Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Profit can be a very good thing. The whole point of going into business is to make a profit, and grow your company so that you can do well. Corporations began, long ago, as entrepreneurial dreams of lone business owners that took a chance, rode the risk, and made it successfully in the business world. There is a cross-section of society, however, that demonizes big corporations, blames them for all of our societal ills, and blames corporations for the corruption and fraud that infests the political realm.
Mercantilism does exist. Politicians and corporate types both have no problem with engaging in crony capitalism, which mixes the political lust for power with the corporate desire for influencing government so that they may continue to dominate whatever market they are a part of.
All corporations are not built on the model of greed that people accuse them of, and not all politicians can be bought – though in both cases the number of honest corporations and politicians is dipping to an anemic level that mirrors the world that led the American Colonists to revolution.
The folks that tend to be more anti-corporation populate the libertarian and liberal left ideologies. That is why the hypocrisy of the Trump Derangment Syndrome sufferers screaming out against the corporations as they doodle on their smart phones, libertarian politicians raging against private money in the political system as they accept large corporate donations for their campaign, and democrats railing against big corporations and bankers as they use stimulus money to bail out failing corporations and banks, is such a hoot. But one of the biggest hypocrisies of all is when the Latino community, a group that is largely supportive of Democrat Party policies, and anti-corporation, has no problem celebrating the fake holiday of Cinco De Mayo.
A few years ago at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, a community just south of San Jose, California, a couple students were suspended for daring to wear shirts with the American Flag on them on Cinco De Mayo. The reason? The American Flag shirts were considered disruptive.
Wearing a shirt with a Mexican Flag on it on Independence Day, the Fourth of July, would be considered by these same angry people as being courageous.
The boys with the American Flags on their shirts at the California high school on Cinco De Mayo were told to either change the shirts, or turn them inside out, so as to hide the Red, White and Blue, because showing Old Glory, in America, on a day like Cinco De Mayo, which is allegedly held highly by the Mexican community, was disrespectful.
The parents, upset, picked their kids up and took them home, of which the students were later penalized for their unauthorized absence.
All because they dared to act American on that important Mexican Holiday of Cinco De Mayo. But the funny thing about it all is Cinco De Mayo is not a holiday in Mexico. The Mexican population south of the border does not get the day off down there, nor do they celebrate the make-believe Mexican holiday. Cinco De Mayo is a purely American celebration, a celebration of a small battle between France and Mexico created by Corona Beer in the hopes of making a little more money.
That’s right, all you “Nation of Aztlan” supporters, and anti-corporate types, Cinco De Mayo exists because of a bunch of Capitalists getting the big idea that if they gave you a day to celebrate, you’d buy more of their “Mexican” beer on that day, and they’d make a boat-load of money off of you.
Talk about sheep.
If I were those boys at that high school in Morgan Hill, I would have refused to go home, and the principal would have had to forcefully remove me from campus, as I sat in the center of the Mexican Cinco De Mayo dance, showing off my American Patriotism, and grinning as they all flipped me off.
By the way, there seems to be some confusion about the thing the beer companies came up with to claim what Cinco de Mayo actually commemorates. Mexico did indeed win the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862, despite being heavily outnumbered and outgunned by the French forces.
The Mexican army, led by General Ignacio Zaragoza with approximately 2,000-5,000 poorly equipped soldiers, defeated the French force of about 6,000 well-trained troops under General Charles de Lorencez. And, while this victory was particularly impressive given that the French army was considered one of the world’s best at the time, it was more of a moral victory than a decisive military one. The French weren’t permanently defeated – they regrouped, sent reinforcements (27,000 additional troops), and eventually captured Mexico City, installing Austrian Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico in 1864.
The French occupation continued until 1867, when Mexican forces under President Benito Juárez finally drove them out, and Maximilian was captured and executed.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Department of Justice has revealed that there was systematic targeting of Christians under the Biden administration. According to the 2026 Department of Justice report from the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, the Biden administration engaged in a “consistent and systematic pattern of discrimination” against Christians that “weaponized the full weight of the federal government” against members of the faith.
The report documented numerous examples of this anti-Christian bias, including:
- The FBI’s targeting of “radical-traditionalist Catholics” as potential domestic terrorism threats, with one internal memo suggesting that these Catholics presented “new mitigation opportunities” for developing sources within Catholic parishes. The FBI relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center to designate “radical-traditionalist” Catholics in the memo, which was later retracted after public outcry. Ironically, the Southern Poverty Law Center was later exposed for its on improprieties, essentially funneling money to the groups they claimed were proponents of discriminatory hate.
- The Department of Justice’s aggressive prosecution of pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act while largely ignoring attacks on Catholic churches, charities, and pro-life pregnancy resource centers.
- The IRS’s discriminatory application of the Johnson Amendment against Christian churches and nonprofit organizations, particularly those espousing traditional Christian views that could be construed with a political valence, while failing to apply the same standards to churches and organizations aligned with Democrats.
- The Department of Education’s attempt to impose record-breaking fines on Christian universities, including Grand Canyon University ($37.7 million) and Liberty University ($14 million), while imposing significantly smaller fines on secular institutions for similar violations.
- The Department of Health and Human Services’ coercive violation of conscience rights, including dropping a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center for compelling Christian employees to participate in abortions.
While Trump’s policies were based on legitimate security concerns rather than religious hostility, the policies of the Democrats have consistently possessed an anti-Christian bias, as well as an anti-Jewish bias.
Also read:
● DOJ Report: ‘Radical’ Biden Administration Worked to ‘Punish’ Christians Living by Their Beliefs
● New Report Reveals 5 Shocking Examples Of Biden DOJ’s Anti-Christian Bias
● DOJ Report: Anti-Christian Bias Was Real, Systematic, and Pervasive Under Biden
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Critics contend Trump’s declaration of emergencies to bypass Congress on various policy issues represents an unconstitutional abuse of emergency powers, designed to circumvent normal constitutional processes and legislative oversight.
President Trump’s actions with emergency powers represents not an abuse of power but a faithful execution of the laws as written by Congress. The Constitution vests in the President the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and this duty necessarily includes the implementation of statutory provisions that grant specific powers during declared emergencies. When Congress provides the President with emergency powers, his use of those powers is not a violation of the Constitution but a fulfillment of his constitutional obligation to execute the law as written.
Allegations of Unconstitutional Power Grabs
Democrats contend that Trump’s declaration of emergencies to bypass Congress on various policy issues represents an unconstitutional abuse of emergency powers designed to circumvent normal constitutional processes and legislative oversight. They argue that by declaring emergencies to advance policy goals that Congress has rejected, Trump is effectively rewriting the Constitution and undermining the system of checks and balances. This approach, they claim, represents a dangerous expansion of executive authority that threatens the constitutional order.
The Democratic position frames these emergency declarations as violations of the principle that the President must work within the constitutional system of separated powers. From their perspective, Trump’s use of emergency powers represents not a legitimate execution of congressional statutes but an unconstitutional attempt to rule by fiat when Congress refuses to enact his preferred policies.
The Constitutional Reality: No Asterisks in the Constitution
From a constitutional originalist perspective, there are no asterisks in the Constitution that suspend its provisions during emergencies. The idea that emergency powers can override constitutional limitations is appalling to those who understand that such powers have historically been the pathway to tyranny. The COVID-pandemic demonstrated how quickly emergency powers can be abused to implement tyrannical policies that restricted fundamental rights, from mandating masks to dictating movement in public spaces and even prohibiting church gatherings.
Similarly, when New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an emergency public health order in September 2023 that suspended the open and concealed carry of firearms in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County, she was roundly criticized for overstepping her constitutional authority. These examples illustrate the danger of allowing emergency powers to trump constitutional rights, a danger that the Founders sought to prevent by creating a government of limited, enumerated powers.
The President’s Constitutional Duty: Faithful Execution of the Laws
The job of the President is to execute the law, and if a law says he can take a particular action in the case of an emergency, he has the constitutional authority to do so not because the Constitution says so, but because the law in question says so. This is where it becomes essential that We the People pay attention to legislation and elect only the most constitutionally minded representatives. While the President does have the authority to ensure that executive branch agencies follow the Constitution, he does not have the authority to review and interpret laws as unconstitutional and then strike them down. His job is to execute the law as written.
This constitutional reality means that when Congress includes emergency powers in legislation, the President’s use of those powers is not an abuse of authority but a fulfillment of his constitutional duty. The proper constitutional response to the use of emergency powers that one finds objectionable is not to criticize the President for executing the law but to change the law itself.
As President Abraham Lincoln once commented, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”
Lincoln’s sentiment came from a speech Lincoln delivered in 1838 to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, early in his political career. In that address, he made a more nuanced argument about the importance of respecting all laws, even bad ones, until they can be properly repealed.
Lincoln stated, “Let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.”
His reasoning was that strict enforcement of problematic laws would expose their flaws and create public pressure for their repeal, while selective enforcement would allow bad laws to remain on the books indefinitely. The Heritage Foundation notes that “the best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective enforcement,” which is precisely what Lincoln was warning against.
This perspective reminds us of the deeper truth regarding the rule of law and the constitutional process, even while acknowledging that the legislative process sometimes produces flawed statutes that need correction.
In short, if critics of President Trump are angry he is using emergency powers, but the option of using emergency powers is in the law, then the best remedy is not to complain and accuse, but to change the law.
Trump’s Defense: Using the Tools Provided by Congress
The Trump administration has consistently defended its use of emergency powers by arguing that it is simply using the tools provided by Congress to advance policy goals. When asked about his use of emergency powers, Trump’s response has essentially been that if Congress provides him with these powers, he will use them to achieve his policy objectives. This approach reflects a pragmatic understanding of presidential power within the constitutional framework.
This defense aligns with Trump’s broader approach to governance, as famously captured by Dave Chappelle’s commentary on the 2016 presidential debate. When Hillary Clinton accused Trump of not paying taxes, Chappelle noted how Trump responded, “That makes me smart.” When pressed for evidence that the system was rigged, Trump explained, “I know the system is rigged. ‘Cuz I use it.”
Chappelle highlighted the part where Trump told Clinton, “If you want me to pay my taxes, then change the tax code. But I know you won’t, because your friends and your donors enjoy the same tax breaks that I do.”
As Chappelle concluded, Trump’s honesty about exploiting the system resonated with voters who felt the system was dishonest, not Trump himself.
Exposing Congressional Hypocrisy
The Democratic criticism of Trump’s use of emergency powers represents the height of hypocrisy. Many of the emergency powers Trump has used were created by Democratic administrations and supported by Democratic members of Congress precisely because they intended to use those powers themselves to advance their policy agenda. When Trump uses those same powers, they suddenly become unconstitutional abuses of authority.
The proper response to Trump’s use of emergency powers is not to criticize him for executing the law but to repeal or amend the statutes that grant those powers. However, they note that Democrats are unlikely to pursue this course because they want to preserve those powers for future Democratic presidents who might use them to advance progressive policies that Congress rejects.
Historical Context: Emergency Powers and American Governance
The use of emergency powers is not new but has been a recurring feature of American governance, particularly in the modern era. Presidents from both parties have declared emergencies to advance policy goals, often in the face of congressional inaction or opposition. These historical precedents demonstrate that the controversy over Trump’s use of emergency powers reflects not a constitutional violation but a political disagreement about the proper scope of executive authority.
The proper constitutional question is not whether Trump should use emergency powers but whether Congress should grant those powers in the first place. When Congress includes emergency provisions in legislation, it is effectively delegating authority to the President to act in specific circumstances. The President’s use of that delegated authority is not an abuse of power but a fulfillment of his constitutional duty to execute the law as written.
Change the Law, Don’t Blame the President
The controversy over Trump’s use of emergency powers reflects a fundamental disagreement about the proper scope of executive authority rather than a clear constitutional violation. The President has the constitutional authority to execute the laws as written by Congress, including provisions that grant specific powers during declared emergencies. When Congress provides the President with emergency powers, his use of those powers is not a violation of the Constitution but a fulfillment of his constitutional obligation.
Trump’s approach to emergency powers represents not an unconstitutional abuse of authority but a pragmatic use of the tools provided by Congress to advance his policy agenda. While critics may disagree with the substance of his emergency declarations, and I personally find their inclusion in federal law a violation of the Constitution, the constitutional legitimacy of his actions is well-established when properly understood as a faithful execution of congressional statutes.
Democratic criticism of Trump’s use of emergency powers reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the President’s constitutional role as executor of the laws. The proper response to emergency powers that one finds objectionable is not to criticize the President for executing the law but to change the law itself. As Trump might say, if you don’t want me to use these powers, then change the law. But they won’t, because Democrats put those emergency powers there for themselves, so that they could circumvent the Constitution when it served their purposes.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The recent collapse of Spirit Airlines has left thousands of passengers stranded and employees jobless, but behind this corporate failure lies a story of political ideology trumping economic reality. As the chaos unfolded following Spirit’s cessation of operations, it became clear that a potential lifeline was deliberately cut not by market forces, but by a Democratic administration hostile to private enterprise.
In 2023, Spirit Airlines, already struggling financially, sought salvation through a $3.8 billion merger with JetBlue Airways. This deal represented a genuine opportunity for two smaller carriers to combine resources and scale up to better compete with industry giants. But the Biden administration, under the guise of protecting consumers, moved to block this merger through a Department of Justice lawsuit. A federal judge ultimately sided with the administration in 2024, citing antitrust concerns and claiming the deal would raise prices and reduce competition.
Senator Elizabeth Warren celebrated this decision as “a Biden win for flyers,” declaring that blocking the merger would prevent “fewer flights and higher fares.” This ideological victory lap came despite Spirit’s precarious financial position, which had already led to bankruptcy filings in 2024 and again in 2025.
The consequences of this political interference have been devastating. With the merger blocked and fuel prices soaring amid Middle East tensions, Spirit’s financial situation deteriorated rapidly. The airline had expected to emerge from bankruptcy protection by mid-2026, but those plans collapsed as jet fuel costs doubled in some places following U.S. military actions against Iran. By May 2026, Spirit had ceased operations entirely, leaving travelers scrambling and employees facing unemployment.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced relief measures, including capped rebooking fares from other airlines, but these are mere bandages on a self-inflicted wound. The Trump administration attempted to throw a lifeline to Spirit, even approaching JetBlue again to resurrect the blocked merger, but these efforts came too late.
The irony is thick: by supposedly protecting competition, the Biden administration’s actions have actually reduced it. As Republican officials correctly pointed out, blocking a merger of smaller competitors trying to combine resources makes little sense. It risks making both Spirit and JetBlue less able to compete with the industry’s “big guys” and ultimately leaves the airline industry less competitive, harming consumers.
The Democratic opposition to this merger reveals the party’s fundamental anti-corporate mindset. The idea of a private corporation getting bigger simply drives these people nuts, regardless of the economic realities or consequences for workers and consumers. This collectivist dislike of private enterprises has become a defining feature of modern progressivism, where ideological purity trumps practical solutions.
Critics have noted that Spirit’s management made significant errors, but the company’s struggles were exacerbated by regulatory overreach. The airline had not turned a profit since 2019 and had already shrunk its fleet from 220 jets to about 80 aircraft before its final collapse. Yet the blocked merger represented its best chance at survival; a chance denied by bureaucrats more concerned with theoretical competition models than actual jobs and affordable travel options.
The shutdown marks the end of an era for discount air travel and demonstrates how regulatory hostility can cripple businesses that provide essential services to working-class Americans. Spirit’s ability to pressure other airlines to lower fares was precisely why the administration opposed the merger – apparently preferring higher prices across the board than allowing a stronger competitor to emerge.
As we witness the fallout from Spirit’s collapse, with passengers left adrift and employees out of work, we must recognize this as a cautionary tale. When ideological opposition to corporate growth overrides sound economic judgment, everyone suffers except perhaps the largest airlines that now face one less competitor. The Democratic Party’s anti-capitalist, Marxist vein has once again prioritized political victories over practical solutions, leaving ordinary Americans to pay the price.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| ALERT:Be a sponsor or advertiser (contact me at constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com to discuss terms) Donate (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/douglasvgibbs) Become a $9 per month Patron Member at my website (https://www.douglasvgibbs.com/membership-account/membership-levels/) Purchase my books! Scroll down to the list and all of the links at www.navigation2liberty.com Saturday Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs “Mr. Constitution” Constitution Radio: With Doug, Alan and Dennis – KMET 1490 AM, Saturday 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Pacific http://www.kmet1490am.com |
  |
The Gerrymander Echo Chamber
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Most people treat it as trivial. It isn’t. It drives me crazy that nearly everyone – and I mean everyone – mispronounces the word gerrymander. With redistricting battles in the headlines and the recent Louisiana v. Callais case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court, the term is everywhere. And every time it’s spoken, it’s spoken wrong.
It’s gerrymander, with a hard “g.” Gary‑mander, not Jerry‑mander.
The word comes from Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts when the term was coined. He approved a district so oddly shaped that a political cartoonist compared it to a salamander. The artist drew it as a dragon-like creature, fused Gerry’s name with “salamander,” and the term gerrymander was born.
So why does the mispronunciation bother me so much?
Because it exposes the size and strength of the echo chamber that dominates media, academia, and the self‑appointed class of “important” thinkers. They live inside a sealed bubble where ideas circulate, bounce, and reinforce each other. Once a belief takes hold, no matter how shallow or unexamined, it loops endlessly. No research required. No dissent allowed. The bubble has spoken.
Except… sometimes the bubble is wrong.
This is why genuine research and full context matters. This is why a life lived outside the bubble matters. If these people were truly independent thinkers, they would have stumbled across the correct pronunciation, or at least allowed someone from outside their circle to speak into it.
But entry into the bubble requires conformity. And once inside, the ability to think independently begins to atrophy.
I was reminded of this while watching a segment on one of my favorite programs, Gutfeld!.
The panel was discussing Cracker Barrel’s logo and the backlash against the CEO’s attempt to modernize the restaurants. Yet not a single panelist had ever actually been to a Cracker Barrel. Their conversation made it obvious. They didn’t understand the charm, the nostalgia, or the reason customers rebelled against turning Cracker Barrel into yet another generic, soulless chain.
The CEO claimed the redesign was meant to attract younger customers. That may be partly true. But the deeper truth is more unsettling; and it’s something the echo chamber cannot see.
To understand it, one only needs to revisit Cleon Skousen’s The Naked Communist and its list of “45 Communist Goals for America.” Consider items 22 and 23:
These goals extend far beyond art. They aim to make the world drab, gray, and forgettable – to erase the cultural memory of what America once was. Which leads directly to another:
So no, this isn’t just about how to pronounce gerrymander. And it’s not merely about Cracker Barrel’s CEO trying to scrub away Americana.
It’s about the long‑term cultural erosion that has been underway for generations – an erosion that thrives inside echo chambers where everyone repeats the same lines, trusts the same sources, and never steps outside to see what’s real.
Even the commentators we trust can get trapped inside that same loop.
What begins as a simple mispronunciation reveals something much larger: a culture increasingly shaped by people who rarely leave their own intellectual neighborhood. When the same voices repeat the same assumptions long enough, error becomes orthodoxy and ignorance becomes confidence. Whether it’s a political term, a beloved restaurant, or the deeper currents shaping American culture, the pattern is the same: a bubble that talks only to itself cannot recognize what it no longer knows.
If America is going to preserve what made it unique, then someone has to step outside the echo chamber and say what the bubble refuses to hear. Accuracy matters. Culture matters. Truth matters. And the first step toward reclaiming them is refusing to let the bubble do our thinking for us.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary