Political Pistachio
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
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In America, we have developed an unhealthy dependence on legal precedent. Instead of grounding our freedoms in the self‑evident, God‑given rights the Founders recognized, we increasingly allow unelected lawyers, elevated to the status of judicial elites, to redefine those rights from the bench. Over time, the public has been conditioned to believe that a judge’s opinion is the true measure of legality and morality, as if the Constitution itself were secondary to the interpretations of those who wear black robes. As a result, people now look to court rulings to validate or condemn their actions, and when no legal consequences follow, it becomes an open invitation for others to repeat the same behavior.
Religious liberty resides at the very root and foundation of the American Story. Christianity is not just some decorative ideal. Religious freedom has historically been viewed as a necessity born from a long history of tyranny and conflict. The early colonists braved the crossing of the Atlantic Ocean for the ideal that government has no authority over the soul. The Founding Fathers inherited that memory, understanding that a free people cannot exist when government or ideology claims jurisdiction over conscience.
While natural rights like speech, press, assembly or the right to keep and bear arms are important, the first clause in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins with the freedom of worship. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Founding Fathers placed religious liberty first because it is the fountainhead of all other liberties. If the state can command your conscience, it can command anything.
From that principle flows the reality that churches are not public venues. They are private institutions. They are voluntary associations of believers. They are outside the realm of government precisely because they are not arms of the state. A church is not a park, a courthouse, or a community center. It is a private body gathered for a sacred purpose at a place that belongs to a private owner. They are the Lord’s House. The Constitution shields The Church from governmental interference not as a courtesy, but as a recognition of jurisdiction. Caesar has no authority to rule over the sanctuary in the same way they have no authority to rule your every action inside your own home.
Historically, the United States has traditionally been extraordinarily careful about keeping government out of church governance, doctrine, membership, and worship practices. Even eccentric churches have experienced government protecting their autonomy. Today, we see the wisdom of that practice – if government can dictate how one church must operate, then it can dictate how all churches must operate. And if private groups – activists, mobs, or ideological opponents – could force their way into a church’s internal life, the First Amendment would be meaningless.
Worship is a public good, shaping the culture and the public’s view of moral self-governance. While churches remain private institutions, freedom of worship also requires freedom from coercion, whether by the state or by private actors trying to impose their will – which creates a balance that has made the United States uniquely stable in its religious diversity. America does not demand uniformity, or for churches to mirror the culture or particular movements. Sanctuaries are not public squares open to ideological pressure. They are individual and independent congregations assembling according to their own convictions, trusting that a free people, guided by conscience rather than compulsion, honors the sanctity of the churches around the country and uses the moral foundation provided by Faith to build a stronger nation.
With the understanding that religious freedom is among the bedrock principles of the United States, it makes the recent intrusion by somewhere between 20 and 40 anti-ICE agitators into a St. Paul church extremely alarming. The fact that a journalist, Don Lemon, entered the sanctuary alongside the mob and actively engaged with the congregation raises serious questions about the boundaries of press freedom and the integrity of religious liberty. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential rights, but like all rights, they do not extend to actions that violate the rights of others. The First Amendment does not enumerate any kind of authority for anyone to storm a private religious service, antagonize worshippers, or interfere with the free exercise of faith.
The Trump administration’s DOJ has moved quickly seeking arresting some of the perpetrators, but progressive judges have battled with prosecutors, refusing to sign warrants for the arrests and challenging the charges. Harmeet Dhillon recently stated that the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ is currently investigating several attacks on houses of worship, including synagogues. Dhillon has obtained several convictions in such cases in the last year. In August of 2025, if you recall, there was a fatal shooting attack on the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minnesota leading to the death of two children and injuries to 19 others, and a month later in Michigan a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) meetinghouse was torched after a man rammed his truck into the front wall and opened fire on the congregation – the attack led to the death of four church members.
“We are grateful that the Department of Justice acted swiftly to protect Cities Church so that we can continue to faithfully live out the church’s mission to worship Jesus and make him known,” Jonathan Parnell, the St. Paul church’s lead pastor said in a statement.
“The freedom to worship God without fear of violence and intimidation is a fundamental right that defines who we are as Americans,” the attorneys representing the church said. “True North Legal and Cities Church are grateful that the Department of Justice is committed to upholding that freedom and is holding the agitators who invaded the church accountable.”
It is critical that the intrusion by the agitators does not go unpunished. As stated earlier, churches are not public venues. They are private institutions gathered for a sacred purpose, and the Constitution secures religious freedom precisely because they are not open to ideological intrusion. The moment we treat a sanctuary as if it were a public square – open to disruption, protest, or political theater – we erode the very principle that has allowed diverse faith communities to flourish in this country.
The concern here is not merely about one incident or one individual. It is about precedent. If a journalist can enter a church uninvited, participate in a disruptive mob, antagonize the pastor and congregation, and then claim immunity under the banner of “press freedom,” what prevents future activists from doing the same? If such actions carry no legal consequences, then the right to worship freely becomes a hollow promise. If people like Don Lemon gets away with his horrific participation with mobs invading a church, how long before people begin to act upon calls by people like Kathy Griffin to make a list of their political enemies – presumably so that those people can be rounded up later once their ideology once again ascends to political power? Or, act upon ramblings of ideologues like a Chicago nurse reportedly fired after describing how it is his opinion that ICE agents can bleed out and urging healthcare organizations to terminate MAGA workers.
The Department of Justice is currently investigating a disruptive protest of a Democratic congressman speaking at a Jewish temple by a left-wing activist group. The congressman, Tom Suozzi (D-NY) was one of the seven Democrats to vote for a bill funding DHS, the agency that executing immigration law falls under.
The danger is not hypothetical. When society begins to treat religious gatherings as fair game for ideological confrontation, the moral foundation of the nation begins to crack. Natural rights depend on mutual respect and legal boundaries. If one group’s claimed “right” becomes a weapon used to trample another’s, then rights cease to be rights at all. It is then that they become tools of coercion.
The United States has long recognized that the sanctuary is off‑limits to both governmental interference and private disruption. That tradition must be upheld. If the St. Paul intrusion is allowed to stand without accountability, it signals to the country that religious liberty is negotiable, conditional, or secondary. And once that message takes root, the erosion of natural rights will not stop at the church door.
Protecting the free exercise of religion is not merely about defending a building or a congregation. It is about defending the principle that conscience is beyond the reach of mobs, media personalities, and political agendas. If we fail to uphold that principle now, we may find that the freedoms we take for granted have all quietly slipped away.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Federal investigators say Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D‑FL) is at the center of a sprawling scheme involving “serious financial crimes.” On February 3, 2026, she pleaded not guilty in federal court to charges that she conspired to steal $5 million in FEMA disaster and COVID‑19 relief funds, along with making illegal campaign contributions. Her attorney entered the plea in Miami while she remained in Washington, D.C.
Prosecutors have filed 15 federal counts, including theft of government funds, money laundering, and campaign finance violations. Her previous counsel withdrew, leaving her new attorney, William Barzee, to handle the arraignment. Cherfilus‑McCormick remains free on a $60,000 bond but is now subject to strict travel limits, confined to Florida, Washington, D.C., Maryland, and the Eastern District of Virginia. If convicted, she faces a potential 53‑year prison sentence.
The legal pressure intensified last week when the House Ethics Committee announced it had found “substantial evidence” of violations involving campaign finance laws, ethics rules, and federal standards. Representative Greg Steube (R‑FL) responded by announcing his intention to file a resolution to expel her from Congress.
According to The Daily Signal, the committee reviewed more than 33,000 documents, conducted 28 witness interviews, and produced a 59‑page report outlining over two dozen alleged violations and more than $5 million in misappropriated funds.
The committee is scheduled to reconvene on March 5.
Cherfilus‑McCormick maintains her innocence, stating, “I reject these allegations and remain confident the full facts will make clear I did nothing wrong.”
Expulsion would require a two‑thirds vote. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D‑NY) has already signaled that Democrats will oppose the effort. Their decision to rally around a member facing extensive fraud allegations mirrors their broader pattern of circling the wagons around misconduct, criminality and fraud not only within their own ranks, but in order to preserve their narrative regarding amnesty and immigration (Minnesota’s Somali-fraud, California’s alleged fraud, and their anti-ICE position to protect criminal aliens comes to mind) – a questionable hill to defend considering the fact that they are already losing public trust and could face serious consequences for their pro-corruption stances in the upcoming Mid-Term Elections.
If expelled, Cherfilus‑McCormick would become the second member of Congress removed in recent years. In December 2023, George Santos (R‑NY) was expelled following his indictment on multiple federal charges, including wire fraud, money laundering, and identity theft. His was the first expulsion in more than two decades.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Reader: I’ve been warned that people don’t read long articles, and this one is long. Let’s see what kind of person you are, dear reader, when we get to the end.
Why are the Democrats putting criminal illegal aliens ahead of Americans?
The opposition will argue that the statement about why some people put criminal aliens ahead of Americans makes no sense to them. To them, it is simply not true, not because of the statement, but because of the premise. They have so bought into the “no person is illegal” argument, and even their “nobody is illegal on stolen land” idiocy that the very question about criminal aliens and the concept of America has become foreign to them. They have established in their minds that anyone who has made their way into North America and South America are Americans, and everyone is a peaceful soul if we just got to know them and ICE has somehow abandoned the law enforcement concept of probable cause…and even if they haven’t abandoned that concept, being in the country illegally is not illegal so there is no probable cause. So, from their point of view, ICE is simply walking around the streets pointing at brown people and saying, “they look like we shouldn’t like them. Get ‘em!”
This is where sanctuary state laws came from. If the federal government is executing unlawful laws because nobody is illegal, then states have every right to refuse to cooperate with immigration law. That’s why recently elected Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has repealed prior policies directing state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – joining California, Minnesota and a long list of states, cities and other local jurisdictions.
They have so bought into their narrative that nobody is illegal, and nobody is a criminal, that they are even willing to vote against congressional bills mandating the deportation of illegal aliens who are sex offenders. Not because they are trying to protect sex offenders, they will tell you, but because they believe there is no such thing as illegals.
After years of losing confidence by voters over their defund the police campaign, they are now in full swing of calling for the abolition of ICE. Eventually, I have no doubt, they will push for the elimination of immigration laws. No border. No sovereignty. “We Are The World” cultural Marxist madness. Why? They’ve been programmed to think that way, and are happy to do so.
If you ask them directly about their mental madness, they are proud of it. Sean Hannity of Fox News asked Democrat Congressman Shri Thanedar if he regretted voting against the bill to deport illegals convicted of sex crimes, and Shri responded, “No.” He then went on to call ICE agents, “murderers.”
Shri is one of those members of the Democratic Party who have told you that ICE needs to be abolished, they are murderers, they are the Gestapo, and Trump is a murdering racist fascist for daring to use immigration agents to execute immigration law.
Meanwhile, on the streets of America the anti-ICE rioters are not only weaponizing their vehicles, storming into churches, and committing violence on the streets against federal law enforcement, but they are emboldening the criminal illegal aliens to do the same. In Texas, an illegal alien rammed a car into ICE vehicles, injuring multiple agents. The hard-left Democrats are applauding him for it.
The Democrats cheered when the destruction of federal vehicles in Minneapolis was filmed, and an FBI weapons locker was pulled out of a vehicle, and looted. That particular riot broke out after an officer shot one of three illegal aliens who were savagely attacking him after a targeted traffic stop. One of the rioters who broke into the FBI weapons locker was identified as a Latin Kings gang member. A person President Trump would call one of the “worst of the worst.” The suspect, 33 year old Raul Gutierrez, was arrested for stealing from that weapons locker FBI body armor and weaponry. This criminal gang member, who is in the United States illegally, is a danger to our communities and a perfect example as to why President Trump is conducting his immigration operations. The response from the Democrats? Anger. They are angry because federal law enforcement arrested a person who vandalized an FBI vehicle, stole weapons from it, and has a long list of previous felony convictions… because their anger at Trump for enforcing immigration law has them blind to the rest of the reality regarding this person. I am surprised, to be frank, that a federal leftist judge hasn’t called for Gutierrez’s release, yet, like we’ve seen with many other rioters and illegal aliens.
The Democrats want you to believe that ICE is the problem, and that enforcing immigration laws is somehow illegal. Granted, we are seeing here and there pro-immigration enforcement rallies in some places. Americans, I believe, are sick of the radical anti-ICE leftists wreaking havoc in America. Americans are tired of the lies about illegal aliens detained by ICE being spread by the Democrats and the media, and the Democrat Party’s endorsement of left-wing violence in the streets. It’s a bait and switch – they scream their anti-ICE narrative, lie about the facts, and then hide from the public what they don’t want you to know.
But, it’s the same ol’ – same ol’. To protect their narrative you only get to see what they want you to see.
Immigration agents aren’t just walking around out there pointing at anyone they think are illegal aliens or not acceptable because of their skin color and “disappearing” them without probable cause. They are using investigative techniques to identify, locate, and then apprehend the “worst of the worst.” The list of captures includes criminal illegal aliens from a variety of countries who are convicted sex offenders, violent criminals, drug traffickers, and others.
The Democrats and their allies with their propaganda campaigns have even gone so far as to claim that ICE detained a 5-year-old child, calling the targeting of the child “vile.” The lie was exposed quickly when it was revealed the child was abandoned by the illegal alien they were pursuing, and ICE officers remained with the child while the other agents pursued and apprehended Conejo Arias. But, even after the truth was put out there, the leftist media and Democrats continued to put out their false story.
They are also putting out there that ICE is going after citizens, and when ChongLy Scott Thao was escorted by ICE officers they believed they had their smoking gun. Sometimes, citizens will be caught up in the investigations. Thao was at a house where ICE agents were told was the location two sex offenders were hiding out, and they detained Thao to question him and until they were able to verify his identity. Border Czar Tom Homan explained that ICE has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen if they have probable cause of a crime.
The Democrats and their leftist allies, however, praise the “resistance,” and bathe in their approval of the violence of the rioters using their vehicles as weapons and even one individual “biting off the finger of a federal agent in Minneapolis.”
When rioters invaded a church in St. Paul, a leftist judge denied the arrest warrants and have rejected the Justice Department’s charges against the anti-ICE agitators who invaded the church during Sunday service. According to the charging documents, worshippers were “terrorized…children were weeping…one woman broke her arm…agitators blocked congregants from exiting…[and] told young children their parents are Nazis and going to burn in Hell.” And the Democrats are even defending those anti-ICE rioters. For them it was a win-win. They support the rioters, and they hate Christians.
But if you ask any of them why we have these domestic war zones, the Democrats and their allies immediately blame Trump. Mayors are coordinating together to help the war against Trump, and ICE… but nobody sees any of it not only as a violation of federal law, but they refuse to call it what it is: Insurrection.
Hakeem Jefferies, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said DHS Secretary Noem needs to be put on ice, permanently. An obvious call for her death. But nobody blinked an eye?
It didn’t phase the Democrats and their lefty followers because in their minds they have bought into all of the rhetoric. They firmly and truly believe they are battling this generation’s version of Hitler, the Nazis, and the Gestapo. In their feeble minds they believe they are resisting the kind of evil that could lead to a world war and the loss of hundreds of millions of lives. They march by the thousands in New York City and Minneapolis and all over the country in support of the unfounded rhetoric that the Democrats use. Why? Because they can’t win in the arena of ideas, and the lies have somehow been transformed into truth somewhere in the deepest darkest depths of their souls. They have been, after all, taught since they first entered public education to believe that anyone who stands against the progressive left is a fascist, oligarch supporting, hateful, racist, white supremacist. In short, they have fallen for the class-warfare tactics of the purveyors of a cultural Marxist revolution. They blindly have fallen for the very thing they claim they are fighting against. They are doing the bidding of those who seek authoritarian rule because they believe they are fighting the ultimate evil of Hitleric authoritarian rule.
So, they celebrate Don Lemon’s insurrectionist attack on a church, of which a judge (or at least the first one) blocked his arrest after the former CNN host participated in the shameful attack on a church while claiming he was simply being a journalist. They fight and claw and protest and commit violent acts because they believe they are saving America from the worst kind of authoritarianism anyone can imagine, and because they believe America is behind them and Hispanics are convinced that Trump is the Devil…except, that is not what is happening.
According to polls not put out by leftist media, Americans not only support Trump’s work to mass deport illegal aliens, but they overwhelmingly support it. 73 Percent say entering the country without legal permission is breaking the law. By a two-to-one margin, 61 percent to 34 percent, voters support deporting those in the country illegally. A majority, 54 percent, want ICE actively enforcing immigration law. 58 percent oppose defunding ICE.
According to a Rasmussen poll, Donald Trump’s approval rating among Hispanics is at 53%.
So, what is going on? Why all of the violence? Don’t they realize they are being stupid, and are on the losing side?
The answer is simply because some Americans have lost their ability to critically think, and instead they glorify immaturity, lack poise, lack self-control, lack grace, and have basically been stuck at age twelve when it comes to their maturity. They have been, after all, trained by education, entertainment and the media to be that way. They are hypersensitive, and believe the Democrats when they say that Trump is Hitler, his supporters are Nazis, and federal law enforcement is the Gestapo.
In other words, they are those that 2 Timothy 3:1-5 describes will be around during “the last days,” explicitly attributing childlike behavior and attitudes to adults. “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power.”
As Harbinger’s Daily explains: Society is geared to childish thinking. Social media encourages simple thoughts condensed into short, ad copy style wording. People in our time don’t want detailed, thoughtful reasoning, but drop mic moments. I’m astounded at the praise given to celebrities when they answer critics with the equivalent of, “Oh yeah?” — except with not-safe-for-work language… like 12-year-olds.
There is merit to the idea that 12 has become the median psychological age of a large part of adult America. Those same adults have thrown away childlike innocence, opting instead for Sodom and Gomorrah — life at its lowest level. Consequently, a Lord of the Flies mentality full of savagery and rage is increasing across the land.
As for you, my faithful reader, you are definitely not one of them. I know so because their short attention span and fear of the truth would have never allowed them to completely read this article to its end; but you, my friend, made it to the final sentence because you are not them.
God Bless.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary