Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The unrest we are currently seeing in France is not just some random event that suddenly happened because a bunch of students got angry about something. The seeds of it were planted long ago. The pre-shocks have been hitting pretty regularly in smaller hits, and stem from what James Simpson and Trevor Loudon call the Red/Green Axis.
By this time in history, violence from the Marxist left and Islam is becoming a norm to the point that even the mainstream media is beginning to notice. A recent example is the riots going on in France. Violence in Europe is not some kind of brand new item in the news cycle, per se, but since the mainstream media typically refuses to report such news, it seems new to the average viewer. The truth is, however, it has been going on behind the veil for a while.
The widespread “student-led” protests and civil unrest in France, according to the observations of the news outlets, is entering into four consecutive weeks. Marches and blockades continue across major cities like Paris, Lyon, Rennes, Strasbourg, and Marseille. Climate and hard-left Pro-Marxism activist Greta Thunberg, various university students, and labor unions have joined the high-school rioters recently.
The claim by the agitators who figure throwing a temper-tantrum and demanding more government is the answer to fixing their problems is that they are suffering due to underfunded public schools, chronic teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms, broken infrastructure, and no relief from extreme heat conditions. While the claims are true, and these are the kinds of conditions you receive when your government leans socialist, it’s an excuse to launch violent revolutionary activity. Yes, the government’s failures are widespread as the French leadership has indicated it needs to further cut its budget because they are running out of other people’s money – the perfect storm for launching violent street riots – but what is the reaction to the violence? Exactly what the rioters want. The government’s response is a clash that makes them look like victims. Tear gas, water cannons, street fires, and hurled projectiles.
So far, over 6,000 people, largely minors, have been detained; hundreds have been injured; and investigations regarding police tactics are in progress. And, government promises to deploy extra teachers, address the infrastructure repair demands, and give in at every other turn in order to hopefully stop the violence.
In other words, to fix the problem of too much government, they pledge to give more government.
In France there are politicians like Marine Le Pen who are promising to provide change in a direction that abandons the socialist experiment in France (and we are seeing similar “conservative” movements bubbling up in a number of European countries), and this latest wave of uprisings is seen as a gift to her campaign. It seems pretty obvious that France’s problems stem from two sources: bad government policy (which is directly linked to European Socialism), and the massive influx of Muslim migrants that the globalist leftists in charge of European countries have let into their continent. The blame for the rise of the riots is being pointed at LFI, France’s far-left France Unbowed party. According to some French reporters, far-left groups are the driving force behind the movement.
American media began to learn more about what was going on when on October 2, a hooded 15-year-old burned a woman’s face with an aerosol can and a lighter. The victim was attempting to stop protesters from vandalizing a bus shelter. Police arrested the teenager, after identifying him through video surveillance, and once the whole incident reached the news outlets we learned it was only one incident in what was a wave of violence that at the time was about a week old.
October 1, there had already been 1,949 arrests in just that single day, alone – mostly for attacks on public officials, violence, and unlawful assembly. Hundreds of injuries among law enforcement was being reported. The rioting erupted at over a thousand high schools, with injuries to staff and students, and structural damage to over a hundred of the schools.
While the whole thing has been sold as a student protest, it more resembles nationwide urban violence being used for political ends – and the hard left wing of the political spectrum is being rightly blamed. According to local news outlet Le Figaro, “the origins of the movement clearly reside in an instrumentalization of student union structures and political movements close to the far left.” The source also indicates that elected officials were involved in the movement in several cities on September 29. LFI mayor of Saint-Denis Bally Bagayoko spoke outside a high school on that day, saying that “violence can be legitimate,” though he added, “but whenever it can be avoided, that’s better.”
The mayor, and 32% of the residents of that region, are “immigrants,” with videos and photos showing at the protests there the demonstrators carrying Algerian, Moroccan and Palestinian flags alongside signs demanding more teachers.
The French Communist Party, along with the LFI, and a heavy leftist Muslim population have essentially joined forces and are now launching revolution since they believe their numbers are high enough for such a move. Meanwhile, on the political front, LFI and Le Pen’s conservative National Rally party seem to be the leading factions that will clash the hardest in France’s 2027 election. In other words, next year’s election is a battle between the far-left, and what the socialists call the “far-right.” In short, a socialist-islamist aligned political path to further destruction and chaos, or a government that will push back which would make the agitators behind the current violence in France go ballistic. Either way, the elections will spark major violence.
The reality is, the “student protests” that quickly become rioting leftist street violence was bred by the socialists and Muslim migrant populations, and it is not isolated to France. The “student protests” have spread to neighboring Belgium. 110 people were arrested in Brussels on October 9, after a day of chaos that disrupted public transport, disrupted flights, smashed buildings, saw several vehicles burnt out, and mobs in the streets battling with law enforcement. Antifa far-left groups have also been active in the city of Liege, “infiltrating” the student protests. In Antwerp, a “right-wing” representative reported being assaulted by a party of Moroccans after he was recognized walking through the city on his way to town hall. The attacked “lawmaker,” Filip Dewinter, said, “The Moroccan community feels all-powerful and has turned Antwerp into an occupied and Islamized city… Aggression and violence are part of the intimidation toward everyone who disagrees with that.”
President Trump has remarked that the riots are a “symptom of mass migration [and] insurgent Islam.”
Earlier this year we’ve also seen far-left and Islamic networks working their violence in other European countries like Germany, Britain (something Katie Hopkins talks about often), and Switzerland, but not on the massive street-riot scale we’re seeing in France and Belgium. I believe this larger scale of violence will begin spreading across Europe – but at the moment it’s primarily in France and Belgium. And, the truth is, Muslim and far-left violence happens more than we are being told in Europe, and even in places like Australia, New Zealand, and other places where the Red/Green Axis is working their plans within.
Which brings us to the Red/Green Axis I mentioned at the start of this article.
I first came across the concept of the Red/Green Axis (Alliance) after meeting Jim Simpson, author of a book by the same name. The whole concept was confirmed by a film, The Enemies Within, by Trevor Loudon (who has become a good friend over the years, by the way).
James (Jim) Simpson is a former White House Office of Management and Budget economist who served under Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton. He has become a counter-jihad writer and explains in his three Red/Green Axis books that we are experiencing “a collusion between the Democratic Party, American Communists, Socialists, and other brands of ‘progressives’, i.e., the Red, and the forces of the Islamic jihad, the Green.” These camps have nothing in common ideologically, but share common enemies: Christianity, Israel and Jews, capitalism, Western Civilization, and the American Constitution. Therefore, they are functionally aligned to erase each and every one of those enemies. They are using mass migration, refugee resettlement, and infiltration into the countries that fall within their realm of enemies. Simpson writes, “the progressive left and Muslim extremists aim to undermine and ultimately abolish the U.S. Constitution through Muslim resettlement and immigration, and that the multicultural agenda’s goal is to erase Western culture.”
Trevor Loudon’s journey began with a book (after he journeyed to America from New Zealand), The Enemies Within, in which he wrote (and says in his film by the same name) that over a hundred members of Congress could not pass the background checks required to work as an employee inside the same government buildings they serve in. Loudon and Jim Simpson have worked together not only on the film, but in 2025 on Loudon’s website a podcast is posted: The Agenda to Erase America. Loudon, by the way, has expanded Simpson’s axis to include another color, creating his Red-Green-Blue Axis (Marxists + Islam + Globalists). On October 4, 2026, Loudon posted, “Who is Behind the Campaign to Destroy Jefferson’s Legacy?”
In recent pieces, both have tied the Red/Green Axis to France and Belgium, with Loudon also running two Cliff Kincaid articles:
- “The Coming Storm Against Trump” which blames the French street violence on the Red/Green alliance, stating “‘students’ and communists and Muslims marching under the red Hammer-and-Sickle as they set schools on fire,” orchestrated by the “Unified Left Coalition” including the Communist Party, Socialist Party and Mélenchon’s LFI.
- “Get Ready for the Guillotine” notes the unrest “is now spreading to Belgium and Italy,” and warns it will reach America if the left wins the midterms.
The message? The violence is spreading across Europe, and it is coming to America. And we’ve seen it before, but this time it’ll be a reaction that will shake this country – likely a response to the midterm elections only a few weeks away, but not just if the left wins the midterms. It will explode if the left loses the midterms.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
This year we celebrated 250 years of freedom. In 1776, thirteen plucky English Colonies along the Atlantic Coast declared independence by signing the Declaration of Independence, and became the thirteen original states of the United States of America… well… sort of.
Delaware was never technically a separate colony. The territory was the “The Lower Counties on Delaware.” Pennsylvania wanted direct ocean access, so William Penn in 1682 acquired Delaware Bay and access to the Delaware River from the Duke of York. The title to the Lower Counties came from a different source than his 1681 royal charter for Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania and Delaware both belonged to the Province of Pennsylvania, but did not come from the same legal instrument. While on paper Delaware was a part of Pennsylvania, the lower counties (or the “Territories of Pennsylvania”) of New Castle, Kent, and Sussex never felt that way.
The residents of the lower counties frequently clashed with the upper parts of Pennsylvania, so in 1701 Penn offered them an opportunity to form their own assembly, known as the Charter of Privileges. Delaware accepted that option in 1704. Under the new assembly, Delaware possessed its own courts and its own laws, but still remained under the same governor with Pennsylvania – as well as under the same proprietor: The Penn family. So, for many years Delaware belonged to Pennsylvania. It was not technically a colony, nor technically official Pennsylvania counties. The region was, in a sense, in legal limbo. So, on paper, before we had the Thirteen Original States, we had Twelve Original Colonies. When Delaware declared independence, the fourth state to do so, they were not only declaring independence from Britain, but also from Pennsylvania.
By the 1770s, Delaware was for all sentiments a colony. They had their own assembly since 1704, and they sent their own delegates to the Continental Congress to discuss independence; Caesar Rodney, Thomas McKean, and George Read. In 1774, on the Articles of Association (or the Continental Association) the delegates who were signatories for Delaware were listed separately from Pennsylvania, but were labeled as representing “Pennsylvania, the Three Lower Counties of New Castle, Kent and Sussex, on Delaware.”
In 1754, the Albany Plan omitted Delaware entirely, folding it into Pennsylvania’s seat. In August 1753, Benjamin Franklin had been appointed Postmaster General of North America. He personally ran the only institution that physically linked all of the colonies. He was also the man who drew a political cartoon of a snake severed into eight writhing segments, arranged left to right along a single line. Each segment was labeled with a colonial abbreviation. S.C., N.C., V., M., P., N.J., N.Y., N.E. – the last representing New England: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The region was popularly known at the time as New England, though they were not technically under any active formal union or technical agreement. That said, twice the region had been bound under formal, legal agreements. The United Colonies of New England (1643-1684), which was also known as the New England Confederation, strictly excluded Rhode Island and New Hampshire. The original New England alliance was between four strictly Puritan colonies: Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. Later, Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth united to become Massachusetts, and Connecticut and New Haven united to become Connecticut. Rhode Island was rejected due to religious and political reasons – founded by Roger Williams who was seen as a radical and had been banished from Massachusetts Bay. Rhode Island was viewed by the Puritans as a chaotic haven for “heretics” and “apostates,” so Puritan New England refused to ally with them.
New Hampshire, at the time, consisted of a few scattered, politically unstable fishing and trading settlements so the Puritans of New England viewed the region as “geographically insignificant.:” At the time New Hampshire did not even exist yet as an independent entity, and in the 1640s Massachusetts Bay actually absorbed New Hampshire towns into its own jurisdiction.
Under the Dominion of New England, that all changed. The British Crown forcibly replaced the old alliance with the Dominion of New England (1686-1689), dragging Rhode Island and New Hampshire into the fold. The Dominion was not a voluntary alliance, but an authoritarian merger by King James II who could care less about religious or regional squabbles. The King’s goal was to streamline royal governance, enforce the Navigation Acts, and crush any semblance of colonial calls for independence. Under the Dominion the colonial borders and charters among the members were abolished, forcing them all into a massive, single super-colony governed from Boston by the highly unpopular royal governor, Sir Edmund Andros. He was overthrown in April of 1689 after news of the Glorious Revolution reached The Colonies, and an uprising called the “Boston Revolt” seized Andros and his officials and threw them all in jail. Andros was shipped back to England, tried and not punished, and then later became governor of Virginia from 1692 to 1698.
So, Franklin’s snake listed 8 colonies (or regions). If you add up the colonies, and use the number four for the colonies of New England, you come up with eleven colonies.
In the Spring of 1754, the Lords of Trade (officially “The Board of Trade” in 1754, a policy-making body directly connected to British rule that served as an official government agency of the British Crown designated to centralize control over the colonies) instructed the colonial governors to convene a congress at Albany in New York to meet with the chiefs of the Six Nations. The move was designed to shore up the alliance and coordinate a defense against the French. Franklin was named to serve as one of the commissioners, a man who was at odds with Thomas Penn at the time who owned the Pennsylvania Colony. While a royal order was created by the meeting, out of it came a union plan by the colonies under the radar that was never officially accepted, but served as a seed for uniting the colonies.
During his journey to Albany, Franklin drafted a document he titled, “Short hints towards a scheme for uniting the Northern colonies.” While the idea had been rattling around in his head for years, this was when he formally took pen to paper regarding the idea, running it by two men whose judgment he trusted along the way – James Alexander and Archibald Kennedy – both who approved of it. He then carried the document to Albany.
In Albany, the congress opened in the town hall with seven colonies having sent commissioners: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. New Jersey had commissioners present, but not for the union discussions. Virginia sent commissioners for the treaty, but not any union discussions.
The roughly two dozen commissioners met with the much larger Haudenosaunee delegation and it didn’t begin well. The English, according to the Indian delegates, had made many promises, and not kept them. The French, meanwhile, was actively courting the Six Nations and doing so with results. The rebuke was basically that the English were always slow to act. Great talkers, but not doers.
Despite the tension, the Six Nations signed a deed ceding an enormous tract of land history calls “The Albany Purchase” that included modern-day western Pennsylvania, much of Ohio and Kentucky and much of New York and Maryland. The problem was that the Iroquois were signing away land they claimed by right of conquest, but was inhabited by the Shawnee, Delaware, and Miami people who were not in the room and had not agreed to anything. This began the seeds of war toward what became known as the French and Indian War.
Benjamin Franklin then presented his plans of a union (and it turned out other commissioners had similar plans of their own), and his draft was preferred. The British rejected Franklin’s plan, and provided an alternative that was a parliamentary tax on America to pay for its own defense – the predecessor to what would become the Stamp Act. That winter, in Boston, Franklin argued his plan over with Governor William Shirley, and then took up his campaign again in Philadelphia – with his plan facing rejections all along the way. Nobody was ready for independence, yet, in 1754. The plan was right, but the timing was wrong.
Which brings us to the premise of this article: Eleven Colonies. In his Albany Plan of Union, Benjamin Franklin listed Eleven Colonies. Based on our discussion, we already know why Delaware was not listed. The other colony not listed was Georgia.
Georgia was the youngest of the colonies, established by a royal charter in 1732. The first physical settlement was established in 1733. Georgia was originally governed by a London-based Board of Trustees, envisioned to be a haven for England’s “worthy poor” and debtors while also serving as a military buffer zone between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. Originally, slavery was banned in Georgia.
Georgia transitioned into a royal colony under the direct control of the King in 1752, who then lifted the bans on slavery and liquor. Barely two years out from under its trustees, and in the middle of a frontier war with the Creek Indians, they were unable to send delegates to the north, and weren’t really even fully considered to be a part of the fold at the time, so Franklin left Georgia out as a colony in his Albany Plan.
Hence, Eleven Original Colonies, in 1754, considered for independence.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs There is a phrase in the American Declaration of Independence that carries more weight than almost...
Patron Membership Required
You must be a Patron member to access this content.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Columbus Day used to be an American holiday everyone could agree on. It was a day to honor discovery and the courage to sail into the unknown. In 2026, it is a battlefield. Cities have renamed it. Statues have come down. Schoolchildren are taught that the man at the center of the day was a monster. The indictment is long, and much of it rests on thin evidence and revisionist history dressed up as settled fact.
But the record tells a different story. It advises us that Christopher Columbus was an ordinary man whom God used to do extraordinary things.
Christopher Columbus began his life in poverty, with little to his name but a restless mind and a love of geography and the sea. As he matured, he read the Scriptures, which described a spherical earth long before the scholars of his day would concede it. From that conviction grew an idea: sail west, and you might reach the East. He believed it. And, more remarkably, the Spanish Crown believed him.
So he sailed out into a sea the civilized world knew only through rumor. He sailed past the stories of demons in the deep and a world’s edge that would swallow a ship whole. He faced the dragons, out-navigated the obstacles, and proved with his own keel that the earth is round. He discovered a place unknown to the civilized world, and he did it on nerve and navigation alone.
He never found the fortune he sought. He died in poverty just fifteen years after his discovery. And he never reached India, though he died believing the New World was India.
Then comes the modern charge: that Columbus was a murderous, slave-trading sadist who shattered a peaceful Caribbean paradise. The truth is more interesting. Brutality already thrived in those lands before he arrived; what Columbus and those who followed him ultimately brought was a new order: law, faith, letters, and the seeds of the civilization the Americas would become.
Columbus is celebrated not merely for a landfall, but for a spirit. He took the risk. He followed his dreams and his beliefs. He did what most men only talk about doing. He was, in his bones, everything America would become.
Was he flawed? Of course. Every human is, and some of the darker stories carry a kernel of truth. But a flawed man is not the same thing as a notorious tyrant. Columbus was neither saint nor devil. He was an achiever. A brave explorer willing to do more than the average bloke.
For that, he deserves our thanks. And he deserves a day.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Update: Jack Smith Grabbed Personal Data on Over 600K Trump Supporters
The Jack Smith documents reveal something more than the emergence of some rogue prosecutor. The whole scenario sheds light on the fact that a big government machine exists, and it’s been there since the beginning. It is, and it has been, a permanent machine that transcends political parties, and the people it has used as tools along the way. It’s a case that reveals that for the establishment, the Constitution is an obstacle rather than a boundary.
When a prosecutor names a target, the subpoenas are supposed to follow the target. That’s the promise of a criminal investigation: narrow, focused, aimed. What the documents released over the past several weeks actually show is something else entirely. The stated target was one man. The catch was the entire opposition ecosystem around him: members of Congress, thousands of small-dollar donors, journalists, campaign advisers, and the president’s own defense lawyers.
That gap between the stated target and the actual reach is the whole story. Everything else is evidence of it.
Start with the paper. A retired Justice Department Inspector General’s special agent, Brian Burnett, testified to House Judiciary investigators that while serving subpoenas in the probe code-named Arctic Frost, he was handed phone numbers, and was never told whose they were. One of them belonged to then-Ranking Member Jim Jordan. “I would’ve subpoenaed the number, but I did not know who the phone number belonged to,” Burnett said. He says he learned the truth only after retiring, from the news.
A Jack Smith team prosecutor, Timothy “Tad” Duree, testified that the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section did know the subscriber’s identity and approved targeting Jordan’s records back in April 2022. Burnett called the whole arrangement unusual in thirty years of law enforcement. It was not normal for prosecutors to be directing the steps agents normally handle themselves.
Then came the scope. According to a Senate Judiciary Committee report released by Chairman Chuck Grassley, Smith’s operation reached into the phone records of sixteen Republican members of Congress, which the report argues violated the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, a provision shielding representatives from executive-branch and legal system questioning over their legislative work.
It reached the donors. The committee says the probe swept up the financial records of small-dollar supporters in all fifty states. People who gave as little as one dollar. It included some 4,782 personal checks, spanning September 2019 to August 2023.
It reached the press. By one tally, communications from roughly fifty journalists across outlets from the Associated Press to The Wall Street Journal.
And it reached the defense. Newly declassified memos released by the White House Government Transparency Task Force show Smith’s team used a pen register (a device that logs calls without recording them) on the phone of Susie Wiles, tracking her contacts with more than twenty lawyers and at least five journalists.
Sen. Ted Cruz put the sum on the record: 197 subpoenas, 34 individuals, 163 businesses, records on at least 430 Republican individuals and entities. “If you look at the list,” he said, “there is one thing that is consistent. Every name on it is a Republican.”
One source of confusion worth clearing up: there were two probes, not one, and they are distinct.
Arctic Frost was the 2020 election and January 6 investigation. Plasmic Echo was the classified documents matter out of Mar-a-Lago. Smith inherited machinery that predated him. The Plasmic Echo approval was signed in March 2022, months before his appointment.
That matters, because it tells you Smith didn’t invent the machine. He inherited it, drove it, and expanded its reach.
Measured against the Constitution rather than party, several hooks stand out. The Appointments Clause, because a federal judge ruled Smith was never constitutionally appointed. The office required Senate confirmation he never received, and on that basis the Mar-a-Lago case was dismissed. The Speech or Debate Clause, because sixteen legislators had their records pulled. The First Amendment, because tracking donations, press calls, and political endorsements chills political activity. And the Fourth Amendment, though that one is the weakest of the four. Grand jury subpoenas are supposed to be broad.
Which is exactly the government’s defense: it was all “technically” lawful.
And it may well have been.
But “lawful” is not the point
Here is where motive enters, and motive is not a soft consideration. It is the only thing that explains why this target, why this date, and why this scope.
Think of siblings pestering each other. The rule is simple: don’t touch your sibling. So the clever one learns to irritate without touching – a foot hovered over the line, a hand never quite landing. The rule was technically obeyed. The pestering continued anyway.
That is the government’s argument. And technically, they may be right. But the physicality was never the point. The irritation was.
Apply that here. Lawful procedure in service of an unlawful purpose is still a problem. A subpoena can be perfectly legal and still be weaponized. The question is why it was issued, why then, and why that breadth. Look at the timing of the indictments, the range of the dates on the subpoenas, extending years before and after January 6, and ask yourself what an investigation focused narrowly on one day would have needed. Then ask what an investigation designed to map an entire political coalition would have needed.
I believe the answer is the latter.
This is why the “No Kings” shirt matters more than it should.
After testifying under oath that he was a nonpartisan prosecutor, that he’d “conduct it the same way whether it were Republican or a Democrat,” Jack Smith was photographed days later at a political festival wearing a “No Kings” t-shirt.
The lazy version of this argument is “shirt proves he’s a Democrat.” Any prosecutor can be a Democrat. The sharper version is this: “No Kings” is not a generic partisan label. It is the specific brand of the anti-Trump resistance. The shirt isn’t evidence that Smith has opinions. It’s evidence that he enlisted.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. A prosecutor calling balls and strikes shouldn’t be wearing the team jersey, especially after swearing under oath that he has no team. The shirt is a small thing. But it is a confession.
We must be honest, however, and understand that none of this began with Smith.
In 2004, a forged document aired on 60 Minutes in a story about George W. Bush’s National Guard service, and Dan Rather lost his job when it collapsed. In 2016, the machinery grew teeth: a fabricated narrative. The Steele dossier. The Alfa Bank story. It was all laundered through the FBI and CIA and became a federal operation with surveillance warrants, leaks, and a special counsel. By the time Smith arrived, the playbook was mature. He didn’t write it. He multiplied it.
The process is the punishment. The precedent is older and has been used by both-parties, other parties in history, and both sides of the political spectrum. In 2008, Senator Ted Stevens was prosecuted by the same Public Integrity Section that later approved the Jordan records. He was convicted weeks before his election, lost his seat by a hair, and then the conviction collapsed. Prosecutors had withheld exculpatory evidence. The reversal came too late to save his Senate seat.
The process was the punishment.
This is the core insight, and it explains the entire strategy: the left doesn’t need convictions. The accusations are enough. Plant the guilt in the voters’ minds, let the indictment do the political work, and a later acquittal or dismissal is a footnote no one reads. The lawfare isn’t designed to win trials. It’s designed to win elections.
So what is the machine actually defending? Follow the incentives. The permanent bureaucracy outlived the Federalist Party, the Whigs, and every administration that tried to dislodge it. Thomas Jefferson’s fight with the “midnight judges” was the template, and when the Federalist Party died, its grip simply relocated to the judiciary, the branch hardest to remove them from. The machine has no party skin. It has a trough, and everyone who drinks from it has an incentive to keep it full.
I believe Donald Trump is a stick in the spokes of that machine. He is the greatest threat to it since Reagan. It’s not about any single policy. The machine’s existence, feeding the leviathan and keeping it strong, is why the full weight of the apparatus came down on Trump. Smith, Brennan, the Obama and Biden Justice Departments; they aren’t the machine. They’re willing participants in it, and willing to fight to keep it fed.
If the process is the punishment, the fix is to put a check on the process. That means narrowing prosecutorial immunity, so prosecutors pursuing public figures answer to more than themselves. It means independent review before a politician is indicted. Perhaps a “citizens’ accountability council,” as former Rep. Rick Renzi has proposed, or the “sunlight” review that followed the Stevens fiasco. It means an Inspector General that isn’t housed inside the very department it inspects.
Renzi, who fought Smith for seven and a half years, was indicted on 49 felonies, learned of it while delivering his own father’s eulogy, and was eventually pardoned, put it simply: “He uses the process to destroy you politically.”
He’s right. And the only way to stop a machine that weaponizes the process is to build a check into the process itself.
Smith is one man. The machine will outlive him. Unless we make it answer for what it did – and only then.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Some sources:
Member of Jack Smith’s Team Comes Forward with New Information, Throws Smith Under the Bus – Trending Politics
Investigation into Jack Smith Suggests He Was the Real Threat to Democracy – Daily Caller
The Jack Smith Operation Shows Lawfare Will Only Get Worse – The Federalist
Jack Smith Just Proved He Lied to Congress – PJ Media
Jack Smith team tracked Trump defense lawyers’ calls by monitoring his chief of staff’s phone – Just the News
Jack Smith team secretly met ex-CIA chief John Brennan in 2023, but FBI agents left notes blank – Just the News
Investigating Ilhan Omar Leads to a Raid
By Douglas V. Gibbs
No one is above the law. We heard it ad-nauseam during the lawfare against Donald J. Trump, so it applies here too. Especially, when you consider that the investigation regarding the raid of the home of Representative Ilhan Omar began during the Biden administration. That’s right: Her criminalities were so obvious that even the Department of Justice under Crooked Joe Biden believed she needed to be looked into. So, for all of those claiming this is political targeting, put a sock in it.
The raid on the Washington D.C. residence of Representative Ilhan Omar (MN-D) was executed by Homeland Security Investigations agents based on a judicially authorized warrant as part of a “criminal fraud investigation.” The questions revolve around Omar’s immigration paperwork.
This is not necessarily regarding other questions surrounding Omar, like extensive evidence that Omar also married her brother, and a long list of notable allegations of corruption – but one wonders if all of that is in the crosshairs of investigators, as well.
Omar responded to the raid as a move by Trump to “attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” a talking point her Democratic allies have also adopted. These same Democrats looked the other way when the FBI in 2022 raided Mar-a-Lago (Trump’s residence in Florida) as part of Jack Smith’s illegal classified documents lawfare. Jesse Watters on Fox News has reported that the immigration paperwork investigation, if it proves her father lied, and she did as well, regarding Omar’s age (17 versus 18 at the time of immigration and naturalization) and his refugee status (was he a refugee, or a war criminal escaping war crimes), Omar could be denaturalized and deported – a reality echoed by legal expert Jonathan Turley.
RELATED: THE MACHINE DIDN’T START WITH JACK SMITH
Of course the Democrats are also echoing Omar’s claims that she is “being targeted” because she is Muslim. If she’s connected to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, that’s a legitimate reason to investigate her, though the reasons for the current investigation have nothing to do with her Islamic background. It’s all based on evidence of immigration criminality. Omar has denied any connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, but I have seen a social media post (that has been conveniently scrubbed since I saw it) of her own sister, Sahra Noor, claiming a family connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. Noor has also received a grand jury subpoena as a part of the ongoing DOJ investigation into Omar’s immigration paperwork and citizenship history, but is currently nowhere to be found. It is important to note that Omar has a history of colluding with Islamists.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has also revealed that her office is investigating Omar’s financial disclosures, which should also provide some answers surrounding the recent uncovering of massive Minnesota fraud, and Omar’s previous claims of multimillion-dollar assets.
President Trump’s response noted that he did not personally play a role in the raid, though he believes Omar to be a “totally crooked” and a “terrible person.”
While researching for this article, it amazed how much push back there was, even from the A.I. programs. Islam, in particular, has everyone so blinded that they are not willing to see the obvious. Islam, for example, has based much of its political existence on the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, yet after Hamas attacked and mercilessly killed Israelis on October 7, 2023, when Israel responded (as one would expect a country to do after such an attack) there are those that have fallen for the lies and claim Israel is somehow guilty of genocide against “Palestine.” Even A.I., if you make a request that could be deemed by the left as “insensitive,” will argue with you about it despite evidence to the contrary.
In Hollywood, it’s so bad that actress Selma Blair made a comment that pointed out a connection to terrorism a couple years ago, and she’s been blacklisted to the point that she’s lost her talent agency manager of 30 years, a lawyer, personal and book publicists, and any roles for film or television. She apologized, groveled, and begged to be forgiven – but she was erased like any other enemy the Orwellian lefties deem no longer in the fold or members of an enemy faction.
As for the Omar raid, I firmly believe it not about politics or Islam in the way the lefties are screaming and hollering. It is all about crime and corruption. It is a criminal investigation, and as the Democrats have been pointing out ever since their lawfare against Trump began, no one is above the law. If that is true, and the evidence reveals what we’ve been seeing with our own eyes, not only will Ilhan Omar lose her seat in Congress and be deported, but it will hopefully open the door for other political criminals who’ve been rotting our system from the inside for as long as we can remember to be revealed, investigated, and prosecuted. And… it’s about time.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary