Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
During the pandemic (that I call the scamdemic), I refused to wear a mask or be injected. My wife also never received the jab, wearing a mask at work only because she faced termination otherwise. We didn’t stay home. We didn’t play the six-feet social distancing game. I taught two Constitution classes weekly, each with at least a dozen students. I attended church every Sunday at a packed venue where nobody wore masks. We dined at restaurants that refused to comply with the mandates and we traveled to Yuma, Arizona and St. George, Nevada for weekend getaways because those locations remained largely mask-free. Neither of us ever contracted COVID.
In a conversation during the twilight of the COVID madness with one of my sisters-in-law, she said to me, “So, let me get this straight. You and Virginia didn’t wear masks and didn’t receive the vaccine, and you didn’t get COVID? Mom and I wore masks all the time and got all the shots and boosters, and we both came down with COVID three times.”
I questioned the validity of mainstream political claims from the very beginning. “Where are the bodies in the streets?” I asked. Every death happened in hospitals. Some people died, but it was obvious that the numbers were being padded, and the disease was not the Captain Tripps (from Stephen King’s THE STAND) that they were trying to make it out to be.
I never believed Dr. Anthony Fauci or the wet-market argument. My theory was that the creation and release of the COVID virus was done deliberately by China and members of the Trump-Hating Deep State who were willing to do whatever it took to ensure a distraction large enough to influence the 2020 Election and divert attention from the fraudulent activities committed by those still angry that Donald Trump had derailed their plans when he beat Hillary Clinton four years earlier. The only problem was that the virus wasn’t as deadly as they’d hoped – but they still played the game as originally intended and did everything they could to drum up panic.
To cover up the lab-release of the virus, Dr. Fauci pushed the wet-market myth, presenting the Huanan Seafood Market as the probable site where Covid-19 first crossed into humans. However, Fauci’s own contemporaneous information, including his personal diary, indicate the virus was circulating before it reached the market. According to Fauci’s notes regarding the “Proximal Origin” conference call, only two of the 12 scientists participating believed a natural origin was likely. Released Slack messages reveal Kristian Anderson, the lead author of the “Proximal Origin” paper, not only admitted the lab escape version was likely the true version but wrote that “they were already doing this type of work and molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” The authors continued to express doubts about their own conclusions while publicly defending the paper and portraying laboratory involvement as scientifically implausible.
He used government funds to bribe doctors and finance papers to confirm his argument that the wet-market theory was accurate. He set the process for the COVID origins argument and was intimately involved in managing its publication.
Fauci destroyed evidence and encouraged others to do so. On February 2, 2020, he instructed NIH Director Francis Collins to “please delete this e-mail after you read it” a day after the “Proximal Origin” conference call. He issued another delete-after-reading instruction to his own staff in July 2020. He later testified before Congress that he never deleted federal records or sought to obstruct their production.
On May 23, 2021, reports emerged that in November 2019, three researchers had become ill with COVID-like symptoms. Kristian Anderson wrote, according to a released Slack message, that the team “get it and deeply appreciate what we’re doing, so we’ll keep dancing.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci later testified under oath that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) never funded gain-of-function research (altering a pathogen’s abilities to study it) at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was suggested as the origin of the COVID virus. A documented funding trail confirmed that NIH was indeed providing this funding, which means he lied to Congress.
Not only was there funding, but the work was maniacally sinister at best, and they remained silent about it. The furin cleavage site, for example, is a short insertion in the virus’ spike protein that enables host enzymes to cleave the protein efficiently, significantly affecting the virus’ ability to infect cells and spread. SARS-CoV-2’s furin cleavage site is absent from all its closest known relatives. No natural SARS-like coronavirus with a furin cleavage site has ever been found. It was inserted purposely, and researchers had already demonstrated a keen interest in introducing such cleavage sites into SARS-related coronaviruses. The 2018 DEFUSE proposal, led by Fauci’s longtime grantee Peter Daszak in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, expressly proposed searching for “potential furin cleavage sites” and inserting “appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” into SARS-related viruses before testing their growth in human airway cells. Fauci’s diary records that by Jan. 31, 2020, approximately half of the scientists involved in early discussions believed the virus looked “constructed,” with the furin cleavage site at the center of their concerns.
With his Deep State connections, Fauci used the intelligence community, media, and political officeholders to influence the narrative, presenting scientists associated with the natural-origin narrative as authoritative advisers. He presented himself as a detached scientific observer while privately participating in the national-security process to shape the government’s conclusions.
Fauci’s diary reveals how one driving force was his own hubris and desire for glory and recognition. He bathed in the limelight, giddy about the worship he received. His desire for recognition appears in newly released emails showing Fauci repeatedly soliciting scientists with longstanding financial relationships with NIAID to nominate him for prestigious and potentially lucrative awards, while Fauci and his taxpayer-funded staff supplied and helped prepare nomination materials. Federal ethics rules prohibit government employees from using public office for private gain or using their position to induce others to provide financial benefits. NIH rules also require advance written ethics approval before any employee can accept an outside award.
During the COVID scamdemic, churches were threatened for meeting and schools were shut down, but Fauci insisted he “had nothing to do with” closing schools and had not recommended locking anything down. However, Fauci’s March 15, 2020 diary entry records he spoke directly with New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to convince him to close the city’s schools, urging him to close its bars and restaurants. He had a similar call with California Governor Gavin Newsom’s chief of staff, who told Fauci that the doctor’s television appearances had prompted the governor to close schools, bars, and restaurants across California. Fauci publicly expressed support for aggressive national restrictions, including a possible 14-day shutdown, while New York City’s schools closed that same day using his “follow the science” mantra to evade admitting any wrongdoing.
According to his diary, Fauci publicly lied about the virus’s fatality rate, telling the public it was 2-2.5 percent while privately recording it was more like 0.2-0.3 percent. People died in hospitals as a result of Remdesivir and ventilators while being denied access to proven medications like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin; all because President Trump said those medications worked for him, and the goal was to use the disease to destroy Trump.
As Dr. Anthony Fauci’s diary entries reveal his fixation on his newfound celebrity and how he lied and deceived the public and any political opposition, leftist mainstream and legacy media outlets refuse to report it. Fauci’s diary entries, released by Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY), are now the focus of Fauci’s recent congressional hearing, during which the good doctor refused to answer questions by invoking the Fifth Amendment “right to remain silent” 111 times. From the media? Not a peep.
Fauci wrote in his diary about making sure the press was complicit, which makes their silence even more troubling. He wrote that CNN anchor Jake Tapper privately checked to make sure a canceled CNN interview hadn’t caused problems with the White House. When The Atlantic’s Peter Nicholas suggested Fauci had been “humiliated” over the canceled interview, Fauci fired back in his diary with an F-Bomb. In April 2021, Fauci had a heated exchange with GOP Ohio representative Jim Jordan, and in his diary he indicated CNN’s Dana Bash texted him, calling Fauci the “better man” and relaying that fellow CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer had joked no one would have blamed Fauci if he had used the same F-Bomb on Jordan.
While talkative in his diary, Fauci now has nothing to say. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) made Fauci look ridiculous with his use of the Fifth Amendment, walking him through a series of innocuous questions during which Fauci invoked the Fifth for each one – including what color his tie was and what color the carpet on the floor was. The problem is that the Fifth Amendment is designed to secure the right not to self-incriminate, and since Fauci received a pardon from President Biden, there is no chance to self-incriminate. It’s gone. Therefore, Fauci’s opportunity to use the Fifth is legally nullified, making his refusal to answer questions contempt of Congress and obstruction.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday, April 28, 2026 (after a federal grand jury indictment on April 16, 2026) Dr. David M. Morens, a top advisor to Dr. Anthony Fauci, was arrested and charged with conspiracy and destruction of federal records. The charges, brought by the FBI, Justice Department, and the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general, allege the former senior scientific advisor at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci led for 38 years, committed conspiracy against the United States; destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations; concealment, removal or mutilation of records; and aiding and abetting.
Morens served as a senior advisor in NIAID’s Office of the Director from 2006 through 2022, the year Fauci retired.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said: “These allegations represent a profound abuse of trust at a time when the American people needed it most – during the height of a global pandemic. As alleged in the indictment, Dr. Morens and his co-conspirators deliberately concealed information and falsified records in an effort to suppress alternative theories regarding the origins of COVID-19. Government officials have a solemn duty to provide honest, well-grounded facts and advice in service of the public interest – not to advance their own personal or ideological agendas.”
FBI Director Kash Patel stated: “Circumventing records protocols with the intention of avoiding transparency is something that will not be tolerated by this agency. Not only did Morens allegedly engage in the illegal obfuscation of his communications, but he received kickbacks for doing so. If you have engaged in activity conspiring against the United States, we will not stop until you face justice.”
Fauci and his associates created the pandemic, lied about it, and did so to target Donald Trump’s presidency. They tried to cover up their activities, and now they are being investigated. We have whistleblowers confirming they lied. It started in Wuhan, with Fauci’s hands deep inside the operation. They never found an animal that transmitted the disease to a human. There is no evidence supporting the natural origin argument. It came out of the lab. And they knew eventually some of this might rise to the surface, so in a panic, Biden pardoned Fauci because he knew they were culpable. Now, Fauci knows he can’t lie, so he’s refusing to say anything. Fauci did so much damage. He knew wearing a mask is pointless when it comes to viruses. He knew the vaccine not only didn’t stop someone from getting COVID but that the dangers of the vaccine were far worse than the disease it claimed to prevent. From what I see, the shot was causing the infections. People got COVID after vaccination. People who didn’t get vaccinated largely did not come down with the disease. As I stated earlier, my sister-in-law and mother-in-law got the shots and boosters and contracted COVID three times. My wife and I, vaccine-free, never got it.
After this is all over, I don’t know what the ultimate result will be. I don’t know if there will be the legal satisfaction we’re seeking. I don’t know if everyone will discover that the whole thing was a lie from day one. The reality, however, is that there’s an avalanche of documents shedding light on the truth, and Senator Rand Paul has them. Though Fauci refuses to say anything, he said everything we need to know in his diary. Fauci and his inner circle said different things publicly and privately. They gave the public one impression while knowing something entirely different was true. They made up the mask and distancing mandates out of thin air. They unnecessarily shut down the country and ruined lives in the process. They steered the press, scientific community, and U.S. intelligence community to spread their lies, even though the handpicked clique of virologists assisting to spread the lie expressed private doubts about their public assertions. A leak of a 2018 U.S.-China grant proposal posed as a blueprint for COVID. It had been in their plans all along. The scamdemic was created, birthed, coordinated, and orchestrated against the world, making the perpetrators guilty of crimes against humanity. A lab was modifying viruses, engineering viruses, manufacturing viruses, and unleashing them on mankind.
During the hearing, Senator Josh Hawley said that Fauci wanted to think of himself as the “most famous scientist in the world… You’ve done more to harm science than anybody in my lifetime. And I hope you’ll go home and write that in your diary.”
We must not forget the lies by the Biden administration, the Deep State, or Anthony Fauci. We must not forget the lies the media pushed on us. The media lied about Biden’s mental health and about Fauci and COVID. They told us to believe the “experts” for the sake of keeping Democrats in power because in the end, that is what all of this is about: power. They have no principles other than power. They have no foundational beliefs other than power. The ends justify the means to these people. They want power, and Donald Trump, the Constitution, and the American People are in their way, so to get their power, they are willing to lie, destroy, and even kill.
And that, my friends, is true tyranny.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/05/19/fauci-lied-covid-claims
https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/fauci-colleague-david-morens-arrested
https://wltreport.com/2026/07/28/rfk-jr-fauci-serious-medical-event-private-diary/
https://wltreport.com/2026/07/29/rand-paul-fauci-contempt-congress-charges/
https://conservativebrief.com/paul-fauci-attorney-103221
https://thelibertydaily.com/heres-what-we-know-about-key-questions-fauci/
https://conservativebrief.com/rand-paul-fauci-hearing-103217
https://dailycaller.com/2025/09/10/unearthed-emails-anthony-fauci-deleted-records-testimony
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fauci-haunted-2022-nothing-hide-vow-invoking-fifth-amendment-111-times
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/07/29/hawley-remarks-to-fauci-n2204913
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/05/19/fauci-lied-covid-claims
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In what can only be described as constitutional theater of the highest order, Dr. Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 111 times during his recent congressional testimony. The former COVID czar, who once enjoyed near-universal media adoration, now finds himself in the crosshairs of constitutional scrutiny. And as Senator Josh Hawley brilliantly exposed, Fauci’s legal strategy may contain a fatal flaw that could blow up in his face.
The central issue here is straightforward: President Biden issued a broad, retroactive pardon to Fauci in the final hours of his presidency, ostensibly shielding him from any “offenses against the United States he may have taken part in” related to COVID-19. This pardon, however, created a constitutional contradiction that Hawley, a Yale Law School graduate and former Missouri Attorney General, skillfully exploited.
“You don’t have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you’ve been pardoned,” Hawley declared, citing the Supreme Court’s 1896 decision in Brown v. Walker. The legal principle is clear: when a witness has been pardoned for potential offenses, “he may not stand upon his privilege” against self-incrimination.
The logic is irrefutable. The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to provide testimony that could incriminate themselves. If Fauci has already been pardoned for any potential offenses related to his pandemic response, there is literally no risk of self-incrimination. The constitutional purpose of the Fifth Amendment protection has been nullified by the pardon itself.
By repeatedly invoking the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering even the most mundane questions, such as what day it was or what color tie he was wearing, Fauci wasn’t exercising a constitutional right; he was potentially committing contempt of Congress. As Hawley pointed out, when there is no risk of self-incrimination, refusing to answer congressional questions transforms from a protected constitutional act into a criminal offense.
The absurdity reached its peak when Hawley asked simple questions that carried zero legal risk: “What color tie are you wearing?” “What color is the carpet in front of you?” Each time, Fauci responded with his canned Fifth Amendment invocation, despite having no legitimate constitutional basis for doing so.
This legal charade could explode in Fauci’s face in several ways.
First, Congress could hold him in contempt for refusing to answer questions after his pardon eliminated any Fifth Amendment protection. Unlike typical contempt cases that face legal challenges over constitutional rights, Fauci’s pardon would make such a charge nearly impossible to defend against.
Second, as The New York Times notes, Fauci’s pardon “only covers what transpired before it was issued on Jan. 20, 2025.” This means any false statements he made during the hearing itself could potentially expose him to perjury charges, as his pardon wouldn’t cover new offenses committed during testimony.
Third, several states are already launching investigations into Fauci’s conduct, with Alabama’s Tommy Tuberville and Florida’s attorney general announcing separate probes. These state-level investigations wouldn’t be affected by the federal pardon.
The ultimate irony here is that Biden’s attempt to protect Fauci may have inadvertently boxed him into a legal corner. By accepting the pardon, Fauci eliminated his Fifth Amendment protections while simultaneously creating a political firestorm that has only intensified congressional scrutiny.
As Hawley aptly summarized: “The only problem is that Fauci doesn’t have Fifth Amendment protection anymore. President Biden pardoned him in the final hours of his term, which means that Fauci cannot legally ‘stand upon his privilege.'”
This constitutional standoff reveals the dangers of using presidential power as a political shield. What was intended as a get-out-of-jail-free card has instead become a legal straitjacket, potentially transforming Fauci from a protected witness into a congressional contempt defendant.
The Fauci Fifth Amendment spectacle represents more than just another partisan hearing. It demonstrates how constitutional principles can be twisted when political motivations override legal reasoning. Hawley’s constitutional takedown exposes the fundamental flaw in Fauci’s strategy: you cannot simultaneously accept a pardon for potential offenses while claiming protection against self-incrimination for those same offenses.
As this constitutional drama unfolds, one thing is certain: the legal and political fallout from Fauci’s testimony will continue to reverberate long after the hearing ends. And if Hawley’s constitutional analysis proves correct, Fauci’s attempt to shield himself behind the Fifth Amendment may have inadvertently opened the door to the very legal jeopardy he was trying to avoid.
The rule of law demands accountability, even for those who have operated above it for years. In this case, constitutional principle and political accountability may finally be aligning – much to Fauci’s detriment.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Joe Biden’s legal battle to suppress audio recordings from his 2016-2017 ghostwriter sessions has finally ended, and the revelations are damning. Roughly 70 hours of audio and over 100 pages of transcripts have been released after a federal judge dissolved an injunction blocking their publication. The recordings, made while Biden worked with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer on his memoir “Promise Me, Dad,” contain multiple instances of Biden acknowledging he was handling classified information and even sharing it with his unauthorized ghostwriter.
“I just found all the classified stuff downstairs,” Biden is heard saying in one February 2017 recording. In another, he warns, “The next thing I have here is, um, this is classified.” Perhaps most incriminatingly, Biden explicitly states, “Some of this may be classified. So, be careful. I’m not sure. … It’s not marked classified, but…” These acknowledgments directly contradict any claims of inadvertent mishandling, and Biden at one point boasted officials never knew he had them. Some of these sensitive records were found by investigators in his garage, offices, and basement den.
Special Counsel Robert Hur obtained the recordings during his investigation into Biden’s mishandling of classified documents, but declined to prosecute, saying a jury would view Biden with sympathy because he was a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.” And, realize, these recordings took place seven years before Special Counsel Hur made that conclusion.
The Oversight Project, which obtained the recordings through a Freedom of Information Act request after years of legal battles, noted that “the silence of the redactions loudly demonstrates that Biden knowingly and willfully disclosed classified information to his ghostwriter.” The extent of these disclosures was apparently far greater than Special Counsel Robert Hur previously indicated in his investigation.
Perhaps equally concerning are the multiple instances of cognitive lapses captured in the recordings – years before Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign. At various points, Biden struggles to remember details, loses his train of thought, and requires assistance from his ghostwriter to reconstruct past events. Biden was unfit for office, and these tapes reveal that. The Democratic Party was corrupt about Biden before, during, and since his presidency and did everything they could to cover it up. And then, they targeted Trump, and raided Mar-a-Lago.
The hypocrisy of the Justice Department’s handling of classified document cases is glaring. While Jack Smith aggressively pursued Donald Trump for similar allegations with no evidence, the department initially protected Biden by fighting to keep these recordings sealed. The release comes only after Biden dropped his legal challenges following unfavorable court rulings.
The tapes also raise serious questions about why Special Counsel Hur declined to prosecute despite evidence of willful mishandling of classified information. Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice released a sanitized version of these transcripts in 2024, but the actually audio was never handed over. And now that they are available, they reveal that Joe Biden was untruthful, mentally imbalanced, and they serve as an indictment against the deep state that protected him.
These recordings now face full congressional scrutiny, and Congress must confront the evidence they contain: that a former vice president and future president knowingly disclosed classified information to an unauthorized individual and demonstrated cognitive impairment years before his presidential campaign. The American public deserves answers about how someone with these documented issues was allowed to ascend to the presidency, and who participated in concealing this information from voters.
The Biden administration’s attempts to frame this as “weaponizing the DOJ for political retribution” ring hollow when confronted with Biden’s own words acknowledging the classified nature of the materials he was sharing. These tapes represent not just a breach of national security protocols but a profound betrayal of public trust that demands accountability from all involved.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In modern political conversation I’ve encountered criticism for my steadfast support of Israel, with one commenter suggesting that modern Israel isn’t the “biblical Israel” and that my support is misguided. This perspective, while increasingly common, misses the profound theological and prophetic significance of Israel’s restoration consistently emphasized from Scripture.
At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: Does God’s covenant with Israel endure despite their disobedience or questions regarding the genetic purity of the Israelites in modern Israel? As I’ve often expressed, the relationship between God and Israel mirrors that of a father and child. When a son is disobedient, the father doesn’t disown him. A father’s reaction may include discipline, or one that allows the son who refuses to listen to find his way, but the father’s love and protection remain. So it is with God and Israel.
J. Vernon McGee powerfully affirmed this truth, noting: “Israel is God’s chosen people. He is going to bring them back to their land someday in faith and belief. They are returning to the land today in unbelief, and they do not have peace. This is the evidence of the hand of God in the affairs of the world.” This observation perfectly captures the current reality, Israel’s restoration in our time is itself evidence of God’s faithfulness, even if they haven’t yet returned “in faith and belief” as McGee notes.
The establishment of modern Israel on May 14, 1948, stands as one of the most significant prophetic fulfillments in history. As Greg Laurie emphatically states: “When the Jews formed their nation on May 14, 1948, a modern-day miracle occurred. More specifically, a prophecy was fulfilled, and the prophetic time clock began to tick.” This isn’t mere political history. It’s divine providence unfolding.
Jack Hibbs reinforces this perspective, noting that “never before in history have events come together in such a way, and that these developments remarkably align with what Scripture has already foretold.” Hibbs specifically points to Israel’s restoration as a primary example of this prophetic alignment, highlighting how the biblical question “Shall a nation be born at once?” (Isaiah 66:8) received its dramatic answer in 1948.
The commenter’s suggestion that modern Israel should be called “Judah” rather than “Israel” reflects a common misunderstanding. While the biblical kingdom was indeed divided after Solomon’s reign, with the northern kingdom retaining the name Israel and the southern kingdom known as Judah, the prophetic restoration promises always envisioned a reunited people.
The prophets consistently spoke of a future regathering of all twelve tribes, not just Judah. This regathering began in 1948 and continues to unfold. As Jack Hibbs boldly declares, “If you look at Israel being restored as a nation and say that’s not the real Israel…” – the implication being clear that such skepticism contradicts the prophetic reality.
Critics often point to Jesus’ words in John 8:44, where He addresses certain religious leaders, saying, “You are of your father the devil.” As J. Vernon McGee explains in his commentary, this was directed to specific individuals who were opposing Christ, not to the entire Jewish people or to Israel as a nation. McGee consistently maintained that Israel remains God’s chosen people despite individual disobedience – a pattern evident throughout biblical history.
Beyond the theological arguments, there exists a clear biblical imperative to support Israel. In a commentary titled “The Prophetic Books,” J. Vernon McGee explains that Bible contains hundreds of prophecies that have been “fulfilled literally,” demonstrating that “these men were speaking the words of God.” This literal fulfillment includes the restoration of Israel, which stands as one of the most prominent prophetic signposts of our time.
Jack Hibbs has dedicated significant attention to “Israel in Bible Prophecy,” recognizing it as a central theme in understanding God’s prophetic timeline. His teaching emphasizes that supporting Israel isn’t merely a political position but a biblical one, aligned with God’s redemptive purposes for humanity.
As I reflect on these truths, my support for Israel deepens. We are witnessing the unfolding of prophecy before our eyes – a modern miracle that confirms God’s faithfulness to His covenant promises. The existence of Israel today, despite ongoing conflict and opposition, testifies to God’s sovereign plan.
Like Greg Laurie, I recognize that “the prophetic time clock began to tick” in 1948, and like Jack Hibbs, I see the remarkable alignment between current events and biblical prophecy. And like J. Vernon McGee, I understand that Israel’s current state of unbelief doesn’t negate God’s purposes – indeed, their restoration in unbelief is itself evidence of God’s hand at work.
To those who criticize this support, I would gently but firmly suggest they reconsider the biblical evidence. The restoration of Israel isn’t a political accident but a prophetic necessity – a fulfillment of God’s promises that demands our recognition, our prayer, and our support.
As we watch events unfold in the Middle East, may we remember that we are living in prophetic times. Israel’s existence, survival, and challenges all fit within the biblical narrative that points toward God’s ultimate redemptive purposes. To stand with Israel is not to agree with every decision the Nation of Israel makes, or to agree with all of their political officials, but to stand with God’s prophetic plan – and that’s a position I’ll maintain without apology or hesitation.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
by Douglas V. Gibbs
Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled
The Presidents of Congress preceded the Presidents of the United States under the United States Constitution. Styled after Britain’s parliamentary system, the office of the President of the Congress Assembled was the delegate presiding over the sessions of the legislative body, making him the chief legislator, in addition to being ceremoniously called the President. The position held no executive authority as you might see in today’s President of the United States.
In America’s history there have been three legislative bodies that have served for the government of the United States (four if you count the Colonial Continental Congress): The Continental Congress, the Confederation Congress, and the United States Congress which has been assembling since the ratification of the United States Constitution. In the case of the first two congresses the presiding officer was also known as the President of the United States in Congress Assembled. The Continental Congress, though it began to meet prior to the launch of the Revolutionary War, was not an official United States Government body until after the acceptance of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.
As a body the Continental Congress existed until two events occurred; the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and end of The Revolution. The Revolutionary War ended in October of 1781 when General Cornwallis surrendered. Two years later the end of the war was made official by the Treaty of Paris. Therefore, the three congresses may be viewed as follows:
1776-1781: Continental Congress (wartime legislature)*
1781-1789: Confederation Congress (peacetime legislature)
1789-Present: United States Congress (U.S. Constitution)
* Note: The Continental Congress began meeting September 5, 1774 while America remained colonies, with four Presidents of the Congress also serving prior to the advent of the Declaration of Independence.
While the United States was born when the Declaration of Independence was accepted by the Continental Congress, the country was not truly sovereign until the bonds that tied it to the British Empire were completely severed, which at the time was viewed as occurring at the time of the surrender of General Cornwallis. Therefore, while there were Presidents who presided over Congress prior to the end of the war, none of them were truly seen as Presidents of the United States. Therefore, the first President of the sovereign and independent country known as the United States took office once the Articles of Confederation were operational, and the war had ended.
While George Washington is universally known as the first President of the United States, an argument has been made that the true “first President of the United States” was John Hanson. While Washington was elected President in 1789 under the U.S. Constitution, twelve years before the Constitution went into effect, and after the Revolutionary War generation had drawn up the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress unanimously elected John Hanson to a one year term as the first President of the United States in Congress assembled.
In his home state of Maryland, despite the opinion of the rest of the country, Hanson as the first President of the United States is recognized as being fact, and is even celebrated. The John Hanson Society of Maryland managed to have April 14, each year, declared John Hanson Day in the Old Line State. Proposals for a national celebration have been appearing quite regularly since 1943.
While there were Presidents of the Congress prior to Hanson, he was the first to preside over “Congress assembled” after independence had been declared, a uniting document (Articles of Confederation) had been established, and the British had surrendered which, in a sense, set the whole thing in stone.
Hanson’s presidency established a number of precedents. During his presidency ambassadors were exchanged with other countries for the first time. He introduced the Treasury Department. A national bank, albeit temporary, was established. He established a Cabinet, which included the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department. He led the fight to guarantee statehood to each of the territories west of the Appalachian Mountains (Northwest Territory). Under his watch all foreign troops were removed from American lands, including their flags. And, long before Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, Hanson proclaimed a day of Thanksgiving to be observed on the fourth Thursday in November. He found the work to be tedious, however, and he retired after the end of his term. A year later he was dead.
At the U.S. Capitol, once through the East Front door into the Rotunda, and into the corridor to the Senate Wing a statue of John Hanson resides on the right side just before you reach the Chamber. It is life-size, with walking stick in hand, and a three-cornered hat on his head. The statue was provided by Maryland in 1864 when the State was asked to provide two statues of its favorite sons. The other statue provided was that of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
If you want to return to Maryland from Washington D.C., one way to get there is along the John Hanson Highway.
The Presidents of the Congress prior to the presidency of George Washington are as follows:
| Peyton Randolph | Virginia | Sept. 5, 1774 – Oct. 22, 1774 | Colonial | First Continental Congress | |
| Henry Middleton | South Carolina | Oct. 22, 1774 – Oct. 26, 1774 | Colonial | First Continental Congress | |
| Peyton Randolph | Virginia | May 10, 1775 – May 24, 1775 | Colonial | First Continental Congress | |
| John Hancock | Massachusetts | May 24, 1775 – Oct. 29, 1777 | Colonial & U.S. | Second Continental Congress | |
| Declaration of Independence: July 4, 1776 changes Congress from colonial to national. | |||||
| Henry Laurens | South Carolina | Nov. 1, 1777 – Dec. 9, 1778 | United States | Second Continental Congress | |
| John Jay | New York | Dec. 10, 1778 – Sept. 28, 1779 | United States | Second Continental Congress | |
| Samuel Huntington | Connecticut | Sept. 28, 1779 – July 10, 1781 | United States | Second Continental Congress | |
| Articles of Confederation: Effective March 1, 1781, changing Congress from being a Continental Congress to the Congress of the Confederation. | |||||
| Thomas McKean | Delaware | July 10, 1781 – Nov. 5, 1781 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| End of Revolutionary War: At the end of the Siege of Yorktown, British General Charles Cornwallis signed George Washington’s Articles of Capitulation on October 19, 1781, launching international recognition of the United States as an independent, sovereign country. Beginning of the recognition of the Congress as “The United States Congress of the Confederation Assembled.” | |||||
| John Hanson | Maryland | Nov. 5, 1781 – Nov. 4, 1782 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Elias Boudinot | New Jersey | Nov. 4, 1782 – Nov. 3, 1783 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| 1783 Treaty of Paris officially ended hostilities with Great Britain, September 3, 1783; provided official international recognition of the English Colonies as a separate, autonomous, sovereign country, the United States of America. | |||||
| Thomas Mifflin | Pennsylvania | Nov. 3, 1783 – June 3, 1784 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Richard Henry Lee | Virginia | Nov. 30, 1784 – Nov. 4, 1785 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| John Hancock | Massachusetts | Nov. 23, 1785 – June 5, 1786 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Nathaniel Gorham | Massachusetts | June 6, 1786 – Feb. 2, 1787 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Arthur St. Clair | Pennsylvania | Feb. 2, 1787 – Nov. 4, 1787 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| Philadelphia Federal Convention (Constitutional Convention), May 25 to September 17, 1787. | |||||
| Cyrus Griffin | Virginia | Jan. 22, 1788 – Nov. 2, 1788 | United States | Confederation Congress | |
| June 22, 1788: New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify the United States Constitution. September 13, 1788, the Congress of the Confederation formally certified the ratification of the Constitution and chose to retain New York City as the seat of government until the proposed new location could be constructed. March 9, 1789 was established as the date the Congress of the Confederation would officially end, and the new United States Congress would officially begin operating. | |||||
| George Washington | Virginia | Apr. 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797 | United States | United States Congress | |
| The commencement of the presidency of George Washington marked the first time in U.S. History that the President was not the head of Congress, but instead the head of a separate and distinct branch of government, the Executive Branch. Under the United States Constitution the concept of a separation of powers began. | |||||
“No Kings” Progressives Seek to Crown Themselves
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The “No Kings!” chant echoed across college campuses, city squares, and political rallies, becoming a signature slogan of the anti-Trump resistance. We knew from the start that despite claims, it was not some spontaneous expression of opposition. It was orchestrated and paid for by forces in the shadows, carried out by professional protesters. It was a coordinated movement, complete with professionally printed signs, organized marches, and social media campaigns featuring celebrities and politicians solemnly declaring their opposition to monarchical rule. The rallies grew in size and sophistication, drawing thousands who claimed they genuinely believe they are defending democracy from a would-be tyrant. Yet beneath this passionate display of anti-royal sentiment lies a profound irony: those who most vociferously denounce kingship are simultaneously constructing the framework for their own centralized authority, proving that the allure of absolute power transcends political ideology and that the most dangerous monarchies are often those established in the name of preventing them.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” – C.S. Lewis
The chant “No Kings!” is the rallying cry for progressive activists and Democratic politicians opposing Donald Trump and his vision for America. It is a slogan that is actually a political projection. It claims false ideas about constitutional governance, masking that it is really a defining reality about their own political aspirations. While they decry Trump as a would-be monarch, they simultaneously advocate for a system that would effectively crown themselves through centralized power, ideological conformity, and the dismantling of constitutional checks and balances.
The irony is stark: President Trump has actually demonstrated tendencies in the opposite direction of traditional power-seekers. He refuses to take for himself the salary of the presidency, has worked to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, has sought to return authority to the states on issues like education and abortion, and he has eliminated an unbelievable amount of federal regulations. These are not the actions of someone consolidating power, but rather of someone dispersing it; precisely the opposite of what we’d expect from a king seeking to expand their dominion.
A “king” needs not be an individual. It can manifest as a system, oligarchy, or even tyranny of the majority – which is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared. The American constitutional system was deliberately designed to prevent any single entity from achieving absolute power, whether that entity be a monarch, a legislature, a judiciary, or even the people themselves in their raw democratic form.
James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 about the “mischiefs of faction” and how a well-constructed union could control the “violence of faction.” He understood that pure democracy could become just as tyrannical as monarchy when 51% of the population imposes its will on the remaining 49%. This is why the Founders established a republic with multiple layers of representation, separation of powers, and federalism – to diffuse power across institutions and jurisdictions.
The Democratic Socialists of America and their allies in the Democratic Party reveal their true aspirations through their policy proposals. Their platform calls for:
This isn’t opposition to kingship. It’s a plan to relocate the throne. By removing all institutional checks on their power, they seek to establish what might be called an “ideological kingdom” where their vision of collectivism reigns supreme. The House of Representatives would become their instrument of rule, granting them absolute control through pure majority rule.
The progressive movement has always sought to concentrate power in centralized authorities, whether in Washington or in international bodies. Their opposition to ‘kings’ is really opposition to any authority that might stand in the way of their own power. They have no principles other than power, and their communist dreams, and the way to achieve that power and hold on to it indefinitely, from their point of view, is pure democracy and a dismantling of the system of checks and balances created by the United States Constitution.
This pattern of accusing opponents of monarchy while seeking to establish one’s own centralized control has historical precedent. During the French Revolution, radicals denounced the monarchy only to establish the Committee of Public Safety, which exercised power even more arbitrarily than the deposed king. In the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar only to create a system with far more pervasive control over individual lives.
Tyranny is like any other evil. It does not appear in its true form, but as an angel of light, cloaked in the language of liberation. It’s George Orwell’s observation in his book 1984 where there must always be an enemy – a scapegoat – that is more terrifying than Big Brother’s tyranny so as to justify their existence and the continuation of the cause. The progressive movement today follows this pattern by denouncing “kings” while building their own throne of centralized authority.
The solution to this paradox lies in returning to the Founders’ vision of a properly limited federal government with meaningful checks and balances. This requires:
The threat to American liberty today comes not from those who seek to reduce the size of government, but from those who would concentrate power in the name of democracy. We must:
The true “No Kings” movement is not one that eliminates institutional constraints but one that embraces them as essential protections for liberty. Only by restoring the constitutional system of diffused power can we ensure that no single group, whether progressive or conservative, can establish itself as ruler over all others.
As Benjamin Franklin reportedly said upon leaving the Constitutional Convention, the Founders gave us “a republic, if you can keep it.” Keeping it today requires recognizing that the greatest threat to our system comes not from those who seek to reduce government power, but from those who would concentrate it in the name of progress.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary