Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Modern Society has taken a sickening turn that reveals how serious the spiritual war we face has become. A recent article in the American Sociological Association’s journal Sex & Sexualities titled “Childhood Sexualities: On Pleasure and Meaning from the Margins,” argues that childhood innocence is a “colonial fiction” and that children’s “erotic capacities” should be recognized rather than pathologized.
The author may be considered a scholar, and an educated member of academia, but in reality she and her colleagues who buy into her fantasies are groomers and perpetrators of moral subversion. They attempt to cloak their sickness with fashionable jargon about “queer” and “decolonial perspectives,” and the author insists that sexual pleasure is integral to children’s lives and calls for research to focus on it. In other words, she seeks to normalize what every sane society has rightly condemned: the sexualization of children.
The claim that childhood innocence is “not natural” is not only false, it is yet another dangerous claim among a segment of our society that has fallen for demonic influences that seeks to destroy our culture from within. Innocence, no matter what your faith may or may not be, is the very definition of childhood. As G.K. Chesterton observed, “For children are innocent and love justice; while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” To erase that innocence is not enlightenment as these “scholars” may claim. It is moral corruption.
Every person of reason and compassion must reject this agenda. Articles like these are not harmless academic exercises; they are attempts to dismantle protective boundaries and de-stigmatize pedophilia. The conclusion of the piece makes its intentions plain: a “call to transform how we think about childhood sexuality and whose experiences we value.”
We shudder to imagine what those “valued experiences” might be. But we know this much: those who promote the sexualization of children are not advancing justice or truth. They are advancing evil. And Scripture warns plainly: “It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin” (Luke 17:2).
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The English Colonies, particularly the ones in the north, were established on a concept today we call Religious Freedom. The Church of England as the established religion in England worked with the government to crush any competing religious denomination, and as a result a large swath of Englishmen sought to embark on the perilous journey to the New World so that they could worship without a government hand or established religion dictating the terms. Ironically, in most of the colonies in America the inhabitants created their own systems of established churches. In 1787, when delegates from twelve states met in the Constitutional Convention, nine of the thirteen states had established religions.
In 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified by the states. In the First Amendment, it reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The language was clear and specific. The United States Congress had no authority from the beginning to make any law establishing a countrywide, federally blessed state church, nor could Congress pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion; that last part a nod to the country’s foundational concept of religious freedom. The clause did not apply to the states, but to the federal government, as the language reveals. President Jefferson, in an exchange of correspondence with the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1801, confirmed that notion when he explained that the federal government could not help them with their dilemma against the Puritan Church (called the Congregationalist Church at the time). Religion was a state issue, and religious freedom at the state level required local state legislation.
Constitutional scholars, even the most liberal, agree that the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government at the time. The language in the Preamble of the Bill of Rights is explicit that the purpose of the first ten amendments was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [federal government’s] powers.” The false doctrine that the Bill of Rights must be applied to the states with the federal government as an enforcer didn’t even emerge until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that is based on a modern broad interpretation of the Due Process Clause which was rejected on the floor of Congress during the debates over the Reconstruction Amendment, per the Congressional Globe (congressional record) of the time. So, the notion that the established religions were expected to be “disengaged” because of the First Amendment, and that they had all “complied” by 1833 is a very uneducated position, at best.
This is not to say that state-supported religions were approved of. They were not. The states did indeed eventually eliminate all of their established religions within a generation of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights not applying to the states is not a suggestion that the Founders approved of state churches, but that they respected the concept of state sovereignty. Leaving local issues in the hands of the states was discussed at length during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and the federal government enforcing anything against the states, much less through a Bill of Rights that would later emerge during President Washington’s first term, was rejected by the delegation not only because of the concept of states’ rights, but because they knew the states would never ratify the document if such a provision was included. The same discussions arose during the congressional debates over the Bill of Rights in 1789, with the representatives of both Houses of Congress rejecting the notion that that the federal government had any authority to enforce the clauses of the Bill of Rights against the states.
No Founding Father ever used the term separation of church and state, except Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, of which he explained what he meant by a “wall of separation between church and state” was that religion was a state issue, and the federal government had no authority to dictate to a state what they did regarding religion. The definition of a separation of church and state as understood by today’s progressives was not only rejected by the political leadership during the founding era, the population would have also rejected it if such a notion had been even attempted to be put in place. The country was a very spiritual one, with a population that, as Alexis de Tocqueville would later comment, took their faith very seriously. He wrote, “Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions… I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? But, I am certain that they hold it to be indispensible to the maintenance of republican institutions.”
Today’s Christians largely hold to these ideas that America was founded upon a solid Christian foundation, and that the faith of the Founding Fathers was not only an important part of the structuring of the country’s constitution and governmental system, but that a separation of powers not only existed among the three branches of government, but between the states and the federal government as well. As for the notion of “Christian Nationalism,” which is progressive leftist code for “theocracy,” it is an idea cooked up in the minds of the political left due to their hatred (or perhaps fear) of Christianity. No reasonable Christian holds any view that a theocracy with religious leaders running the government is even remotely a good idea, much less in line with the principles of our constitutional republic. But, that doesn’t mean the opposite is true, either, and that we have strictly a secular government that has the authority to crush any notions of faith rearing its head in the halls of government, or any notions of political speech being spoken from the pulpit. The Founders intended for this country to be deeply religious where Christians were bold leaders in the shaping of the culture, and influential in the public square. Christianity in America was originally intended to be involved in the shaping of public morality and civic virtue without becoming a tool of government, nor erased from the hearts of America’s leaders. Spiritual vitality has long been at the foundation of this country, and the Founders expected the citizens to influence the culture and for Christianity to guide the conscience of the politicians and the convictions of the pastors, without either institution dominating the other. Christianity as an active part of American Society is essential to preserve the principles of the Constitution, our moral compass, and the true essence of what liberty is truly all about.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The United States Constitution was designed to include the aim of balancing power through a proper distribution of it. Limited government, sometimes called small government, means that authority is confined to its rightful boundaries, leaving local issues to local governments and communities. Thomas Jefferson described this principle as laissez-faire, allowing matters to take their natural course without unnecessary interference.
From the beginning, the federal government was tasked with handling issues pertinent to the union, such as foreign trade, war, and maritime law. States retained authority over internal matters directly affecting their resident. A handful of domestic concerns, such as interstate disputes and the postal service, were entrusted to the federal government because they were essential to preserving and promoting the union. At every level, care was taken to ensure localism remained intact. State constitutions mirrored this design, reserving local issues for counties and municipalities.
America was not established as a pure democracy but as a republic, carefully structured to balance competing interests. The House of Representatives, like one half of the state legislatures, gave population centers a stronger voice through democratic elections. Yet the U.S. Senate and corresponding state senates were designed differently, ensuring rural and less populated areas also had a strong voice. This arrangement created a natural check and balance, preventing city folk’s representatives from telling the farmers how to farm without the farmers having a voice in the process.
Over time, however, this balance has eroded thanks to mechanisms like the Seventeenth Amendment and Reynolds v. Sims (1964). A striking example of the consequence of becoming more democratic is California’s Central Valley water controversy. As our country and the states have drifted toward pure democracy politicians representing heavily populated urban areas increased their numbers in the legislature, dominating over the rural voice. As a result, these particular politicians have increasingly adopted collectivist approaches, sidelining the individualistic localism that defined America’s early generations.
Nowhere is this tension clearer than in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Water, a vital resource, has become the battleground. Progressive leaders in Sacramento argue that environmental concerns justify restricting water supplies to farming communities. Farmers counter that these restrictions starve the Central Valley of the water essential to its role as one of the nation’s most productive agricultural regions. The Valley produces a significant share of America’s fruits, vegetables, and nuts, yet its farmers face man-made scarcity. They argue that northern water supplies could be diverted as they once were, but regulations and claims of scarcity prevent it. The consequences ripple outward: shuttered schools, closed businesses, and weakened communities.
Farmers see themselves as stewards of both the land and their communities, advocating for policies that allow them to thrive. They view Sacramento’s environmental regulations and water rights restrictions as unconstitutional government overreach. Their opponents, however, insist that protecting species such as the Delta Smelt, incidentally not indigenous to the region, must take precedence, even when human needs are urgent. This clash underscores the deeper divide: urban politicians blaming rural communities for water issues, while simultaneously dismantling dams and refusing to build new infrastructure.
Conservatives argue that the solution is straightforward: release more water into the Central Valley and build the infrastructure necessary to sustain both agriculture and safety. The stakes extend beyond farming. The Palisades Fire, with its dry reservoirs and empty hydrants, revealed how inadequate water allocation endangers lives. Proper infrastructure is not merely about crops. It is about survival.
The Constitution’s genius lay in its balance between federal and state, urban and rural, majority and minority. California’s water wars illustrate what happens when that balance is abandoned. Localism, once the cornerstone of American governance, is being replaced by collectivism, leaving vital communities vulnerable. Restoring constitutional principles of limited government and distributed authority may be the only way to resolve conflicts like those in the Central Valley. After all, water is not just a resource, it is in many ways a part of a much larger list of issues: life, liberty, and the foundation of prosperity.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
After the government shutdown the new jobs report from September was released, and the report defied expectations. The economy, slowly, is getting back on track. According to the data, the U.S. added 119,000 jobs in September, and we’re not talking government jobs like you saw during the Biden years, but real jobs. The estimate was less than half that, which means the creation of new jobs was more than double what they expected.
Economists are now saying that the U.S. Economy is in position to grow faster next year than any of the projections have claimed. Massive investments, a promise of increased manufacturing, and stronger consumer spending that will likely rise out of the increase in domestic supply in the supply-and-demand game should challenge the inflationary numbers and provide for faster economic growth.
While President Trump is unable to combat the fiat money pumped into the system by the Biden regime, which is among the leading reasons for the inflation we have been experiencing, Trump can combat rising prices in other ways, like improving the trade deficit and encouraging domestic manufacturing with tariffs, reducing taxes, reducing regulations, and reducing the cost of doing business in other ways – all of which he has been tackling. The tariffs and foreign investments will drive domestic manufacturing, which is always good for adding value into the system which directly challenges rising inflation numbers caused by the influx of fiat money into our monetary system. Much of the inflation that remains on the rise is in blue states due to heavier regulations and higher energy costs. Prices in red states on most products and services have been experiencing a downward drop.
As job gains continue to increase, and unemployment gets below 5%, rising wages and increased incomes for those reentering the job market will also be a positive attack against inflation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated in a Meet the Press interview that he’s highly optimistic about next year’s economy, expecting strong growth largely due to key provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which includes eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, Social Security benefits, and car-loan interest on U.S. made vehicles. The Trump administration also points to trade deals, new manufacturing investments, and domestic energy operations including Trump’s drill-baby-drill plan. There may be a hiccup in the fourth quarter due to the government shutdown, but 2026 is beginning to look like it will be a year of economic improvement that will only get better going into 2027.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Black Friday has ended, and it turns out it is no longer the frenzied dash through crowded aisles it once was. Increasingly, shoppers are turning to online deals, while brick-and-mortar stores scramble to lure customers back with doorbuster bargains, extended hours, and elaborate promotions. Yet, alongside the discounts, this year’s Black Friday was marred by violence – an unsettling reminder that our culture is shifting in ways that go far beyond retail.
The headlines are filled with stories of unrest, aggression, and despair. What was once an isolated incident now feels like a recurring theme, and with the recent news of National Guardsmen being shot steps away from the White House we realize that the violence is not simply about crime statistics. It reflects something deeper in our cultural fabric. It points to a generation wrestling with fear, disillusionment, and a loss of grounding.
One discussion I was recently a part of struck me. Fathers have dropped the ball. Too many sons are growing up without the steadying hand of a father, without a model of spiritual leadership, discipline, and hope. Heck, I even take some of the blame. I was very young when my wife and I married and we began having children, and I admit I wasn’t the spiritual leader I should have been. That absence, even among men who otherwise have been wonderful members of society, has multiplied across millions of families, leaving young men adrift and searching for meaning in a world that feels hostile and uncertain.
The younger generation has been told by the experts, and their teachers, and the media that the future is bleak. They are warned by false prophecies of rising seas and barren lands. The President of the United States, according to the voices in their ears, is an authoritarian leader followed by a nation full of fascists. From the point of view of these youths they will inherit a world either drowned, desolate, or ruled by Hitleric figures. But when they throw their hands in the air searching for answers and hope, they are also told that God is dead, and those who believe in him want a Christian Nationalist theocracy. With such a worldview, despair has become a natural place to go, and violence has risen partly because it is being incited by well-placed propaganda, and partly because it seems to be the only outlet for their anger and hopelessness.
If the violence we saw on this year’s Black Friday, and in 2025 in general, is a mirror of our culture, then the reflection is troubling. Deals and discounts cannot mask the deeper fractures. We need cultural renewal. As government take actions to restore law and order, fathers need to reclaim their role as men, training their children up on solid moral foundations. Pastors and Christian leaders need to become leaders in their communities, guiding and shaping the culture. Faith needs to be rediscovered. We need to understand that as the Book of Jeremiah states, our hearts are naturally wicked, and without faith we wander in directions that will lead us to grave consequences. Without a godly compass, the bargains of today will continue to be overshadowed by the violence in our stores, on our streets, and in the hearts of many who have lost their way.
If the headlines remind us of violence and despair, the Gospel reminds us of hope and responsibility. The decline we see in families, public life, and the American Culture is not irreversible. It is our responsibility, however, to stop only gathering inside the four walls of our churches and instead take action in our culture by becoming the salt and light in an otherwise dark world. Silence is destructive, as well. It is time for bold faith to reclaim ground. Put some legs on our prayers, and some action in our Worship.
Light does not need darkness to exist, and darkness cannot exist when light is present. So, rather than wallow in the darkness thinking there is no chance of coming out of it, simply light the candle and allow the flickering flame of faith chase away the doom and gloom. I believe America is on the verge of revival. We’ve seen signs of it, especially since the assassination and execution of Charlie Kirk because of what he believed. And understand, I am a firm believer that transformation doesn’t begin in Washington or Wall Street. We will never get our political or economic house in order until we get our godly house in order. We must, for the sake of ourselves, our communities, and our country live out our faith with conviction and courage, and spread that good news every chance we get.
While being present on the political stage is important, the way to regain the culture is by being in the public square and raising up the next generation with a solid godly foundation. That means fathers need to step back into their role as spiritual leaders within their home, pastors need to be leaders of their communities, believers need to refuse to retreat or hide inside the four walls of the church, and the world needs to be convinced that not only is God not dead, He is a Living God and He sits on the ultimate Throne.
Our culture is searching for meaning. God has placed inside of us the desire to seek Him out, and when we reject Him the search doesn’t stop. The search then tries to fill that void with other things, but those things never satisfy our thirst for a relationship with God. The things of the world cannot heal a broken heart of a hopeless but failed search for something meaningful in life. Only God can fill that space. Deals or violence cannot fix the problem, or satisfy one’s spiritual hunger. Revival is possible, if only we stop retreating, and start leading.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Donald Trump’s Thanksgiving pardon of Gobble and Waddle was more than a lighthearted holiday tradition. It symbolized his broader commitment to mercy, justice, and decisive leadership. His recent pardons, like the ceremonial clemency for these turkeys, reflect a philosophy of restoring fairness and correcting wrongs.
In a sense, it was a tradition with a twist, as we know Trump is so good at. His November 25, 2025 pardoning of two turkeys, Gobble and Waddle, in the Rose Garden ceremony included some stabs, such as President Trump joking he should have named them Chuck and Nancy. While the event also carried more of his usual humor, such as Trump joking about the birds’ gobbling and even teased that one was “missing in action,” it also carried more political undertones than his Chuck and Nancy joke. He used the moment to highlight his administration’s willingness to act boldly, even in symbolic gestures, and to contrast his approach with what he described as the failures of prior leadership.
The turkey pardon tradition dates back decades, but Trump’s framing connected it to a larger theme: pardons as acts of justice, not just ceremony. In recent weeks, Trump has issued pardons that conservatives have praised as correcting political overreach and restoring balance.
Supporters argue these decisions were important because they:
• Reined in excessive prosecutions that many saw as politically motivated.
• Restored dignity to individuals who had been unfairly targeted.
• Signaled strength and compassion, showing that mercy can coexist with firm leadership.
While he can’t pardon Tina Peters, he is calling on Colorado to release the former city clerk who challenged the 2020 election and passed on evidence of irregularities and possible voting machine fraud to other people like Mike Lindell.
Commentators across conservative media, from Fox News to Newsmax, have emphasized that Trump’s pardons demonstrate a willingness to challenge entrenched bureaucracies and defend ordinary citizens against government excess. The turkey pardon, though playful, became a metaphor for his broader mission: sparing the vulnerable, correcting injustices, and reminding Americans that leadership can be both firm and humane.
Gobble and Waddle, spared from the Thanksgiving table, now serve as “Turkey Ambassadors” at North Carolina State University. Their survival is symbolic: just as these birds were granted freedom, Trump’s pardons have granted relief to individuals facing unfair burdens. The message is clear; mercy is not weakness, but strength applied with wisdom.
In tying the ceremonial pardon of Gobble and Waddle to his recent acts of clemency, Trump underscored a consistent theme: leadership means knowing when to be tough, and when to extend grace. For conservatives, this balance is precisely why his pardons were both important and good.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary