Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Within the first week of Zohran Mamdani’s reign as Mayor of New York City, his housing czar, Cea Weaver, revealed, “Our goal is to have the housing actually be worth less. They need to be rent-controlled, and the reason why they need to be rent-controlled is not that, like, rent control is inherently socialist, but because rent control limits the speculative value of the land.” She also has denounced private homeownership, calling it a “weapon of white supremacy” and that “homeownership is racist.” The Mamdani plan is to decrease the number of mom-and-pop landlords in the city – a move that would embolden big corporations. As per his campaign promises, Mayor Mamdani would like to turn all housing into government owned public housing.
When the first big wintery storm hit New York City, Mayor Mamdani announced there would be no traditional snow day…no matter how many inches of snow fell. He ordered, like any good dictator, that school would remain in session, whether in-person or remote, as a massive winter storm hit the area. The Communist Manifesto expresses a clear view regarding education. It must not be interrupted because it is a key tool for social transformation and the dismantling of class power. Education must be free to the masses, and controlled by the state to remove education from the influence of the ruling class and the church – and while it does not specify that it needs to be removed from the influence of the parents, the other communist plans written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels attacking the family would suggest that as well.
Mamdani suspended sanitation services from collecting trash during the snowstorm, leaving neighborhoods buried in garbage and unbearable stench. Along with the build-up of trash which led to armies of scavenging rats, homeless people died in the streets since Mamdani decided not to break up homeless encampments during the winter months. Unplowed snow made transportation a challenge. When Mamdani decided to not break up the encampments, he dissed the Adams’ policy of breaking up the encampments and putting the homeless into temporary indoor quarters. The practice of housing the homeless during freezing temperatures has been a standard procedure in New York City for 40 years. If Mayor Mamdani wanted to put his socialist actions into play, wouldn’t he have offered any of the many of unused rooms and spaces at the city-owned mayoral residence? The city’s paralysis was caused by a combination of weather, and local government’s incompetence under Mamdani.
PJ Media reported that Mayor Mamdani has cancelled the Gifted and Talented (G&T) program for kindergarten with plans to eventually deep-six the special programs for gifted kids for all grade levels. Penalizing excellence is what socialists do. Collectivism’s protocol is equity, disallowing anyone to rise up above others. While the argument is that it is an attempt to protect the feelings of the “underserved,” its true communist nature is that we are all animals in the field for the state, and none of us has any right to think we are more than the other. Communal living does not tolerate winners over anyone else at a lower level. Any programs that reward excellence are an abomination to Mamdani, and must be ended. That’s how socialists keep everything nice and equal. Equality in misery, that is.
Mayor Mamdani signed an executive order to strengthen New York’s sanctuary city status, restricting ICE agents from entering city property such as schools and hospitals. He then stated at an interfaith breakfast that Islam “is built upon a narrative of migration.” He went on to comment that “government can provide the resources.” On The View on January 20, Mamdani declared he wants ICE completely abolished, calling on New Yorkers to obstruct ICE. He also said he plans to prevent ICE from entering New York City without a judicial warrant. We’ll see what the crime statistics looks like once he achieves his sanctuary status paradise.
During the month of January, about 80,000 New Yorkers called 311, the highest monthly total on record, reporting lack of heat and hot water during the frigid temperatures. Tenants reported going up to 8 and 9 days without heat and experiencing overnight shutoffs. The city logged more than 215,000 heat complaints to the Department of Housing Preservation and Development since October 1, with the vast majority of those calls occurring in 2026.
Among Mamdani’s opening salvos were executive orders repealing orders dealing with antisemitism and boycotts of Israel. Mamdani’s orders eliminated the expansion of the definition of anti-Semitism put in place by his predecessor Eric Adams, as well as removing provisions that blocked city employees and agencies from boycotting or divesting from Israel. Criticism against Mamdani over his moves by Jewish groups who have admonished his alignment with pro-Palestinian groups were unleashed. They added it to their list of grievances that includes his use of the phrase, “globalize the intifada.”
Mayor Mamdani in his first month is already running out of other people’s money to fund his socialist plans, and Governor Hochul says he’s not going to get his tax increases without New York’s state legislature blessing the plan. His plan to tax the rich would undoubtedly cause a mass exodus of wealthy and corporate taxpayers from New York City if he could put it in place, as revealed by the mass exodus from California under similar conditions.
Crime in New York City will explode not only because of Mamdani’s sanctuary city policies, but also once Mamdani’s “defund the police” promise goes into action. As for his free subways and buses promise, rides on public transportation are not free… yet. In fact, fares increased in January to around $3 per ride. The MTA is a state authority, and so his free-rides plan requires, like the increase in taxes, approval from state officials.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), a specialized agency and intergovernmental body of the United Nations which can issue guidance and declare international health emergencies, but has no enforcement power. The U.S. withdrawal in January of 2026 marked the first time a major founding member has withdrawn from the organization.
California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the State of California will remain a part of the World Health Organization’s network. He made the announcement after meeting with WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 23, 2026. California is the only U.S. state to join the WHO-coordinated network, and has been widely interpreted as a direct counter to President Trump’s withdrawal of the U.S. from WHO. Politico and other outlets states Newsom used Davos as an opportunity to position California as a global health actor independent of federal policy.
Newsom’s action violated Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from any “agreement or compact” with any “foreign power.” The Framers of the Constitution wrote it the way they did because they had just lived through the chaos of states conducting their own diplomacy under the Articles of Confederation, and they wanted to prevent the states from engaging in separate foreign policies.
The agreement by Gavin Newsom with WHO is not symbolic. It is a formal partnership with a foreign international body involving coordinated operations, information sharing, and joint response mechanisms. That is the very essence of an “agreement or compact.” The Supreme Court has long held that a “compact” exists when a state enters into a relationship that “enhances its political power” or “binds it to obligations” with another sovereign entity. California’s move to join WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network (GOARN) does both.
While defenders argue that California’s move is justified by federal inaction, the Constitution is clear. The Constitution does not say, “No State shall enter into agreements with foreign powers… unless the federal government isn’t doing what the State wants.” The clause is clear and definitive. “No State Shall.” States don’t get to conduct foreign policy because they disagree with Washington. That’s exactly the scenario the Framers were trying to prevent.
While in some cases an agreement can be constitutional if, as stated in the Constitution, Congress authorizes California to join GOARN, Newsom acted unilaterally without any congressional approval. Without a congressional blessing, the action is unconstitutional on its face.
The broader constitutional problem is that California is attempting to act as a mini-nation, positioning itself as a quasi-sovereign actor on the world stage. While state sovereignty regarding state issues was important to the Founders, and they wished to preserve that internal autonomy, they also desired that the United States would be a perpetual union so they designed the Constitution to prevent that kind of fragmentation. This is not to say that states were considered to be locked into the Union. It was always considered a voluntary union with the states retaining the authority to secede if they so desired. But the Founding Fathers preferred that the Union held together, and that the federal government handled all external issues for the country, so they designed the Constitution to enable states to maintain their own internal affairs, but to not allow the states to run their own foreign affairs.
Newsom’s decision is more than a symbolic gesture of defiance. It is a blueprint for constitutional disorder. If one governor can strike agreements with foreign powers because he dislikes federal policy, then every governor can. If states decide to act unilaterally on issues like immigration, trade, defense, and relationships with foreign entities then each could ultimately splinter into fifty competing foreign agendas. That is not federalism. That is disunion. The Constitution draws a bright line for a reason, and California has crossed it. If this precedent stands, the question will not be whether other states follow, but how long the United States can remain a united republic at all.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
  Patriots’ Soapbox Presents Mr. Constitution Douglas V. Gibbs & Mrs. Constitution LIVE Friday: 2-4 Pacific/5-7 Eastern If Don Lemon and his fellow agitators who stormed a church do not get convicted and face serious penalties, it could become open season on churches by leftist radicals. Doug and Virginia will explain. https://dlive.tv/psb https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1MYxNwWbNnQKw https://patriotssoapbox.com/ Visit Doug’s Website Visit Navigation 2 Liberty   |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In a discussion at the Center for American Progress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was asked about the Trump administration’s spending cuts, particularly those implemented after DOGE came into the picture. Schumer responded that Democrats plan to “restore most of the cuts and even go higher than previous years on many of the programs that DOGE slashed.”
The only federal funding they seem eager to reduce is anything that challenges their political narrative. Right now, the primary target is ICE. Hence the current government shutdown, driven by Democratic demands to slash DHS funding. If they had their way, they would dismantle ICE as we know it.
Their proposed restrictions on ICE are designed to halt deportations. They want to eliminate probable-cause administrative warrants and instead require immigration agents to obtain judicial warrants – while their allies occupy roughly 70% of federal judicial seats. They want ICE agents to de-mask and display their names on their uniforms, a move that would expose officers and their families to doxxing and targeted attacks. They want to bar immigration enforcement in so-called “sensitive locations,” which would bring apprehensions to a standstill.
They also call for an end to what they label as being “racial profiling.” In practice, this means forbidden ICE from operating in areas or industries where illegal immigration is most concentrated, effectively eliminating even more enforcement zones. They demand expanded congressional oversight, which would allow legislators to micro-manage executive authority and further blur the separation of powers, just as they have attempted through the courts. That oversight would almost certainly be weaponized to create opportunities for activist district attorneys to mass-litigate against federal agents.
Democrats also want federal agents to obtain consent from state and local officials before conducting large-scale operations. That requirement may apply to matters of state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, but immigration is a federal responsibility. Article IV, Section 4 in the Constitution does not give states veto power over federal immigration enforcement unless they wish to use nullification, which would be illegal in this scenario since it is constitutionally clear that the federal government possesses immigration authority. They want ICE equipped only for “civil enforcement,” an unmistakable attempt to disarm the agency.
As a supposed sign of good faith, Democrats have also insisted that President Trump immediately fire Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
If granted their demands, Democrats would cripple the Trump administration’s ability to execute immigration law, or even conduct basic deportation operations. They know ICE is funded for the next four years under the Big Beautiful Bill that took effect January 1, and they are now working to unravel that law and obstruct the President’s agenda for the remainder of his term. They are willing to shut down as much of the federal government as necessary to achieve that goal.
That is why the Mid‑Term Elections carry so much constitutional weight. If Democrats seize even a single chamber of Congress, they will not only freeze the President’s Article II authority in place, they will weaponize their majority to pursue impeachment, bring his entire agenda to a dead stop, and nuke the Constitution’s call for a separation of powers – at least, until their guy is in the presidency.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The recent revelations surrounding Arctic Frost, the federal codename for the multi‑agency investigation into Donald Trump’s post‑2020 election challenges, have reopened a debate that the political establishment hoped was settled, and pushed deep under the rug in the basement of the Deep State’s bubbling swamp. Senator Chuck Grassley’s explosive disclosures, including evidence that the FBI collected tolling data on sitting Republican senators, have forced the country to confront a question that should trouble every constitutionalist: When does law enforcement cross the line from investigating crime to policing political dissent?
Arctic Frost was originally framed as a probe into Trump’s efforts to contest the 2020 election. But the newly released documents show something far broader. The investigation swept up communications metadata from senators who objected to the 2020 certification or raised concerns about election irregularities. Grassley argues that this was not a narrow inquiry into alleged wrongdoing. It was a political dragnet, a “means to an end,” targeting Trump’s allies in Congress.
Mainstream outlets like The New York Times have attempted to downplay these revelations, portraying Grassley’s oversight as partisan interference. But Grassley’s rebuttal is blunt: the Times ignored key documents, mischaracterized whistleblowers, and glossed over internal rule violations. The result is a widening gap between what conservative Americans see happening and what legacy media insists is happening.
Arctic Frost, mind you, is only a small part of a much larger and broader conspiracy against Donald Trump his supporters. The attempt to stop him any way they could led to the Democrats using lawfare as a vicious political weapon. Arctic Frost, and all of the other attacks were not independent events occurring in a vacuum. As Trump challenged the 2020 election, arguing that emergency rule changes, mass mail‑in voting, and statistical anomalies demanded scrutiny, he was simultaneously hit from all directions with media attacks, and an unprecedented wave of legal actions.
No modern political figure has ever faced such a concentrated, simultaneous barrage:
• Two federal indictments
• State prosecutions in New York and Georgia
• Civil suits from political opponents
• Ballot‑removal attempts in multiple states
• Congressional investigations
• Administrative disputes with the National Archives
The most striking example is the New York case, where prosecutors took what would normally be a single misdemeanor bookkeeping dispute and multiplied it into 34 felony counts. The legal theory used to elevate those charges had never been applied in that way before. To conservatives, this was not justice; it was political escalation and a message that the system would use every available mechanism to break Trump.
From my point of view, the 2020 Election was not a criminal conspiracy as much as it was a constitutional crisis. From a conservative constitutional perspective, Trump’s actions after the 2020 election were not an attempt to “overturn” the results, but an attempt to challenge them in the hopes of exposing the truth. Millions of Americans recognized that there were irregularities that pointed to the possibility of election tampering.
• Sudden late‑night vote spikes
• Mass mail‑in ballots with loose chain‑of‑custody
• Courts and executive officials altering election rules without legislatures
• Statistical anomalies in key counties
• A record turnout by Democrats in just the places they needed, and then later a collapse in Democratic turnout in those same counties in later elections – which, by the way, defied otherwise reliable bell-weather county voting patterns.
Whether one believes these irregularities changed the outcome or not, they created a crisis of confidence that deserved investigation, not criminalization.
Arctic Frost ignored the need for investigation and treated Trump’s objections as criminal intent. It treated constitutional challenges as conspiracies. It treated political disagreement as evidence of wrongdoing.
For many conservatives, the January 6 narrative became the final piece of a larger pattern: the rapid transformation of political dissent into criminal suspicion. While the official narrative frames January 6 as an insurrection, I believe the event was exploited, if not orchestrated, to justify the expansion of surveillance, prosecutions, and political suppression. It was a Hollywood production. A false flag event. And I believe the truth is working its way to the surface on that issue, as well.
Even without endorsing my view as fact, it is undeniable that January 6 became the pretext for:
• Expanding federal investigative powers
• Intensifying scrutiny of Trump supporters
• Justifying Arctic Frost’s broad scope
• Cementing the “threat to democracy” narrative used to delegitimize dissent
The result has been a political environment where challenging election procedures is treated as sedition, and questioning institutional authority is treated as extremism.
The deeper issue is not Trump himself. It is warfare against a stick in the spokes called MAGA that derailed the Democrat Party’s plans to turn America into a one-party system. And to get back on track, all they needed to do was set some precedents.
If federal agencies can:
• surveil sitting senators for objecting to an election
• multiply misdemeanors into dozens of felonies
• criminalize political challenges
• coordinate overlapping prosecutions
• shape narratives through selective leaks
• and rely on media allies to sanitize their actions
then the constitutional balance between the people and the government is fundamentally altered.
A republic cannot survive if dissent becomes criminalized.
A constitutional system cannot function if political opposition becomes prosecutable.
A free people cannot remain free if the state decides which political movements are legitimate.
The real questions are now bubbling to the surface. Arctic Frost is not just a scandal. It is a warning. If this level of investigative and prosecutorial power can be deployed against one man and his supporters, it can be deployed against anyone. The issue is not whether one supports Trump. The issue is whether one supports a system where the government can use its full weight to crush political opposition.
That is the constitutional crisis at the heart of Arctic Frost.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Jessica Tarlov’s repeated claim on The Five (Fox News program) that the SAVE Act would force voters to “show their birth certificate or passport at the polls” is flat‑out false. Whether she’s misinformed or deliberately misleading viewers, the text of the bill does not say what she insists it does.
During the segment, Tarlov argued: “…what the SAVE Act does is that it requires that you have either your birth certificate or your passport…”
When Jesse Watters challenged her with, “I don’t know if that’s true,” she doubled down: “It is true. Read the bill.”
Watters has apparently not read the bill…yet. He said, “I will. I will. Tomorrow we’ll have to correct you. There is no way this bill requires people to show up with their birth certificates, then Barack couldn’t register.”
Reading the bill reveals that the SAVE Act does not require anyone to bring a birth certificate or passport to the polling place. It does not regulate Election Day identification at all. The bill deals exclusively with voter registration, specifically federal voter registration forms.
According to the bill text, the SAVE Act would:
• Require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (e.g., Real ID, government issued ID showing birthplace, passport, birth certificate, naturalization certificate) when registering to vote in federal elections.
• Amend the National Voter Registration Act to ensure that only citizens can register using federal forms.
• Require states to remove non‑citizens from voter rolls.
That’s it. No polling‑place ID requirement. No mandate to bring a birth certificate to vote.
Democrats have long tried to frame voter ID as discriminatory, but the political ground has shifted. Polling consistently shows overwhelming public support for voter ID requirements:
• 83% of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote.
• Support includes 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats.
• Gallup finds 83% support requiring proof of citizenship for first‑time registrants.
In other words, voter ID is not the losing issue Democrats pretend it is. It’s one of the most broadly supported election‑integrity measures in the country.
While public support is strong, courts have been more mixed. Recent rulings have struck down or blocked certain voter ID measures, especially when they conflict with state law:
• The California Supreme Court struck down Huntington Beach’s voter ID law, ruling it conflicted with state election statutes.
• Multiple courts have blocked parts of President Trump’s executive order requiring proof of citizenship for federal voter registration, citing separation‑of‑powers concerns.
The latter case supports a constitutional truth: Congress, not the courts, not the executive branch, must clarify federal standards before any executive order may be issued to enforce them.
That is where the SAVE Act becomes an important part of the process.
If the SAVE Act becomes law, the next logical step will likely be a renewed push for nationwide voter ID requirements; not just to prevent non‑citizen voting, but to stop:
• Multiple voting by the same individual
• Ballots cast on behalf of low‑propensity voters
• Fraud enabled by lax verification systems
Given the overwhelming public support, voter ID is not a political liability. It’s a political inevitability.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary