Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The damage done by the Biden administration to the economy was caused by pumping fiat money into the system and creating an environment where the cost of doing business and the government’s interference with the ability to increase supply reached prohibitive levels. The massive flow of dollars into the economy is an old Keynesian tactic called “priming the pump.” The theory is that putting more money into the system so that consumers may use it to buy things encourages economic activity. Except, it actually achieves the opposite. Inserting fiat money into the system increases inflation, and as prices rise, consumerism drops. Basic economics revolves around the concept of supply and demand, and the cost of doing business. Increased supply reduces prices, and a reduction of the cost of doing business reduces prices. Government’s role when it comes to improving the economy is simple: Get out of the way. Reduce regulatory restrictions, reduce fees, reduce taxes on business, and remove as many other obstacles as possible that stand in the way of production. This is what President Trump has been doing.
From day one he has reduced federal regulations on the business sector, he has been working on reducing taxes (many of which the Big Beautiful Bill launches into effect the first of the year), and he has been using tariffs to level the playing field and encourage domestic manufacturing and production. Meanwhile, he has reversed the Biden policies that interfered with the supply chain from inventory to energy prices when it comes to transporting these goods. While some of the improvements in our economy were apparent immediately, now the numbers are really beginning to emerge and it’s looking good for the economy – and in turn looking good for the Trump presidency.
The U.S. economy grew 4.3% annually in the third quarter according to new data released. The U.S. GDP, which is the country’s output of goods and services, far outpaced the forecast of 3.2%, and the third quarter number even outpaced the unexpected annualized growth of 3.8% during the second quarter.
With the improvement in the economy becoming evident to the naked eye, U.S. consumers are growing more hopeful about their future financial prospects. Recession fears have eased at the margins and polls have shown that a large segment of consumers have moved away from saying a recession over the next 12 months is “very likely” with many instead saying the downturn is “not likely.” The largest share still believes a recession is “somewhat likely,” but overall outright alarm over the economy has receded from earlier this year.
The job market is also improving with jobless claims falling for the second straight week, declining by 10,000 to 214,000 for the week ending December 20, according to the Department of Labor. The long-term unemployment rate still remains higher than desired, but with many investments in domestic manufacturing going into action in 2026, that number is expected to move downward in the coming months.
Inflation trends eased to 2.7 percent in November, with core inflation numbers down to 2.6 percent, the lowest since early 2021 at the end of President Trump’s last presidency. The Federal Reserve, in turn, lowered interest rates for a third time this year during the early days of December, with more cuts expected in 2026. The ultimate goal for inflation would be to reach 2%.
As inflation reaches levels lower than the experts expected, and economic growth is heading in the right direction beyond their expectations, we are reminded that voters tend to vote with their wallets. “It’s the economy stupid,” coined by James Carville in 1992 is becoming the GOP rallying cry as we approach the mid-term elections. The improving economy is all a direct result of President Trump’s economic policies and tariffs. Net exports are on the rise as the trade playing field levels, A.I. is increasing productivity, businesses are investing and spending, and consumerism is the strongest it has been in four years. Reaching a 5% GDP goal in the opening quarters of 2026 looks very achievable, something the Democrats during Biden’s reign (and also during Obama’s presidency) arguing such numbers would never happen again and that their economic numbers were simply the new normal.
The state of the American economy and their own personal finances are the primary concern of American voters, and as the Golden Age begins to burn even brighter it may fool the experts one more time. Typically, the political party in power does not do well in mid-term elections. However, if the economy continues to improve in 2026 the Republicans could very well gain seats in both Houses of Congress after the mid-term elections in 2026 with representatives fully in tune with President Trump’s agenda.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The delicious smells of Christmas are in the air. Cookies and Pine. Sugar and spice. Christmas Trees in our homes, or on the road strapped on the tops of tiny sedans, blowing in the wind as they proceed up the road. Children’s seasonal artwork covers the face of refrigerators, bulletin boards, and kitchen tables. Santa Claus, appearing in all shapes and sizes and colors, is ringing his bells and ho-ho-ho-ing around the stores, malls, and gathering centers. Candles line mantles, with stockings hung with care, and sparkling Christmas decorations glittering and blinking in a fun-filled festive fashion. Flashing lights hang from the eaves, blow-up Santas and snowmen wave to passersby, and Nativity Scenes line the streets. Churches host various Christmas concerts and plays, the Christmas Specials dominate the television. Radios play Christmas tunes, and retail clerks smile and offer “Merry Christmas” as the shoppers scoot out the door.
Except, some of that is not true anymore.
President Donald Trump has pointed out one of the problems of the year, and has proclaimed he’s not giving in. For him it’s not Happy Holidays. It is “Merry Christmas.” I don’t care if there are those out there who think it is insensitive, or that it is offensive. They claim that Christianity is not inclusive enough, and Christ is not the only reason for the season.
They don’t know God well enough, I suppose. After all, God welcomes everyone into His Fold, through Christ, regardless of past sins – all one must do is accept His Mercy.
The war against Christmas is just another leg of Cultural Marxism. In order to initiate their socialist revolution they need to eliminate anything traditional, Christian, or not secular progressive. It’s a war that is not new, and it has been raging in all of the states for quite a while. In fact, its raging in all of the Western Countries. Statism seeks to eliminate all traditional representations of Christmas, from secular icons such as the Christmas Tree and Santa Claus, to the Christian representations such as Christmas Carols and Nativity Scenes. If God is to be removed from our culture, they need to seek to eliminate Christmas, itself.
Christmas is under siege from people whose seeks to kill religion and morality with political correctness and WOKEism. Sure, in truth they are a minority, but they are a loud segment of society. With their noise they have convinced many that even one person offended is justification enough to eliminate the offender. All dissent must be silenced. It is, from their point of view, the job of the government to purge all things from society that even resembles religion. Therefore, any sign of Christmas, or utterance of “Merry Christmas,” opens one up to complaints, litigation, angry protests, threats, and worse. And the anti-Christmas mob gets away with it, because we do not stand up to them, and say, “Enough is enough.”
Around America, retail workers are being told, “We don’t say ‘Merry Christmas,’ it has to be ‘Happy Holidays.'” People in retail are told they will be written up for saying “Merry Christmas.” So, they proclaim Happy Holidays because their paycheck is more important.
Fearless, I tell them “Merry Christmas,” and some of them return it with the same wording. But not most of them.
A war is being waged, and a counter-revolution must be in gear to stop the madness. The war is an offensive one, led by secularists, humanists, and well-funded cultural relativists. They believe America is evil as founded, and that the Christian majority must be silenced by any means necessary. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Americans for the Separation of Church and State provide the muscle for these anti-Christmas radicals. These are people who celebrate sexual perversion in our society, and support the murder of unborn babies, yet they cannot bring themselves to allow Christians to celebrate the Birth of Jesus Christ. The Leftists claim Christians desire an oppressive theocracy in America, they call it Christian Nationalism. Of course, their claim Christians want theocracy is ridiculous. No reasonable Christian wants church leaders running the country. But, that doesn’t mean that if one achieves public office, suddenly their beliefs must suddenly be silenced. Christian office holders praying and government workers saying Merry Christmas is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Remember, the beginning of the First Amendment begins with, “Congress shall make no law.”
Still, the secularist Marxists threaten any public official who dares even refer to Christmas in any way in a public place, for placing Christianity in the public square to them must not be tolerated.
“Keep your religion inside the four walls of your church,” they say, as they threaten the churches if they dare preach on anything considered political, including homosexuality, transgenderism, or the murder of babies in the womb. “Christianity needs banning,” they tell us, “for it is dangerous to a free society.” Therefore, Christmas needs banning, as well.
Freedom of Speech, like Freedom of religion, has become a privilege rather than a right, according to the Leftists that infest government like a voracious parasite. There are no rights to speech and religion, they argue. The appearance of anything Christian in view of anyone that can possibly be offended is treated like a chemical spill, and according to these folks on the Left, the prevailing opinion is that the cause must be eliminated. Christmas must be neutered, they believe, and Christians must be silenced.
I refuse to accept the common narrative that even using the word “Christmas” is an invitation for a lawsuit. Our right of free speech and the right to the freedom of religious expression, were included in the United States Constitution for a reason. Our faith must not be a ‘religious privilege,’ granted by the generosity of government. The mere idea that government has any hand in our right to the free exercise of religion suggests that our freedom of religion is government-granted, rather than a freedom that is God-given.
The Founding Fathers were concerned about the possibility of what we are seeing today. They feared that the inclusion of language, such as the current myth of the Separation of Church and State, would open the door for government to ‘regulate’ religious practices, language, and even question the very presence of Christmas in our society. Such language would open a Pandora’s Box that could lead to government officials wrongly believing that they are the ‘grantors’ of the freedom of religious expression (as recently articulated by Senator Tim Kaine). Such a belief by government would then give them the alleged authority to regulate it.
Thomas Jefferson was very critical of government intrusion into religious expression. In his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, as well as his writings in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and his participation in disestablishing the official church in Virginia in 1786, he explained that the goal was not to protect government from religion, but to protect the free exercise of faith from government. The philosophy marched hand in hand with the concept of keeping the powers of the federal government limited, and prohibited regulating or punishing religious practices and expressions. This idea, in fact, was so deeply embedded in American Thinking that it has been since the beginning a focal point of American History. Jefferson believed the federal government had no authority to interfere with, limit, regulate, or prohibit public religious expressions. In fact, none of the founders gave the slightest hint that they believed religion should be removed from the public square, or that the government should be completely secularized. The religious freedom clauses in the U.S. Constitution were put there for the purpose of trying to keep government from darkening the doors of the church.
As Alexis DeToqueville found in his visit to the United States in the 1830s, the politicians prayed, and the pastors preached politics, but government did not control the church, and the church did not control government. They were symbiotic, in America. A concept foreign to Europeans of the time.
As far as Jefferson, or any of the other founders, were concerned, the only time government should be involved in religious matters would be if religious expression were acts “against peace and good order, injurious to others, subversive to good order,” or acts by “the man who works ill to his neighbor.” In other words, things like Islamic jihad, the attempt to implement Sharia law in the place of the laws of the host country, or the disruptive “call to prayer” from loud speakers.
We have ways to win the war against Christianity, but it takes thinking outside the box, and not responding to everything in a reactive manner. Such as in the case of a high school football team that was told the banner they burst through at the beginning of a game could no longer have a Bible Verse on it. In response, after the banner became a simple piece of artwork with no Bible Verse on it, and the players burst through the banner the folks in the stands stood tall, holding up bold homemade signs, each with a different verse on them, or a positive Christian message, as the players rushed onto the field.
So, take a note from brave folks like those in the stands of that football game. Say, “Merry Christmas.” Encourage others to do so. We outnumber the tyrants who wish to destroy American Tradition. We are the majority. We are the righteous. It is high time we begin to act like it.
Welcome to The Revolution.
Merry Christmas.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Christmas as a holiday in America goes all the way back to the early settlers. As time passed the celebration of the Birth of Jesus Christ has gathered a number of traditions along the way. Families gather each year, exchanging gifts, decorating Christmas Trees, and attending church service. Back during the English Colonies, however, whether or not you even celebrated the Blessed Event depended upon the region you lived in.
The Puritans in New England frowned upon Christmas, harshly discouraging their flock from participating in the festivities. The southern colonies were a polar opposite of the Puritans, celebrating Christmas with joy, and in some cases, all month long. The middle colonies’ more diverse inhabitants carried out varied versions of Christmas, enjoying more localized observations that were closer to the traditions of the homeland from which they came. For most Americans during the Colonial Period, Christmas served as an important day.
The majority of colonists in the English Colonies along the Atlantic Coast of the New World were Christian, and the majority of those Christians were Protestant. The northern colonies were founded primarily on a desire for religious freedom, and all of the colonies, while diverse in their beliefs, were highly religious. America’s colonial culture was a melting pot of many cultures, so in The Colonies different groups lived and worked in the original twelve (there were never thirteen colonies…Delaware was a collection of the southern counties of Pennsylvania and became independent as a state during the dawn of The Revolution), but congregated in different regions. The result was that the different parts of colonial society maintained their own unique identities and practices. Christmas is a great example of how different the various regions truly were from each other.
Massachusetts, dominated by Puritans, stood against the holiday. At one point the Puritan majority even made Christmas illegal in the regions under their influence and control. The Puritans objected to the traditions that had been added, recognizing their Pagan origin. Santa Claus was seen as a character that had been created to avert one’s eyes away from Christ’s birth. The first known reference to Santa Claus by the Puritans appeared in 1773, at a time that Puritan ministers were preaching against the celebration of the holiday. They saw no scriptural reasons for celebrating it, and viewed the holiday as one that was filled with paganism. The holiday, from the Puritan point of view, dishonored Jesus Christ, and they continued to make sure Christmas was not a part of the Winter Season until the Puritans lost power thanks to a renewed fervor that religious freedom be extended to each of the States after the turn of the nineteenth century.
The Quakers of Pennsylvania were also against celebrations of Christmas, for many similar reasons as the Puritans. Defections, however, were common. Some Puritans and Quakers would reach out to other Protestant denominations, such as Calvinists, so that they may be able to celebrate the day despite their religion’s opposition to it.
Some historians have argued the defections were a part of the reason that the strict rules against Christmas were eventually relaxed. Anti-Christmas denominations began to fear losing their congregations because of their rigidness regarding the holiday.
Despite some folks standing against the celebrations, other groups were more than happy to be festive and enjoy Christmas, anyway. After all, the Puritans and Quakers did not control all regions of the English Colonies. Because the Original Thirteen were filled with such a variety of groups and cultures, many celebrated and enjoyed the day. For some, the holiday was a part of the larger cultural experience of the region. Inhabitants of Dutch, German, and Huguenot as well as some of English descent, celebrated the day with large parties and social gatherings. Some groups joined together in the celebration, uniting their celebrations, sharing traditions and community activities.
The largest and most festive celebrations of Christmas, however, emerged in the southern colonies. While the celebrations remained small and localized for those on the frontier, for the most part in the south Christmas flourished. Granted, they were very different than what we experience today, but they were very festive celebrations, nonetheless.
A common Christmas tradition was the firing of muskets and cannons in celebration, especially in the southern colonies. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were known to celebrate the day. John Adams’ writings reveals he did not. In an 1809 letter Jefferson mentions his grandson joyfully exclaiming “Merry Christmas”. In the letter he also refers to 1762, stating that the day was one of “greatest mirth and jollity.” George Washington was known to celebrate the Twelve Days of Christmas, as it often was throughout the colonies. In fact, he was married to his wife Martha on January 6, the twelfth day of Christmas and the Feast of the Epiphany. Washington also participated in fox hunts, as was commonly done at that time of the year in Virginia as part of the festivities.
As far back as 1702, at the College of William & Mary, tradition had dictated that students would prevent faculty from entering the school as a means of starting Christmas festivities.
Worship service took precedence in almost all celebrations of Christmas in The Colonies. The southern colonies were largely devout Anglicans who saw the liturgical season of Advent, which leads to Christmas, as one of penitence and reflection.
During the Revolutionary War the fighting did not take a break for Christmas, and the Battle of Trenton began with the famous event of George Washington and his army crossing of the Delaware River on Christmas Night. Fighting typically slowed during the Christmas Season, not because of the holiday, but because of the weather.
Gifts were typically reserved just for children and servants if given at all. Christmas’ religious meaning remained at the forefront of all of the celebrations. Christmas mattered to most people in colonial and revolutionary America, despite being celebrated very differently than it is today. Nonetheless, the similarities between the celebrations then and today were still focused on one fact; Jesus, the Savior of the World, had been born.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is facing a series of accusation, investigation and potential disciplinary actions centered on her handling of the Georgia 2020 election-interference case against Donald J. Trump. It is important to recognize that there have been no criminal charges brought against her. However, a GOP-led committee of the Georgia State Senate is currently probing her conduct. The Georgia representatives that have questioned her are doing so over a list of allegations that could lead to further legal action.
Questions about a conflict of interest have arisen based on her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired for the Trump election-interference case. The situation led to a Georgia Court of Appeals to disqualify her from the Trump case in 2024. After an appeal, the Georgia State Supreme Court later upheld that disqualification in 2025. The committee’s questioning probing her conduct has included her hiring of Wade, her management of the Trump case, and whether her actions constituted ethical violations or misuse of taxpayer money. While the committee has no power to bring criminal charges, they can recommend legislative or administrative actions.
Willis testified for hours, defending her actions and calling the investigation politically motivated. The list of accusations against her includes a conflict of interest because of her relationship with prosecutor Nathan Wade, misuse of funds based on claims she benefited from Wade’s pay and travel, and professional misconduct claims and ethical violations.
The committee’s questioning about her handling of the Trump 2020 election-interference case is largely what has her screaming the investigation is politically motivated. The committee claims her handling of the case may have involved misconduct or political bias. There is also a suggestion that there was possible coordination with federal officials, but she denied any connection to the Biden administration.
When Fani Willis testified before the Georgia State Senate Investigative Committee, she chose to insert into her testimony accusations about racist threats, slurs, and harassment, which included references to the N-word being used in messages sent to her office. What she is trying to do is frame the broader environment she works in as being one that has led to her being targeted not just for her decisions, but because she’s a Black woman in a high profile role. The thing is, the hearing is about alleged misconduct, not about the threats she has received. Bringing up the harassment doesn’t address the core questions about hiring Nathan Wade, spending decisions, or potential conflicts of interests. I believe she’s trying to shift the focus, invoke sympathy, and frame the investigation as racially motivated rather than substantively motivated.
If successful, she could reframe the whole narrative from “Did you misuse your office?” to “Are you being unfairly targeted?” Doing such can rally her political base, especially in Atlanta and among Democratic voters. It moves her position from someone unfairly targeting Trump to someone under attack, which could be a powerful defensive posture in political hearings.
The thing is, none of that matters. All that matters is the committee’s purpose: to investigate alleged misconduct. While her rhetorical strategy of highlighting any hostile treatment she’s received may help at a certain level, in the end, this entire episode isn’t about race, or rhetoric, or who can deliver the most dramatic monologue in a hearing room. It’s about something far more basic: the integrity of public office. When a prosecutor is entrusted with the power to bring cases that can alter the course of elections and the lives of citizens, that power must be exercised with transparency, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct.
The Georgia Senate didn’t call Fani Willis to testify about the hateful messages she’s received and no decent person excuses that kind of behavior. They called her to answer for her own decisions, decisions that led to her disqualification from one of the most consequential cases in the country. And when the questions got uncomfortable, she reached for a narrative that had nothing to do with the allegations in front of her, and something that always works: claims of racism.
But accountability doesn’t bend to personal narratives. It doesn’t pause for political theater. And it doesn’t disappear because someone shifts the spotlight. At the end of the day, the rule of law demands answers, not deflection, not distraction, and not appeals to victimhood when the issue on the table is professional conduct and ultimately if her attacks against Trump were politically motivated in the first place.
Standards. Rule of Law. These are the things every public official should be held to. And that’s the standard the people of Georgia, and the country, deserve.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
What happened at Brown University was not a tragedy. It was a catastrophic failure of leadership, security, and common sense. And the more we learn, the worse it looks.”
The Brown University campus, unfortunately, has been built more on “safe spaces” than true physical safety. Brown University is known nationally for its hard-left DEI‑heavy culture, its safe‑spaces, and its emotional‑protection ethos. But when it came to actual physical protection, the kind that stops bullets instead of microaggressions, the university fell dramatically short.
Brown is a gun‑free zone, a campus that prides itself on disarming everyone except the people who don’t follow rules. And yet, despite a multi‑billion‑dollar endowment, the school’s security infrastructure was shockingly inadequate.
Brown reportedly had 1,200 security cameras, but many were nonfunctional. Worse, there was a blind spot near the rear of the Barus & Holley engineering building, the very area where the shooter entered. According to federal investigators, the shooter (Claudio Manuel Neves Valente), a former Brown physics graduate student, knew the campus well and exploited those weaknesses.
And then there’s the leadership question.
Brown’s head of campus security previously worked at the University of Utah, where he reportedly left under pressure after failing to provide adequate credentials and facing performance concerns. At Brown, the campus police union was preparing a complaint accusing him of creating a hostile work environment.
Providence Police Chief Oscar Perez has also faced growing scrutiny, not only for his department’s handling of recent high‑profile investigations, but also for questions surrounding his own background and judgment. Public concern intensified after federal prosecutors revealed that his nephew, Jasdrual “Josh” Perez, was one of the most prolific fentanyl traffickers in New England, ultimately receiving a 22‑year federal sentence for running a multistate drug ring. While the chief is not implicated in the crimes, the family connection has raised eyebrows, especially as local media have reported broader questions about his qualifications and leadership style. Nobody seemed to be aware of all of this until we were deep into the wake of the Brown University shooting investigation, where the department’s early missteps and lack of clarity have fueled renewed debate over whether Providence’s top law‑enforcement leadership is truly up to the task.
Mayor Brett Smiley is a real piece of work, as well. In office since January of 2023, he has deep ties to the state’s Democratic political establishment having been a former lackey for Rhode Island’s Director of Administration under Governor Gina Raimondo, he is one of the few openly gay big-city mayors in the country, and recently he found himself at the center of controversy when the Providence City Council raised the Palestinian flag at City Hall during demonstrations. While his tenure has emphasized public safety and quality of life issues, the Brown shooting and his inability to show he knows much about anything during press conferences raises new questions about his crisis-management abilities.
Governor Dan McKee of Rhode Island, in office since 2021 after his predecessor joined President Biden’s cabinet as Secretary of Commerce after serving as lieutenant governor for six years, emphasizes community solidarity during crises; a theme he leaned heavily on in his public statements following the Brown University shooting. In the past his administration has faced criticism for bureaucratic sluggishness and uneven communication, and the Brown incident confirmed much of that as his leadership style fell under greater scrutiny during the investigation.
So when the shooting happened, the response was, predictably, chaotic.
The Providence mayor and police chief appeared overwhelmed and underinformed. Before federal agencies stepped in, Providence police arrested the wrong man, then had to release him, burning precious hours while the real killer remained loose on the streets.
Meanwhile, the actual suspect traveled north to Massachusetts, where he allegedly murdered MIT physics professor Nuno Loureiro, a man he had known from their shared academic background in Portugal.
From there, the suspect drove to New Hampshire, stopping at a storage unit he had rented. That’s where he ultimately died by suicide, according to investigators.
Federal officials later confirmed that the major break in the case came only after the FBI and ATF took over the investigation, and a homeless man, and Brown University graduate living on or around campus, provided much needed information.
Had the suspect continued deeper into rural New England, he might have vanished into the woods for weeks or months.
One of the Brown students killed was the vice president of the campus Republican Club, Ella Cook. In the early hours of the investigation, some wondered whether the attack was politically motivated due to her identity, and given the ideological climate on campus.
But as more information emerged, the evidence pointed away from political targeting. Federal investigators have stated that no motive has yet been identified, and no ideological writings or communications have been found.
Still, the questions weren’t unreasonable at the time. And the lack of transparency from local officials only fueled speculation.
What does appear relevant is the shooter’s academic world.
Valente studied physics at Brown in the early 2000s before withdrawing in 2003. He also attended the same university in Portugal as the MIT professor he later allegedly killed. The Brown shooting occurred inside the engineering building, during a study session. The MIT victim was a physics professor. In short, these are not random locations or random people. They are all tied directly to the suspect’s academic past.
Was he angry at the institutions?
At specific professors?
At perceived failures in his academic career?
Federal investigators say the motive remains unclear, but the academic connection is undeniable.
So what do we take from all this? A gun‑free campus with broken cameras. A security chief with a questionable record. Local authorities who arrested the wrong man. And a killer who slipped through the cracks until federal agents stepped in.
Brown University promised emotional safety, but failed to provide physical safety. And while the political angle appears unlikely, the academic connection raises serious questions about how universities handle troubled former students, security vulnerabilities, and warning signs.
The investigation continues.
The questions remain.
And the failures, at every level, are impossible to ignore.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary