature, yet the legislature needed to have authorities to rein in a President should he act in a manner contrary to the interests of the country.
The lesson was largely learned during the Revolutionary War. While the militias were answering to the states and the Continental Congress (and later the Confederation Congress), too many problems arose. If a particular troop movement was needed, some states refused to allow their militias to participate in an attempt to keep the men closer to the home front, and Congress would take too much time deliberating over whether or not certain troop movements were necessary or advisable. By the time decisions were made, the opportunity for surprise, or a particular strategy passed. America lost 8 of the first 11 major battles of the Revolutionary War as a result. Until George Washington was made Commander in Chief over America’s armed forces during the war, and given full authority without needing to consult with the states or Congress, the campaign for independence was doomed to be lost.
The lesson? Fear of a king was a legitimate fear, but going too far in the opposite direction was also dangerous. The Commander in Chief of the military during the war and the duties of the President of the United States needed to be similar in many ways. The President must be able to handle foreign affairs, trade, and war without being micromanaged by Congress or the court system – but, if he became tyrannical the Congress must be able to rein him in.
Congress was given the authority to declare war so that the President wasn’t sending America into wars on a continual basis, but the President was established as the Commander in Chief so that he may conduct war operations without having to get legislative approval for every move he makes. If the President becomes too warlike, then the Congress has the options to either defund the effort, or impeach a runaway President. Also, funding for the standing army must be approved every two years as per Article I, Section 8. The power of the purse strings were given to the House of Representatives in Article I, Section 7. All bills regarding revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, which was (and still is) a direct voice of the people (since representatives are directly democratically voted into office) and the Senate was assigned the task to also approve such measures as the voice of the States. In other words, the people’s representation could not interfere with the President’s operations unless the representation from the States was also on board with it, and then if the President vetoed such bills, then it would require two-thirds approval from each House of Congress to override the veto. So, the President has the authority to do what he believes is necessary, but a check is in place for Congress to interfere if necessary but it is not easy since it ultimately requires two-thirds of each House of the legislature to pass measures without the President’s approval. Or as I like to say, the founders put in place mechanisms to check the President, but they made sure mutiny was not something that could be easily accomplished.
In addition to the constitutional reality that President Trump as Commander in Chief may conduct military operations without asking permission from Congress, historical precedent is also on his side. Presidents, including Democratic Party presidents, have launched military attacks often in history. President Barack Obama went so far as killing an American citizen in Yemen under his “kill list” policy. In 1801-1805 and 1815 Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison fought the Barbary Wars – both without a declaration by Congress, though Congress did provide funding for the naval operations. In 1950, President Harry Truman sent U.S. forces to repel North Korea’s invasion of South Korea without talking to Congress first. As did John F, Kennedy in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs. Lyndon B. Johns and Richard Nixon both conducted bombings in Cambodia and Laos without congressional approval. Even after Congress cut funding, bombings continued for a time. Gerald Ford’s Mayaguez Incident in 1975, where the President ordered United States Marines to rescue the crew of the SS Mayaguez from Cambodian forces, was not told to Congress until after the operation began. Jimmy Carter in 1980 attempted to rescue the American hostages in Iran with no congressional authorization. Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983 after a Marxist coup. Congress was not consulted beforehand, and the U.N. General Assembly condemned it as a violation of international law – and Reagan reminded the world we operate under the U.S. Constitution first. International law does not supersede the Constitution. In 1986, Reagan also carried out Libya airstrikes, ordering the bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in response to terrorist attacks. George H.W. Bush in 1989 ordered the invasion of Panama to remove Manuel Noriega, and Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1999 conducted airstrikes over Bosnia and Kosovo without congressional authorization. In the case of Kosovo, the NATO bombing campaign lasted 78 days. George W. Bush didn’t ask for Congress’ blessing when he hit Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia following 9/11 from 2002-2008, either. Nor did Barack Obama beg for congressional approval to hit Libya in 2011, or Syria and Iraq from 2014-2016.
Why did these past presidents launch military operations without congressional approval? Because they knew that constitutionally, and based on historical precedent, they could. I am not saying that all of those campaigns were good, bad, or in between. I am simply providing that a long list of Presidents have acted as Commander in Chief without dropping to their knees before Congress for approval because they knew, and we’ve always known, that as Commander in Chief the President may (and must) be able to conduct war operations when necessary, and a declaration of war, or congressional approval, is not necessary from a constitutional point of view.
So why do we have Democratic members of Congress screaming about it now? Because the entire Democratic Party platform is “hate Trump,” and “hate what Trump does.” As Scott Baio said when he endorsed candidate Trump, “If he cured cancer, they’d be on him for putting oncologists out of business.” I seem to remember a Huffington Post article making the same accusation against Republicans regarding President Barack Obama.
In the end, President Trump’s actions in Venezuela were constitutional, and long needed. The criminal operations of the Maduro regime and basically everything that has come out of Venezuela since they abandoned the free-market and embraced socialism in 1999 has been detrimental to the world, America, and has led to the deaths of millions of Americans overall. It’s gotten so bad on the Democratic Party side, that I am not surprised they haven’t started chanting, “Death to America.”
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
American History offers a number of moments when prolonged provocation, lawlessness, and international contempt forced a President of the United States to choose between endless negotiation, endless harm to America, or decisive action. Two centuries ago President Thomas Jefferson’s bold decision to confront the Barbary pirates after years of failed diplomacy and maritime predation has been echoed by President Donald Trump’s strike and capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.
When Thomas Jefferson entered office in 1801, he recognized that the United States had endured decades of harassment from the Barbary States. During the two previous administrations Muslim pirate regimes along the North African coast demanded tribute, seized American ships, and enslaved U.S. sailors. President Washington’s and Adams’ administrations attempted to buy peace through payments and negotiation, but the problem only grew. The young republic faced a stark choice: continue paying for temporary calm or assert its sovereignty through force.
Jefferson chose the latter, rejecting the cycle of tribute and humiliation and dispatching the U.S. Navy and Marines to the Mediterranean, initiating the First Barbary War. His decision marked one of the earliest and clearest demonstrations that the United States would not tolerate lawless actors who preyed upon American citizens or defied international norms. Jefferson’s action was not merely military; it was constitutional, strategic, and symbolic. It signaled that American patience had limits and that the republic would defend its interests when diplomacy failed.
As I read the news this morning about the move against Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro I recognized the historical parallel. For years, Maduro’s regime had been accused by international observers of corruption, human‑rights abuses, narcotrafficking, and the destabilization of an entire region. Diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and multilateral negotiations had repeatedly failed to curb the crisis or protect civilians. In this view, Trump’s action represented a modern application of the Jeffersonian principle: when a hostile actor repeatedly violates international norms, threatens regional stability, endangers the safety of Americans, and disregards every diplomatic avenue, the Commander in Chief of the United States may choose decisive action to restore order and uphold the rule of law. Just as Jefferson refused to allow piracy to become a permanent cost of doing business on the high seas, Trump refused to allow Maduro’s regime to remain an entrenched source of chaos and suffering.
On Fox News’ Fox and Friends Weekend show this morning, President Donald Trump called in and indicated that the operation to hit Venezuela, strike Maduro’s fortress, and capture the criminal president of Venezuela was supposed to happen four days ago, but weather pushed it to this morning. President Trump called Venezuela’s negative effect on America, largely due to the drug trade and human trafficking coming out of that country, war. “It’s a war. We’re losing 300,000 people a year,” said President Trump. They were run by a dictatorship, and “tremendous numbers of people were being killed through drugs and what they did to our country is sending prisoners and mental people – people from mental institutions, and, uh, drug lords and everything. They sent them by the hundreds of thousands of people into our country and that is just unforgivable. That’s why, you know, he wanted to negotiate at the end and I didn’t want to negotiate and I said ‘Nope.’ We gotta do it. You know, he was trying to negotiate at the end, you probably saw that – and – uh, trying hard to make a deal. And I said, and you know, this could have been a very foolish thing if it didn’t work out, but I said ‘nope, we can’t do it.’ What he did with drugs is bad, what he did with a lot of other things is bad, but what he did was sending hundreds of thousands of Tren de Aragua and drug dealers and they emptied out their jails into our country, they emptied out, if you think about it, they emptied out all of their mental institutions into our country. What he did there, and every other thing, is unforgiveable.”
What is important to note, is President Trump echoed Jefferson’s initial patience. Jefferson negotiated until negotiation became a trap. Trump was facing a similar impasse. Jefferson’s naval campaign broke a cycle of extortion, and Trump’s strike broke a cycle of impunity. Jefferson’s decision helped establish the United States as a country unwilling to be bullied. Trump’s approach has been a parallel assertion of American strength and resolve in the modern era.
Both presidents confronted long-standing crises that outlived diplomacy. Jefferson’s confrontation with the Barbary pirates helped define the early republic’s posture toward international lawlessness. Trump’s action toward Maduro fits within that same tradition: a moment when the United States, after exhausting peaceful options, acted decisively to protect regional stability and uphold principles larger than any single administration.
The likely eventual successors to the ousted authoritarian Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro are likely 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner and opposition leaders María Corina Machado and Edmundo González. The United States recognized González as the legitimate leader of Venezuela after he soundly defeated Maduro by a more than two-to-one margin in the 2024 election. González replaced Machado after she was banned from running for the presidency by the Maduro-run high court. Maduro ignored the results.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary