Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers issued warnings that echo with chilling relevance today. Benjamin Franklin’s declaration that “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom” wasn’t mere philosophical musing – it was a diagnostic truth about the American experiment. John Adams went further, insisting “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People,” while Patrick Henry warned that “A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” These were more than mere idle concerns; they were foundational principles upon which our republic was built.
Ben Franklin developed thirteen virtues:
- Temperance
- Silence
- Order
- Resolution
- Frugality
- Industry
- Sincerity
- Justice
- Moderation
- Cleanliness
- Tranquility
- Chastity
- Humility
He systematically cultivated these virtues, admitting he was “surprised to find myself so much fuller of faults than I had imagined.” His humility in this endeavor reveals a crucial truth: virtue isn’t achieved through self-congratulation, but through honest self-assessment and disciplined effort.
The connection between personal virtue and political liberty cannot be overstated. As James Madison stated, “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” The Founders understood that self-government requires self-governed individuals who embrace virtue, embrace lawfulness, and embrace order. John Adams expressed this succinctly: “Public virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private Virtue, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.”
Today we witness the consequences of abandoning this wisdom. Our political divisions reflect a deeper moral fragmentation. When we lose the capacity for honest self-assessment, when we abandon responsibility for our actions, when we reject the biblical understanding that motives matter as much as actions, we create the vacuum that tyranny fills. As Franklin warned, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
The biblical principle that sin is often defined by motive rather than action alone offers a path forward. Eating is not sinful, but gluttony is; speaking truth is virtuous, but speaking truth to destroy is sinful. This nuanced moral vision, rooted in Scripture, provides the framework for the kind of virtue the Founders deemed essential for liberty. It calls us to honesty without cruelty, responsibility without self-flagellation, firmness without harshness, and joy without frivolity.
Andrew Breitbart’s observation that “politics is downstream from culture” diagnoses our current crisis accurately. We cannot get our political house in order until our religious and moral house is put in order. This requires returning to the kind of intentional virtue cultivation Franklin practiced. It is a necessary foundation for freedom.
The path forward demands both personal and national renewal. We must recover the understanding that freedom requires virtue, that liberty demands responsibility, and that constitutional government depends on moral citizens. As we face increasing challenges to our constitutional order, we would do well to remember Franklin’s warning and Adams’ conviction: without virtue, there can be no liberty, and without a moral and religious people, there can be no American Constitution.
The question before us is whether we will heed these warnings from our Founding Fathers and the biblical wisdom they used as the foundation of our system, or continue down the path of moral fragmentation that inevitably leads to political fragmentation. The future of American freedom hangs in the balance – and the war is as much spiritual as it is political… if not more so.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| Tuesday Online Constitution (and history) Class |
  3:30 PM Pacific Online Constitution & HistoryClass |
| Online Mr. Constitution Class: www.mr-constitution.com Let’s talk today about early English Settlements in the New World. Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Those who stand against constitutional principles have normalized the very things that undermine them. We barely blink anymore when rainbow flags fly and when American culture is saturated with sermons about tolerance, diversity, and inclusion. Even when our eyes and ears tell us that morality is being inverted and that DEI has become reverse discrimination, a 180‑degree turn from judging people by character rather than skin color, we are trained to ignore what we see. We are told that real tolerance means silence, compliance, and keeping our opinions to ourselves unless they align perfectly with the rising WOKE orthodoxy. Yet the more we comply, the narrower and more punitive our culture becomes.
Herbert Marcuse, the Marxist philosopher, had a name for this: repressive tolerance. In his formulation, tolerance no longer means tolerating disagreement or diversity of thought. It means tolerating only the correct ideas while excluding the “wrong” ones – all while still using the moral language of openness. Censorship, exclusion, and punishment are rebranded as moral duties.
This is not accidental. It is a deliberate political strategy rooted in Cultural Marxism. Marcuse argued that classical Marxism failed in the West because Americans were too comfortable. A thriving middle class, economic mobility, and widespread prosperity prevented the misery necessary for revolution. So the strategy shifted. Instead of class warfare between industrialists and workers, Neo‑Marxism manufactured new divisions based on race, sex, and identity. It is divide‑and‑conquer with a Marxist twist: the battlefield is no longer factories and wages, but culture, psychology, and institutions. The question is no longer who owns capital, but who shapes beliefs, norms, and identity.
Within this worldview, neutral principles such as free speech, open debate, and equal tolerance are not liberating. They are considered obstacles. To Marxists, these American ideals protect the existing order. Voting, protest, and debate change nothing because the system itself is “rigged.” Neutrality becomes fraud. Therefore, tolerance must be redirected: ideas that support the “oppressive” capitalist system must be suppressed, while ideas aimed at dismantling it must be amplified.
Under this logic, tolerance becomes a weapon. Anything even slightly right of Marxism is treated as hateful and dangerous. Careers are destroyed, families divided, and relationships fractured over mere disagreement. Refusing to repeat ideological falsehoods becomes unforgivable. Debate is quashed so that energy policies that raise the cost of living can be imposed as moral imperatives. Socialist proposals like universal basic income are treated as settled truths rather than arguments to be examined. To disagree is to be unfair, and in this brave new world of “fairness,” unfairness cannot be tolerated.
Former California Governor Jerry Brown demonstrated this mindset perfectly. When asked about the economic harm caused by large minimum‑wage increases, he admitted the policy wasn’t economically sound, but insisted it was “the fair thing to do.” Consequences were irrelevant.
Optics were everything.
Marcuse justified this through emergency politics. Liberal freedoms, he argued, are luxuries for stable times. We are never in stable times. Climate, inequality, oppression, democracy itself: crisis is constant. Crisis suspends norms. In emergencies, we censor “dangerous ideas,” silence dissent, and enforce compliance. We saw it in full display during the COVID scamdemic. That is repressive tolerance: tolerance that means exclusion, diversity that means uniformity, and freedom that survives only for those who agree.
The First Amendment was written precisely to protect political and religious speech; the very speech now targeted by leftist activists. The founders understood that liberty requires disagreement. Without debate, one side rules, dictates, and controls.
This entire dynamic echoes George Orwell’s 1984 and Animal Farm, where language is inverted and history rewritten to serve the ruling ideology.
The 1619 Project is a perfect example. If America was founded on religious freedom, then we have achieved something extraordinary. But if America was founded on slavery, as the 1619 narrative claims, then the entire system is irredeemably corrupt and must be discarded. A communist revolution cannot occur while the American constitutional system remains intact. Therefore, it must be discredited, dismantled, and psychologically rejected. Nobody throws away something that works, so the system must be portrayed as fundamentally broken.
Never mind that America became the most prosperous and free country in history under that system. If Marxists can convince people that the foundation is flawed, then the entire structure can be torn down.
This slow‑motion revolution is not new. The Fabians taught that in the West, violent revolution would fail because capitalism had succeeded. People were comfortable. So the revolution had to be gradual, psychological, and cultural. If you can convince people to distrust their own eyes and ears, half the battle is won.
Even our political labels reveal the strategy. Anything that challenges Marxist ideology is branded “far right,” “extremist,” or “authoritarian.” But in the American political spectrum, the far left is total government control and the far right is anarchy. The Constitution sits squarely in the center. By that measure, even the most conservative MAGA Republicans, including Trump, still support more federal power than the Constitution allows. In truth, nearly everyone is left of the Constitution.
But that reality is unacceptable to the revolutionaries, so they manufacture their own. Opponents are painted as far‑right, white‑supremacist fascists – not because evidence supports it, but because the narrative requires it. The January 6 narrative, the Southern Poverty Law Center’s classifications, and the Charlottesville deception all serve the same purpose: to convince Americans that Republicans are racist because the left says so. Many voters who disagree with every progressive policy still vote for Democrats because they cannot bring themselves to vote for a supposedly “racist” Republican.
I have long argued that the Constitution contains no asterisk reading “suspended in case of emergency.” Yet emergency politics is exactly what the left depends on. COVID made this clear: sweeping suspensions of liberty, worship, movement, and common‑sense law were justified in the name of crisis.
This is the silent revolution unfolding in America, not with guns or barricades, but with redefined words, manufactured crises, and the steady erosion of the freedoms that once made this wonderful Union of States exceptional. The question now is whether we will recognize it in time to preserve what remains of our liberty.
“A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” – James Madison
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” – Benjamin Franklin
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” – John Adams
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Trump’s Masterclass in Deal-Making Diplomacy
In every corner of human endeavor, from the boardroom to the broadcast studio, one truth remains constant: relationships are the currency of success. As a 15 year terrestrial radio host veteran, I have learned this lesson firsthand. The advertisers who remained loyal through ratings fluctuations and market changes weren’t those swayed by spreadsheets and demographics alone, but those with whom I’d built genuine connections based on trust, and a mutual desire to spread the message of constitutional originalism. This principle, building lasting and mutually beneficial relationships, transcends industries. It’s the foundation upon which lasting business empires are built and political coalitions are forged.
Nowhere is this truth more evident than in the political arena, where the ability to build, maintain, and leverage relationships can mean the difference between historic achievement and legislative stagnation. For decades, the Republican establishment mastered the art of playing along to get along – acting as if they believed in limited government, but feeding off of the government leviathan no different than their Democratic Party adversaries. It created a belief that it all was just one big uniparty. A polite game of politics on the surface while deep beneath the surface the beasts of tyranny devoured the American System while swearing up and down that they were somehow doing what they could to defend it. The GOP of old played the “across-the-aisle” game, but it was all ineffective relationship-building and a maintenance of cordial ties across the aisle while consistently conceding on policy priorities. Then came Donald Trump, who understood something the D.C. insiders had forgotten: relationships don’t have to be about congeniality and appeasement. Giving in to the other side’s madness is not compromise. It is best to take the bull by the horns, and then create relationships from a position of strength. Then, they become about leverage and making sure that your side isn’t taken advantage of during the game of political maneuvering.
Trump’s approach to relationship-building has always been transactional and strategic. If you wish to understand his strategies, be aware that he articulated the concept in “The Art of the Deal.” Unlike his predecessors who viewed relationships through a lens of institutional decorum, and a part of the uniparty, Trump recognized that personal connections could be used to manipulate the playing field to one’s political advantage. This became evident in his unconventional diplomacy with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, where direct engagement and personal rapport created channels of communication unavailable to previous administrations. His Middle East policy yielded the Abraham Accords not through traditional diplomatic processes but through personal relationships with leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who responded to Trump’s deal-making mindset rather than bureaucratic overtures.
The transformation of the GOP under Trump’s leadership reflects this relationship-based approach. Where establishment Republicans built fragile coalitions based on shared social circles, Trump constructed a movement based on loyalty and direct connection with his supporters. This goes way beyond being a mere political strategy. It’s a fundamental reimagining of how relationships function in service of a greater purpose. The new MAGA-led Republican Party understands that relationships without leverage are just friendships, and friendships don’t secure borders or appoint conservative judges.
Nowhere was Trump’s mastery of relationship-building more evident than in his dealings with China. The conventional wisdom held that engaging China required institutional diplomacy and mutual respect for established protocols. Trump rejected this premise entirely. He understood that the Chinese leadership respects strength above all else, and that any meaningful relationship had to be built from a position of undeniable leverage.
Before his historic meeting with Xi Jinping, Trump strategically positioned himself through a series of bold moves that demonstrated his willingness to disrupt the status quo. By challenging Iran’s nuclear ambitions, confronting Venezuela’s socialist regime, and refusing to be bound by traditional diplomatic constraints, Trump established himself as a leader who operated outside established norms. This was far from being random policy-making. It was deliberate positioning designed to maximize leverage before sitting down with Xi.
When the meeting finally occurred, the Chinese rolled out the red carpet – literally. Children presented flowers, elaborate ceremonies were staged, and every visual cue suggested warmth and respect. But Trump understood something critical: this was theater, not transformation. He knew the Chinese couldn’t necessarily be trusted, that their overtures were calculated optics designed to play to Western sensibilities about diplomacy. As he departed, Trump’s team discarded everything given to them by the Chinese. Trump knew that the Chinese could not be trusted, and that their performance was precisely that: a performance.
But, if one can remember back to Obama, the pomp-and-circumstance was not provided for President Barack Obama. There was no red carpet, or pageantry. The Chinese did not respect, nor fear Obama. They could care less about his visit. They believed at that time, they were dealing from a position of strength.
During his recent trip to China, Trump’s relationship expertise shined brightly. Rather than being taken in by the pageantry or offended by the Chinese’s subsequent behavior, he remained focused on the strategic objective. He had entered the meeting from a position of strength, established his credibility as an unpredictable but formidable negotiator, and extracted concessions where possible; all while recognizing the fundamental limitations of the relationship itself.
This masterclass in diplomatic relationship-building reflects the core principles of “The Art of the Deal” applied to international relations. Trump understood that effective deal-making requires three essential elements: leverage, credibility, and the willingness to walk away. His relationship with Xi wasn’t built on mutual affection but on mutual respect for each other’s capabilities and limitations. The Chinese leadership respected Trump because they recognized he couldn’t be manipulated through traditional diplomatic channels.
As the Republican Party continues its transformation under Trump’s influence, this lesson in relationship-building becomes increasingly relevant. The future of conservative governance depends on emulating and embracing Trump’s approach: build relationships from strength, maintain them with leverage, and never mistake optics for substance.
The art of the relationship, properly understood, isn’t about making friends. It’s about making progress. In business, in broadcasting, and especially in politics, those who master this truth will shape the future. Donald Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping wasn’t just diplomatic theater; it was a demonstration of how relationship-building, when properly understood and strategically deployed, becomes America’s greatest asset on the world stage.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The proposal to expand the Supreme Court has resurfaced in American political discourse, with former Vice President Kamala Harris, during a statement in which she said “there are no bad ideas,” expressing support for adding liberal justices to the High Court. This controversial idea, which President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously attempted in 1937, has reignited a fierce debate about judicial independence and political power.
During a recent segment on Fox News’ The Sunday Briefing, a clip of Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) defending the concept of court expansion was played. She stated, “It’s a message I’ve had for quite a while. You know, we need transparency and accountability on the Supreme Court. It has been expanded in the past to reflect the changes in population. That’s not a crazy idea. It’s been done throughout the history of our country.”
Jayapal’s reference to historical precedents is factually accurate in the sense that the number of justices has been changed a number of times, but it wasn’t due to population increases. This is where Congresswoman Jayapal’s explanation runs into problems when it comes to the truth about history. Then again, since when did any Democrat care about the truth?
The Supreme Court has indeed changed size seven times throughout American history, ranging from as few as five justices to as many as ten. The Judiciary Act of 1789 initially established six justices, and Congress adjusted the number several times before settling on nine in 1869. These changes were politically motivated, with presidents and Congress seeking to influence the court’s ideological composition. Historical evidence demonstrates that Congress routinely changed the number of justices to achieve its own partisan political goals, resulting in as few as five Supreme Court justices under John Adams to as many as ten under Abraham Lincoln.
The Judiciary Act of 1801 decreased the number of Supreme Court justices from six to five, a move specifically designed to lower the odds that President-elect Thomas Jefferson would get to nominate a new justice during his term. This was a clear partisan move by the outgoing Hamiltonian Federalists to limit their political rivals’ power.
In response, Jefferson and his new Congress quickly repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801, bringing the number of justices officially back to six, demonstrating how changes to the court’s composition were often immediate responses to political power shifts.
The last time Congress changed the number of Supreme Court justices in 1869 was to meet a political end regarding the election of Ulysses S. Grant, with the backing of congressional Republicans who had opposed President Andrew Johnson.
Perhaps the most famous attempt was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1937 court-packing plan, which was motivated by his desire to push through his New Deal legislation that the Supreme Court had continually worked against during his first term. The plan was to force justices to retire at age 70, and increase the number of justices to 15. The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was introduced to Congress, but it was ultimately defeated.
When Peter Doocy on FOX’s The Sunday Briefing during his segment regarding Kamala Harris’s comment regarding expanding the Supreme Court asked Meghan Hays, Former Biden Message Planning Director, about the current court-packing discussions and what Congresswoman Jayapal said, she responded with a statement that revealed a stunning lack of constitutional knowledge: “It’s interesting to hear that Congress is talking about this when they don’t actually decide this, so I don’t know why they would make that a campaign slogan.”
Hays’ assertion that Congress doesn’t decide the size of the Supreme Court is not only incorrect but demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to establish and structure the federal judiciary, including determining the number of Supreme Court justices.
This constitutional ignorance from a former Biden administration official is particularly striking given how frequently Democrats position themselves as defenders of constitutional norms, especially when they attack President Trump’s policies. The irony is palpable: while dismissing discussions of court-packing as mere political slogans, Hays herself demonstrated a lack of understanding of the very constitutional principles she claims to protect.
The most infamous court-packing attempt, FDR’s Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, was precisely a congressional proposal. Roosevelt’s plan to add up to six new justices was introduced as legislation in Congress, where it was ultimately defeated. The historical precedent clearly shows that court-packing, whether one supports it or opposes it, is unquestionably within Congress’s constitutional authority.
The fundamental tension in the court-packing debate centers on competing visions of constitutional interpretation and judicial philosophy. Proponents argue that expanding the court would restore balance to a judiciary they believe has been captured by ideological extremists. Opponents warn that such a move would undermine judicial independence and transform the court into just another political institution, eroding the separation of powers that has characterized American governance.
Be it Jayapal’s historical ignorance or Hays’ constitutional ignorance, the fundamental misunderstanding is not merely an academic error but speaks to a broader pattern of constitutional illiteracy among those who claim to be its guardians. When political operatives tasked with message planning lack basic knowledge of constitutional structure, it raises serious questions about the quality of policy discussions and the depth of constitutional understanding within modern political discourse.
As this debate continues, Americans need to pay close attention to the rhetoric. We have Democrats who act like they are above everyone on their elite political perches, but as Jayapal and Hays demonstrated, they don’t even know the basics of history and the United States Constitution. It’s not just about history and the Constitution, but making sure that if we are going to listen to so-called experts, those experts should know at least basic historical and constitutional truths – otherwise, they are nothing more than barking propagandists.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Pratt Upheaval
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Spencer Pratt is a problem for the Democrats. Like Donald J. Trump, he is an outsider that refuses to play by the rules of the typical political game, and he’s unpredictable. Even worse, he has humiliated them. He’s getting a lot of attention and with that attention he’s exposing their underbelly in such a way they are scrambling to deal with him, but because they’ve never been hit this way before, they truly don’t know what to do.
The Democrats can’t win in the arena of ideas, and that’s why Pratt even cleaned the floor with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Nithya Raman in the last debate, to the point that they are running away from any more debates. Then, when they attack him, it backfires. They have no idea how to handle a basic exchange of ideas.
Their only ploy, at this point, is to pull on Pratt what they’ve pulled on Donald Trump. Lie, call him a fascist, and hit him with lawfare. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has already launched attacks against Pratt, but in her frustration she is realizing that the popularity of Pratt is simply a case of Spencer tapping into the electorate’s anger of the policies of Democratic politicians like Bass.
While Spencer Pratt has not yet reached incumbent Karen Bass’s numbers in the polls, he is rapidly climbing, surging up 12 points since March in the Emerson College poll.
The Democratic Party’s crisis in California has become so severe that with two Republicans threatening to win the top two spots in the gubernatorial race, there are talks that the Democrats are considering abandoning the jungle primary system, a law that’s been in place since 2010. Democrats did it to lock Republicans out of political office, and now the GOP is threatening to lock Democrats out of the 2026 November general election with the “top two” primary.
No matter how they’ve tried to cheat, the bad policies of the Democrats have come home to roost. They embraced identity and partisan politics, they spied on their opponents, they arrested their opponents, and they threw their opponents off the ballots – but voters care about results and the Democrats have none in the column of successes – and the voters have noticed.
While Spencer Pratt has a political science degree, Bass has pointed out that he has no political experience. You know, the same argument they used against Trump. Pratt is actually doing the same thing as Trump did – he’s talking to the voters in a language that speaks of common sense, and taking a business approach to governance. And besides, at this point, many voters believe that anybody that’s not Karen Bass, and not a Democrat, is what Los Angeles needs. The Democrats have made a mess of the Golden State – perhaps it’s time to stop following the same path of insanity, and actually try something different for a change.
The Palisades Fire was a tipping point. There was no water or proper personnel and equipment to stop a raging fire that destroyed roughly 16,000 homes. And since then, the policies have not changed. The lesson was not learned. Democrats after controlling the area for nearly three decades and driving everything into the ground are basically arguing, “give us a few more years and we’ll get it turned around.” How? With the same idiotic policies? Their taxation is sky high, and the money is not going to where it is needed. Meanwhile, homelessness is worsening (after Bass said three years ago that by 2026 she’d have that issue tackled), and Bass’s plan has been to give them new needles for their drug usage, and pay for them to get new teeth.
The choices are basically a failure named Karen Bass, a democratic-socialist named Nithya Raman, or Spencer Pratt who is a newcomer to politics and offers voters a genuine alternative. Win or lose, Pratt is offering new ideas, a new message, and new tools of campaigning – incredible videos, and a message that says either choose him and clean up the city or choose one of his opponents and continue to watch the city burn with a continued tumble toward bankruptcy, less reliable services, and more mass poverty.
Pratt’s message is simple. Los Angeles is worth saving, and his opponents have been letting L.A. burn and fail for decades. His campaign simply highlights the ongoing mess in Los Angeles and how they are directly related to the failed Democratic socialist policies like those of Governor Gavin Newsom and current L.A. Mayor Karen Bass.
What Pratt represents is a continuation of the movement begun by the TEA Party, and accelerated by Donald J. Trump. It’s a recognition that special interests control Democratic Party politics and that the ruling party has become parasitic, obsessed with gaining more power and profit, and guilty of using every extreme, overhyped, idiotic game to try to maintain control.
Can Pratt win? Can a Republican win in California? Perhaps. If it is going to happen, this seems like the election season that it will.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary