Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
My grandfather returned home from World War II after serving in Europe as part of the Army/Air Corps and became a farm worker in California’s Central Valley. My mother was born in Bakersfield, and since Grandpa was a sharecropper, her early life existed in a small, one-room shack with a dirt floor. At the time, California was the breadbasket of the world. We exported more food than we imported. Even during the height of the Cold War, it was American food production that kept those hungry in the Soviet Union from starving to death.
Our free market system, quality of food production, and rules regarding production have made America’s food supply the safest and most efficient in the world. We have better processes, plentiful farmland, and superior water supplies.
In July 2026, we face a widespread Cyclospora outbreak affecting 34 states and over 7,000 people. Finger-pointing has quickly filled the political sphere online, with accusations of relaxed regulations by the Trump administration at the top of the list. I saw one headline that read that the Cyclospora outbreak would not have happened under a Democratic President.
It is precisely the policies of the Democrats that caused the outbreak, for it is the Democrats who have driven food production out of the country. The policies of the Democrats have changed California’s Central Valley into a region starving for water and producing less than it used to. Democratic Party farm policies, starting with the New Deal, are largely to blame. The reality is that in places like Mexico – where the Cyclospora outbreak originated – the regulations for safer food production and the quality of the water used do not even come close to the level of safety and quality as in America.
Cyclospora is a human-transmitted parasite resistant to chlorination, and it often contaminates produce via surface water irrigation tainted by human waste. In Mexico, as we see with homeless and illegal alien populations in America, there is a problem with sanitation, and therefore human waste particles winding up in places other than sanitation systems. If we were growing our lettuce (the produce blamed for the recent outbreak) and other food in America, the Cyclospora outbreak would not be an issue. In short, the public health risks we face in America from food grown in other countries rather than the United States is completely the fault of the Democratic Party and their farm policies.
Cyclospora infections are unique as they are only transmitted by humans – not farm animals. Chlorination and chemical disinfection are ineffective. The Food and Drug Administration notes that microfiltration, ozone, or UV treatments may be necessary to effectively decrease populations of C. cayetanensis. At the moment, the outbreak is known to be in 34 states, and there have been roughly 7,000 confirmed cases. The numbers are likely significantly underestimated since many people are not being tested – the numbers are based on cases that become public because the person seeks medical attention. And while lettuce is currently the alleged culprit, other produce like raspberries, basil, cilantro, and salad mixes (to name a few) may also be infected.
Most of our produce is grown and harvested either in foreign countries that do not use the same standards we use, or by migrant farm workers who may operate their lives in a manner that we might deem unsafe and unhealthy. These workers may also be vulnerable to infectious diseases because of their living environment. Employer-provided housing tends to be crowded, often with poor sanitation, and incoming workers may be contaminated, with that contamination going undetected indefinitely. While working in the fields, the standard should be that clean drinking water and bathroom breaks should be given liberally, particularly when temperatures are hot. However, in the industry, complaints about not being given adequate breaks are common.
In America, Occupational Health and Safety Administration rules mandate reasonable toilet and hand-washing services be available to workers, but enforcement of these rules, much less adherence to them, can be difficult to monitor or ensure.
During the whole process, the likelihood is that the water used for irrigation is becoming contaminated, be it from the workers or other sources along the irrigation line. But nobody wants to report any failures along the way because they fear losing their job, or in the case of illegal aliens, they fear being deported.
Keeping farming in America and making sure workers are not illegally in the country would greatly alleviate the problems associated with the cause of outbreaks. And this idea that migrant workers perform tasks Americans would not be willing to do is a false argument. My grandfather was a farm worker. My son applied to be a farm worker once but was denied the job because his Spanish was not fluent. If we wish to avoid these outbreaks in the future, farm workers need to be legally in the country, and operations need to be monitored to ensure they are not violating standards that might lead to a new public health crisis. And understand, that does not mean we should increase funding to federal agencies. That means we need to redirect funds to assist in monitoring and return many of the responsibilities back to the states who are, in a word, closer to the operations from a structural perspective. We have the technology for greater monitoring of farm operations and the constitutional requirement to send those responsibilities back to the states. Despite arguments to the contrary, the solution is not more federal money thrown at it or heavier federal regulation – it’s a partnership between American growers and the states, and incentives that will bring growing our food back inside these United States.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
At Townhall, writer Jerry Newcombe hits a home run in his article about Communism versus the Ten Commandments.
In the article he explains that communism is enjoying a modern resurgence… even in America. But communism is against each of the 10 Commandments and vice versa.
Here’s an abbreviated version of his list. Check out the article, linked above, for the full text.
In the first commandment, God says that He alone is God. Communism says there is no God.
In the second command, God says we are to worship no idols. In practice, communism promotes the worship of idols. I might add, they worship the idol of humanity and collectivism.
In command number three, God says that we should not take His name in vain. But communism says there is no God, which makes taking Him in vain to the limit.
In the fourth Commandment, God says we are to honor the Sabbath. If there is no God in the minds of the communists, how can one honor the Sabbath?
“Honor your father and your mother,” commands God in number five. Communism seeks the abolition of the family.
The sixth commandment says, ‘Thou shalt do no murder.’ Communism seeks to eliminate their opposition, and then in the last century murdered over 100 million people due to their policies.
The seventh command prohibits committing adultery. In communism, they aim to eliminate the family, eliminate marriage, and in today’s communist movement in the U.S. they promote free love, gay love, whatever sexual sin they can shove into the culture.
The eighth commandment declares, ‘Thou shalt Not Steal. And it doesn’t add, “unless thou art the government.” Ever noticed how many times communists talk about government “seizing” private property?
The ninth command prohibits lying. Yet, communism is the biggest lie of all, and uses deception to put in motion its revolutions.
Finally, the 10th commandment gets at the fountainhead of the communists’ propaganda—Thou shalt not covet. Communism is the politics of envy.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Vice President J.D. Vance made a recent statement that “American economic policy on the right is now much more Alexander Hamilton than it is Milton Friedman. I think that’s obviously a good thing.” He went on to say, “If you look at modern Britain and the result of Margaret Thatcher’s policies, you would say that her policies actually got Britain further away from that ideal and not closer to that ideal.” The comment represents a significant departure from traditional conservative economic thought, and for me is very concerning.
As a constitutional originalist, I value constitutional principles and free-market economics. Therefore, I have always been someone who is not a fan of Alexander Hamilton. He was a patriot who fought during the Revolutionary War and was a trusted scribe of General George Washington’s, and he was among the primary spark-plugs that set in motion the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. He was so trusted by Washington that when the famed general became the first President of the United States under the new federal government created by the U.S. Constitution, when Robert Morris turned down Treasury Secretary and suggested the office be given to Hamilton, Washington was happy to oblige. But, Hamilton’s ideas regarding how much power should be possessed by the federal government, and his ideas about economics were not in line with the basic tenants of the Constitution, and not in line with what we consider today to be sound economic ideas – at least from a truly free market standpoint.
Hamilton’s approach to economics centered on a strong central bank, federal assumption of state debts, protective tariffs that mirrored the British practice of mercantilism, and government intervention in economic development (centralized planning). These positions stand in stark contrast to Jeffersonian principles of limited government and free-market capitalism that have traditionally been cornerstones of conservative thought. Hamilton’s advocacy for a national bank and implied powers created constitutional precedents that expanded federal authority beyond what the framers of the Constitution intended.
Vance’s criticism of Friedman and Thatcher is particularly concerning from a free-market perspective. His dismissal of meritocracy and suggestion that economic prosperity should not be prioritized suggests a shift toward a more communitarian or even nationalist economic framework rather than the individualistic, liberty-focused approach that has defined modern conservatism and the concept of a truly free market.
I am not completely appalled by everything he said according to the Hot Air article referenced early on in this article. His statement also frames tariffs as now being the “baseline position” in the GOP, and he said that reflects how much the party has moved away from its free-trade roots. While this represents a fundamental philosophical shift away from previous conservative GOP positions, originalists and classical liberals would refer back to Thomas Jefferson’s presidency where protective tariffs that hinged on mercantilism were abandoned, tariffs were still used as a tool to ensure fair trade, rather than a truly free trade environment. Free trade fails when the playing field is tilted against you.
Before I completely write-off Vance, I realize I need to consider that he is likely positioning himself for the 2028 primary by appealing to the populist wing of the voting public. Until I cam across these statements about Hamilton the clues regarding his potential actual governance style may very-well differ from his rhetorical positioning. There may be strategic elements to these statements that aren’t immediately apparent. That said, I believe my concerns to be valid. If Vance genuinely embraces Hamiltonian economics over Friedmanite free-market principles, he would indeed represent a departure from the conservative tradition that values limited government and economic freedom.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The modern political mantra to “save our democracy” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of America’s constitutional design. The Founders deliberately created a republic with specific constitutional mechanisms to guard against the excesses of pure democracy. They understood that unchecked majority rule could lead to tyranny as surely as monarchical rule. As James Madison articulated in Federalist No. 10, factions are inevitable in free society, and the proper way to control their destructive potential is to set them against each other through a carefully structured system of representation.
This delicate balance has been systematically dismantled through two pivotal developments: the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 and the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. Sims (1964). Together, these changes have transformed our federal system of government into something more resembling a centralized democracy, where the voices of rural and minority communities are increasingly drowned out by urban majorities.
The Founders designed a bicameral legislature with distinct characteristics for each chamber. The House of Representatives was intended to be the democratic element of government, with members directly elected by the people and representation apportioned according to population. This satisfied the need for popular representation while acknowledging its potential dangers.
The Senate, by contrast, was designed as a deliberately undemocratic institution that would protect the interests of the states as sovereign entities. Senators were originally selected by state legislatures rather than by popular vote, and each state received equal representation regardless of size. This structure ensured that smaller, rural states could not be overwhelmed by larger, more populous urban states.
This same principle was reflected in many state constitutions, which often created upper legislative chambers (state senates) that provided disproportionate representation to rural counties or regions. The typical arrangement involved one senator per county or district, regardless of population, with senators often selected by county legislatures rather than directly by voters.
The ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 fundamentally altered the nature of the Senate by mandating the direct election of senators by popular vote. Proponents argued this would make the Senate more democratic and responsive to the people, but it overlooked the essential purpose of the Senate as a protector of state interests.
Senators, once accountable to state legislatures, became answerable to the electorate at large. This shifted their loyalty from protecting state interests to appealing to popular sentiment. While the equal representation of states (two per state) remained intact, the character of the Senate changed dramatically. Urban population centers gained disproportionate influence over senators, even from predominantly rural states. With senators no longer serving as ambassadors of state governments to the federal level, the natural check on federal power was weakened. The 17th Amendment thus represented the first major step away from the Founders’ federalist vision and toward a more centralized, democratic system.
The 1964 Supreme Court decision in Reynolds v. Sims delivered a devastating blow to the principle of balanced representation at the state level. The case arose from a challenge to Alabama’s apportionment system, which gave equal representation to each county in the state senate regardless of population.
The Court ruled that state legislative districts must be approximately equal in population, invoking the “one person, one vote” principle. This decision effectively eliminated the rural protection mechanisms that many states had built into their constitutions.
The Reynolds decision represents a clear example of judicial overreach for several reasons:
- No Constitutional Authority: The Constitution contains no provision granting federal courts the power to determine how states must apportion their legislatures. The Tenth Amendment reserves such powers to the states.
- Violation of State Sovereignty: The Court ordered states to rewrite their constitutions and long-standing apportionment schemes, directly contravening the principle that states are sovereign entities except as limited by the Constitution.
- Usurpation of Political Process: Apportionment decisions are inherently political questions that the Constitution entrusts to the political process, not to judicial fiat.
The impact of this decision has been profound:
- Loss of Rural Voice: By requiring population-based representation, Reynolds eliminated the structural protection that rural areas enjoyed in state legislatures.
- Urban Dominance: State politics became increasingly dominated by urban population centers, with rural concerns often ignored.
- Policy Consequences: This shift has contributed to the implementation of policies that favor urban interests at the expense of rural communities, particularly in areas like environmental regulation, land use, and resource allocation.
The combined effect of the 17th Amendment and Reynolds v. Sims has been the systematic marginalization of rural voices in American politics. This is particularly troubling because rural communities represent not just a minority of the population, but a distinct way of life with legitimate interests that differ from those of urban dwellers.
As we see with the rise of Democratic Socialists and other centralized ideologies, urban population centers tend to favor more centralized government solutions. Without constitutional protections, rural areas become subject to the tyranny of the majority, their values and interests overwhelmed by urban preferences.
This dynamic creates a dangerous polarization, as rural communities feel increasingly alienated from a political system that no longer represents their interests. The resulting resentment and division threaten the very fabric of our union, and in communist countries led to the death of over 100 million people through famines and starvation, executions, and gross mismanagement by the central planners.
Reclaiming our republican form of government requires addressing both the 17th Amendment and the Reynolds v. Sims decision. While challenging, these steps are essential to restoring the balance of power that the Founders intended.
Repealing the 17th Amendment would return the selection of senators to state legislatures, reestablishing the Senate as a genuine protector of state interests. This would:
- Restore state sovereignty by giving states direct representation in the federal government
- Rebalance the political equation between urban and rural interests
- Create a natural check on federal expansion of power
The reality, when it comes to repealing the 17th Amendment, is that it will likely only happen through an Article V. Convention, which carries with it its own challenges and lineups of opponents.
Reversing Reynolds v. Sims means getting a case to the United Supreme Court, and while High Court precedents are not easily overturned, several approaches could restore balance to state legislative representation:
- Supreme Court Reversal: A future Court could recognize the constitutional error in Reynolds and return apportionment authority to the states.
- Constitutional Amendment: An amendment explicitly affirming states’ authority to determine their own legislative structures.
- State Initiatives: States could implement creative solutions that balance population-based representation with geographic representation within the constraints of current doctrine.
Alongside these structural reforms, other measures can help restore republican principles:
- Revitalizing Localism: Encouraging greater local control over education, land use, and other matters best handled at the community level.
- Protecting Natural Rights: Vigorously defending all natural rights, whether enumerated or not in the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, which serves as a final check on governmental overreach.
- Civic Education: Reinvigorating public understanding of our constitutional republic and the principles of federalism.
The restoration of our republican form of government requires the concerted effort of patriots who understand the dangers of unchecked democracy and the importance of balanced representation. We must:
- Educate Ourselves and Others: Study the Constitution and the Founders’ writings to understand the principles of federalism and republican government.
- Support Constitutional Amendments: Advocate for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and other measures that would restore balance to our system.
- Engage Locally: Participate in local government and community organizations to rebuild the foundations of self-government.
- Elect Principled Representatives: Support candidates who understand and respect the constitutional design of our government.
- Petition for Redress: Exercise our constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, as articulated in the First Amendment.
The Founders designed a brilliant system of government that balanced competing interests and secured minority rights while allowing for democratic participation. This system has been gradually eroded by allegedly well-intentioned but misguided reforms that have moved us away from our republican roots toward a more centralized democracy.
By understanding the damage caused by the 17th Amendment and Reynolds v. Sims, and by working to restore the constitutional balance they disrupted, we can begin to reclaim the republic that the Founders bequeathed to us. This is not a partisan issue but a constitutional one that affects all Americans who value liberty and self-government.
The time has come to restore the proper balance between urban and rural interests, between state and federal authority, and between democracy and republicanism. Only by doing so can we ensure that America remains a land of liberty for all its citizens, not just the majority who happen to live in the most populous areas.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Petition Clause, found in the First Amendment, reads, “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The concept was deeply rooted in English and American colonial practice. It was not an abstract right to be heard, but a concrete, procedural mechanism for popular influence on the legislature.
The right to petition possessed a direct inheritance from English practice. The right to petition the monarch and Parliament was a long-established, if often perilous, tradition in England. It was considered a fundamental liberty, distinct from the right to vote. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 explicitly affirmed the “right of the subjects to petition the king.”
A Procedural Cornerstone of Colonial Legislatures, this practice was institutionalized in the American colonies. Colonial assemblies and, later, state legislatures operated under a set procedural order. Petitions from citizens were the primary way individuals and communities could bring issues to the attention of their government formally. These petitions, often signed by dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of citizens, were presented at the start of the legislative session. They were formally read, often referred to a specific committee for consideration, and a report was expected. This process was a fundamental part of the legislative agenda. It was the people’s direct line to their representatives who were tasked with the legislative power of creating law.
The Original Meaning of “Abridging” in the context of the First Amendment meant exactly what we understand it to mean today: Congress could not interfere with this established procedural mechanism. They could not refuse to receive petitions, refuse to read them, or refuse to consider them. The right was not just to send a piece of paper, but to have it received and processed by the legislative body according to the established rules. It was a right to a formal hearing, not a right to be agreed with.
The practice was effectively destroyed by the explosion of anti-slavery petitions in the 1830s.
Abolitionist groups, particularly those led by figures like William Lloyd Garrison, organized massive petition drives. From the mid-1830s onward, Congress was inundated with tens of thousands of petitions calling for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and for prohibiting its admission into new territories.
Pro-slavery members of Congress, especially from the South, found these petitions offensive and disruptive. They argued that even receiving and tabling the petitions was an implicit recognition of the abolitionists’ right to question the “peculiar institution” of slavery, which they believed was beyond Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate in the states. To deal with this “nuisance,” beginning in 1836, the House of Representatives adopted a series of “gag rules.” These were standing orders that automatically tabled (i.e., set aside without consideration) all petitions relating to slavery. The petitions were received but immediately dismissed.
The gag rules sparked a fierce constitutional debate. Former President John Quincy Adams, then a member of the House, became the most vocal opponent. He argued passionately that the gag rule was a direct and unconstitutional violation of the Petition Clause. He contended that the right to petition was meaningless if the petitions could not be heard, and that the people had a right to use their government to voice their grievances on any issue, including slavery. The fight over the gag rule was a crucial precursor to the broader sectional conflict over slavery.
Although the gag rules were eventually repealed in 1844, the damage was done. The procedural tradition of considering petitions as a first order of business was broken. The sheer volume of modern political communication, combined with the bitter memory of the slavery controversy, meant that the old system never returned. The right to petition survived, but its meaning changed. It devolved into a general right to express grievances to the government, which it could choose to accept or ignore, rather than a right to have those grievances formally processed through a set legislative procedure.
In summary, the original meaning of the Petition Clause was a procedural guarantee that the people’s formally presented grievances must be received and considered by the legislature. The crisis over slavery petitions led Congress to violate this principle for its own political convenience, and the original, robust procedural practice never recovered, fading into the more general and less powerful right we understand today.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Iran: No Deal Until No Islam
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Islam is patient. It always has been. President Trump is beginning to realize how diabolically patient Islamic regimes can be. They have no willingness to care about death, destruction, or making honest deals because they believe in the end Allah will provide them with the opportunity to be a part of a worldwide caliphate. They are willing to die for that idea because their adherence to worldwide domination of their destructive ideology is more important than even their own lives. In fact, if they die defending Islam, for them it is a sure path to paradise. They will buy time, endure sanctions, and delay as much as possible with deception and games, and they are willing to be blown back to the Stone Age in the process. They win by outlasting.
The error in President Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding was that there was an Islamic Regime member remaining alive to make a deal. It may sound barbaric, then again we are talking about people with a barbaric mindset; the only way to end the threat that Iran poses is to eliminate Islam from Iran. Any deal in the meantime is a fake truce that is designed to allow them to figure out another way to strike out at the Great Satan, or at least regroup and rearm so that they can fight another day.
Survival and expansion are their main goal – until The West, Israel, and Christianity are ready to disappear and Islam dominates the globe. This is the reality, and until we stop deluding ourselves that anything other than that is true, and that somehow any true and honest deal is possible with Islam, we will be fighting a war with Islam.
The only effective approaches are true, unwavering sanctions, and killing any Islamic leadership and ultimately Islam itself. When sanctions are applied, they don’t work if we allow them to sell to actors like China or Russia. There must be relentless pressure, or sanctions not only won’t work, they assist the enemies of America. Therefore, a military option must always be an option. The Crusaders understood this. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison understood this. They knew this during their war with the Barbary States – and it was the fear of continued military attacks that led Islam to stop harassing American shipping. Back then, all leaders of the United States, after learning the failed lessons of paying tribute during the Washington and Adams administrations, were willing to continue the barrage and Islam knew it, so they made the deal and left us alone for many decades not because they can make a deal, but because they realized their best strategy was patience. Today’s Islam knows that the leftists of the world can be manipulated, fooled, and lied to, so they will not make a deal. They will continue to work on nuclear weapons, they will continue to send their poison across borders into other countries. Why? Because they know that nobody like Donald J. Trump has the guts or the determination to keep this up. Eventually, his presidency will end. Eventually, his opposition will have a voice larger than it is. Then, they will resume their terror, assisted by their allies who are unwilling to ever stand against them on the political left.
I want nothing more for the Iranian people who are desperate for relief from Islam’s terror than a new form of government. I want peace and prosperity for them. But, there will be no deal and no peace until Islam’s leadership is broken in Iran, and Islam understands that we will not stop until they draw down.
And even if there eventually is a deal, it will not end Islam’s terror. They will continue to wage proxy wars against Israel. They will continue to launch attacks worldwide. And they will continue to invade Europe through migration. Unless the deal eliminates their opportunity to fund their terror, they will maintain their goal of waiting out the infidel until they can return to a path to complete their revolutionary ambitions, and their apocalyptic view of the future. Negotiation that does not completely remove the Islamic leadership will not do anything other than allow them to wait us out, and ultimately expand and strengthen their resolve.
Understand, their goal is worldwide chaos. Worldwide war and terror. Death and destruction. They believe, if the world reaches a level of Armageddon, that is when the worldwide caliphate will rise, and the rocks themselves will shout to point out the Jews and Christians that they must kill to complete their Islamization of the world. They will lie in negotiations, they will strategize to outlast Trump, and they will use any other deceptive overtures to make sure that in the end they dominate the world. Nothing else, to them, matters.
As former Prime Minister Golda Meir once said, “Peace will come when the Arabs [Islam] will love their children more than they hate us.”
They will never love life more than death because in violent death against the infidel they reach paradise. They are committed to spreading Islam worldwide more than they are committed to surviving on Earth in human form. They have laid out their mission clearly to us, yet we refuse to listen.
“The constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community.”
Such is Islam’s unwavering commitment to its ideological mission.
The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, left no room for ambiguity, declaring:
“We shall export our revolution to the whole world. Until the cry ‘There is no god but Allah’ resounds over the whole world, there will be struggle.”
These statements unequivocally reveal the Iranian regime’s ambitions.
We must stop believing anything else is the truth.
Khomeini once chillingly proclaimed:
“We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”
They tell us to our face, yet some of us refuse to believe it is true. They thrive on terrorism, genocide against the unbeliever, and deception, and they are not shy about revealing that that is what they are all about, yet we have those who scream that the opposite is true – that standing against the threat of Islam is somehow evil and genocidal. The mission must be to completely bring down the regime in Iran, and send a message to other Islamic leaders that the same is coming should they carry out the same kind of revolutionary ideological terror that Tehran has been carrying out for half a century. They have no political restraints. They have no humanity as we might view reason and peace. We must not leave this regime intact, or they will, someday, have a nuclear weapon and they will be willing to use it on the world. No other option is available. Such is the reality of Islam.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary