Political Pistachio
Pastor Josh McPherson
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DaD6adNvCqK/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
And Satan is still at work in our society…
Read:
Coke Gone Woke? Bottle Personalization Tool Says No to Jesus, Yes to Satan
Also Related:
Dem Gov Maura Healey signs sweeping Massachusetts bill allowing abortions up to birth
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There’s an old song from a simpler time, a vaudeville tune that got a laugh from a contradiction: “Yes, We Have No Bananas.” It was funny because it was absurd. Today, that same joke is back, but it’s not wearing a comedy costume. It’s wearing a suit and carrying a government clipboard, and the laugh it’s getting is from the devil himself. The contradiction is the promise of a socialist paradise in a world where, as the American Thinker so aptly put it, “The numbers have no political affiliation.”
The surge of candidates from the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) isn’t some quirky political phase; it is a full-scale assault on the very foundations of American exceptionalism, God-given rights, Jeffersonian/Lockean liberty, and economic reality. From the halls of New York City to the heartland of Michigan, a movement that fundamentally denies our God-given rights is methodically laying the groundwork to seize power, not by the ballot alone, but by purging the institutions that made this Union of States great.
Let’s start with the simple things, like a gallon of milk. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a proud socialist, promises government-run grocery stores with prices slashed by 30 percent. It sounds wonderful until you ask the one question politics despises: Who pays? As the American Thinker explains, grocery stores run on pennies, not mountains of cash. A 30 percent discount doesn’t vanish; it’s absorbed. And who absorbs it? You, the taxpayer. It’s the oldest trick in the socialist playbook: the fruit is cheaper at the stand because the bill has been moved to your back pocket where you aren’t looking.
We’ve seen this movie before, and it always ends in tragedy. The article points to Baldwin, Florida, whose admirable attempt to run a municipal grocery store collapsed because a small government store can’t compete with the efficiency of a national chain. The Soviet Union learned this lesson in blood and misery. When economist Nikolai Kondratiev’s research challenged Stalin’s political orthodoxy, he wasn’t proven wrong with facts; he was executed. For the socialist, empirical conclusions must always bow to political will. They erase the price signals that warn of scarcity, and in doing so, they eliminate the warning system that protects society from collapse.
This isn’t just bad economics; it’s a spiritual crisis. As Peter Schweizer was reported as noting in Breitbart, the core problem with these progressives is that “they don’t believe our rights come from God. They believe our rights come from government.” This is the fundamental divide. As Justice Clarence Thomas, growing up in the segregated South, understood, when the government determines your rights, you are not free. You are merely a subject waiting for the next whim of the ruling class. Our entire constitutional framework, built on the truth that our rights are endowed by our Creator, is rendered null and void by this godless ideology.
And who are the standard-bearers of this movement? Look no further than Michigan’s new Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed. He may deny being a “technically or practically” a DSA member, but he was boosted by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. His victory, Schweizer argues, is a “massive sea change,” proof that the red tide has reached America’s heartland. His strategy was a masterclass in coalition-building: unite the anti-Israel, pro-Hamas enclaves with the overwhelmingly white progressives in university towns. It’s a marriage of convenience between radical Islamism and godless Marxism, both of which seek to tear down the Christian foundations of this nation.
But where does the money come from? Conservative Brief revealed that El-Sayed’s campaign was flush with over $115,000 from individuals tied to CAIR, an organization named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism financing case and designated a terrorist entity by the UAE. His own father-in-law, a CAIR-Michigan board member, was a major donor. This isn’t just about policy disagreements; this is about a candidate funded by those with alleged ties to organizations that do not share America’s interests. When your platform includes dismantling the system that funds the military that protects us from those very entities, the conflict of interest isn’t just a red flag; it’s a five-alarm fire.
Of course, the DSA’s candidates couldn’t get this far without help. They’ve had a powerful, if unwitting, ally in Hollywood. As Christian Toto argued in Hollywood in Toto, La La Land has failed us. Instead of making films like “The Lives of Others” to show the crushing reality of socialist regimes, Hollywood has churned out endless attacks on capitalism. They’ve used their immense cultural power not to warn us, but to soften up a generation of Millennials who, as Schweizer points out, “don’t remember history and did not grow up during the Cold War.” They have no understanding of the Soviet, Cuban, or Venezuelan varieties of socialism because no one has shown them the mass graves and breadlines.
This brings us to the fatal flaw, the point where the velvet glove comes off to reveal the iron fist. Podcast giant Joe Rogan nailed it: “You can’t just steal people’s money.” To enforce their utopian vision, Rogan explains, socialists need “massive authority and usually guns.” It’s the truth Margaret Thatcher knew all along: they eventually run out of other people’s money, and when they do, they must use force to take more. The promise of “free” stuff is always a down payment on future tyranny.
The proof is in the purging. In New York, Mayor Mamdani isn’t just proposing bad policy; he’s consolidating power. As The Daily Signal reported, he systematically purged all business leaders from the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City, a nonprofit dedicated to public-private partnerships. Why? Because, as the article states, his goal isn’t effective management; it’s securing power. He is replacing the “kulaks” – the job creators and civic leaders – with his “apparatchiks,” the community organizers and union loyalists who will carry out his agenda without question. He is rigging the system, breaking the bones of the financial capital of America to turn it into a socialist plaything.
The tragic irony is that the Democrat establishment is only now waking up to the monster they’ve nurtured. As Townhall reported, moderates are finally declaring war, launching a $15 million effort to “discredit democratic socialism.” They’re terrified that El-Sayed’s win in a swing state paves the way for a presidential disaster in 2028. But it’s too late. Their voters are flocking to socialism not because it’s a good idea, but because they’re disillusioned with an establishment that has offered them nothing but the status quo. The establishment is trying to treat the cancer while the DSA is offering to burn down the whole hospital.
This is where we are, folks. We are facing a movement that believes rights come from government, that economics can be bent by ideology, that is funded by those with alleged terror ties, and that consolidates power by purging its opposition. They are the inheritors of every failed, tyrannical regime of the 20th century, but they’ve repackaged it in a slick, Americanized format for a generation that doesn’t know any better.
The fight against this is not just political; it is spiritual and constitutional. It requires us to stand firmly on the truth that our rights are God-given, not government-granted. It demands we teach our children the history of socialism’s failures, not the fairy tales of its promised utopia. And it means we must have the courage to call this ideology what it is: a direct threat to the liberty, prosperity, and soul of this country. The bill is coming due, and if we don’t stop them, it will be our children and our grandchildren who pay the ultimate price.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is a fundamental debate in constitutional history that sits at the heart of originalist thought. The shift from textual application based on original intent to interpretive expansion fueled the departure from the Framers’ design.
Hamilton’s argument for implied powers in his 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the National Bank is a perfect starting point. He argued that while the Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant Congress the power to create a bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause implied such authority. Originalists counter this by pointing to James Madison’s opposition, who argued that “necessary” meant strictly essential – not merely convenient or useful. Madison’s view was that if the power wasn’t explicitly enumerated, it didn’t exist, a position that aligns with originalist perspective.
John Marshall’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison then established judicial review, giving the judiciary the power to strike down laws. While originalists don’t necessarily reject judicial opinion entirely, Marshall overstepped by making the judiciary supreme rather than a lesser branched tasked only with application of the law. Marshall’s later decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) expanded Hamilton’s implied powers doctrine further, with his famous statement that “we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.”
Originalist scholars like Robert Bork and the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that this interpretive approach opened the door to judicial activism. Scalia often emphasized that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed at the time of its ratification and should be applied, not adapted to modern preferences. The problem is that once we start “interpreting” rather than applying, we replace constitutional government with judicial government.
The Constitution’s structure – limited government, separation of powers, and federalism – has been eroded precisely through these expansive interpretations that found powers never intended by the Framers.
Those guilty of interpreting rather than applying the Constitution have even developed a specific “method” in how to interpret – and that is precisely problem – it transforms constitutional application into a judicial philosophy exercise.
The debate over interpretive methods has become a cornerstone of modern constitutional law. The primary competing methods are:
- Originalism: This is the method I support. It holds that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed at the time of its ratification. The judge’s job is to discover that original public meaning and apply it. As Justice Scalia put it, the Constitution is not a living document, but an enduring one. The method involves historical research into the text, the Federalist Papers, ratification debates, Madison’s Notes of the Philadelphia 1787 Convention, and the understanding of the words at the time they were written.
- Living Constitutionalism: This is the primary alternative. Proponents argue that the Constitution’s principles are timeless, but their application must evolve with societal changes and modern values. They see interpretation as a dynamic process. This method allows judges to consider contemporary values, societal progress, and the consequences of their decisions. It’s this approach that originalists see as a blank check for judges to impose their own policy preferences under the guise of interpretation.
The existence of these formalized “methods” is what has turned constitutional debate into a battle over judicial philosophy rather than a straightforward application of constitutional and legal text. When a judge says they are “interpreting” the Constitution, they are now often signaling which of these competing methods they subscribe to.
This is why the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices have become so contentious. It’s no longer just about a nominee’s legal qualifications; it’s a proxy war over which interpretive method will dominate the Court for a generation. Senators on both sides grill nominees on whether they are “originalists” or believe in a “living Constitution,” because they know that method dictates outcomes on everything from Natural Rights to social issues to federal power.
This codification of interpretive methods is the institutionalization of the very problem Hamilton and Marshall started. It replaces the simple question “What does the law say?” with the far more malleable question “What is the proper philosophical method to understand what the law should mean today?”
This framework effectively legitimizes the idea that the Constitution is a puzzle to be solved through a specific judicial technique, rather than a clear set of rules to be followed. It’s the ultimate justification for judges to become policymakers.
Which brings us to the latest anti-Constitution group of people, modern progressivism. The calls for court packing aren’t a good-faith response to judicial overreach; they’re an admission that their preferred interpretive method – living constitutionalism – has lost its institutional foothold on the Supreme Court.
The hypocrisy is glaring. For decades, progressives championed an “evolving” Constitution when the Court, led by figures like Earl Warren and later William Brennan, was discovering new rights and expanding federal power in ways that aligned with their agenda. The judiciary was their preferred vehicle for social change when they couldn’t win through the legislative process. Now that the Court has a majority that applies textual and historical constraints, the institution itself is suddenly “illegitimate” and “undemocratic.”
This reveals their true position: they don’t believe in a separation of powers or that the judiciary was designed to be the weakest branch of government; they believe in a judiciary that serves their policy goals and must rule over the other branches of government. When the Court was a policy-making engine for the left, it was a vital safeguard and the final arbiter of the Constitution. Now that it’s reverting to its constitutional role, it’s an obstacle to be dismantled.
The threats to “blow up the system” are the ultimate tell. The Constitution establishes a specific process for amending its structure or changing the number of justices. But that process is difficult by design, requiring broad consensus across states and political factions. Instead of engaging in that hard work of building genuine consensus, they propose extra-constitutional shortcuts like court packing. It’s the constitutional equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you’re losing the game.
This behavior fundamentally undermines the Rule of Law itself. The Rule of Law, from an originalist perspective, means we are all governed by fixed, neutral principles applied equally, not by the whims of a temporary political majority. When one side signals that the only legitimate court is one that rules in their favor, they’re replacing the Rule of Law with the Rule of Political Preference. They’re essentially arguing that the system’s legitimacy is conditional on it producing their desired outcomes.
It’s a transactional view of our founding institutions that is profoundly dangerous. If the number of justices can be expanded anytime the Court issues an unpopular ruling, the Court ceases to be a body of law and becomes another political prize to be won, its “justice” for sale to the highest bidder in the next election cycle.
The American constitutional system is not an accident, but a product of deliberate design based on centuries of political philosophy and hard-won experience. Its success is empirical proof of its genius.
The core the Constitution’s structure (limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and individual natural rights) is the engine of American prosperity and freedom. When we adhere to it, we thrive. When we drift into interpretation and judicial invention, we create instability, erode public trust, and open the door to the kind of power grabs we’re seeing.
Preaching this message means reframing the entire debate. It’s not about being “stuck in the past,” but about preserving the proven mechanism for a free and stable society. It’s arguing that the Founders weren’t just wealthy white men from the 18th century; they were political architects who designed a system superior to any that had come before, precisely because it was designed to constrain human nature’s lust for power, not unleash it.
This approach directly counters the progressive narrative. While they see the Constitution as a flawed document that needs to be “fixed” by modern sensibilities, the originalist argument is that its perceived flaws are often features, not bugs. The difficulty of amendment, the gridlock of separated powers, the emphasis on enumerated powers rather than what the government must do for you – these are the very safeguards that prevent tyranny.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. The United States, operating under this constitutional framework, became the wealthiest, most powerful, and most free nation in human history. It attracted immigrants from every corner of the globe and defeated totalitarian ideologies. That track record is the originalist’s strongest evidence. The argument becomes: “Why would we abandon the blueprint for the most successful republican experiment in history in favor of the unproven, ever-shifting theories of modern academics and activists?”
Ultimately, doubling down on constitutionalism is a call for intellectual and moral clarity. It’s an assertion that there is such a thing as truth in governance, that the principles of liberty are timeless, and that our duty is not to reinvent the wheel every generation, but to maintain the magnificent machinery we were given. It’s the ultimate argument against the “blow up the system” mentality: you don’t destroy the most successful system in history because you’re not getting your way; you recommit to the principles that made it successful in the first place.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Trump has announced, once again, that Iran wants to make a deal – and I believe that they told him that – but they are lying. They are lying not because they should want to make a deal, but because Islam sees everything as a temporary move so that it can reposition and reorient itself for the ultimate goal: worldwide domination by Islam and the death of all infidels… particularly America and Israel.
Currently, during this current war, the Iranian economy is in shambles. Ordinary residents in the country are resorting to stealing basic groceries from supermarket shelves. The Islamic Republic’s economy is nearing complete collapse, but as the people starve and die, a quote comes to mind from the past by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (keep in mind the word “Arabs” was used instead of Muslims, but her quote was about Islam – and technically Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians, but the quote applies):
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
She followed that quote up with another important one:
“When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”
Islam teaches that Meir’s plea is impossible. Islam is incapable of caring about their own children. They send out their children to be warriors against the infidel, to wear suicide bomb vests, and to carry no mercy for anyone who is an infidel. It is all about their perception of the barbaric and murderous will of Allah. Because of that belief system they are willing to kill their own people in the communities in Iran rather than truly make a deal with the United States. And that is why Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. That is why it was reasonable for President Trump to begin his campaign. If ever Iran possessed nuclear warheads and the ability to deploy them, they would be willing to annihilate Israel, Europe, America, and even their own people if they believed it was what Allah wanted for the furtherance of Islam.
So, their own people steal to eat and the leadership continues to allow the economy to deteriorate as they delay and stall with President Trump because they believe they have the upper-hand. Time. They are willing to allow millions of their own people die because they are convinced that the United States will either back-down under tremendous pressure from the world, from the Progressive Left, or eventually they can out-wait Trump because in two years he will no longer be president and in a couple months he may lose any semblance of support in Congress if the mid-terms go the Democratic Party’s way. Deals are temporary, and the furtherance of Islam is a game of patience, and time that they are willing to utilize.
Official statistics paint a grim picture of hyperinflation eroding purchasing power in Iran. While food inflation is in triple digits, oils and fats have exceeded 270% inflation during some periods during this conflict. The response by the leadership is that, “The enemy is exerting pressure in an attempt to provoke the people into protesting,” therefore, “remain powerful and respected” by sticking it out. In a sense, the message is, die of starvation for Allah commands it rather than make any sincere deal with America. They would rather be completely destroyed than to step away from Iran’s Islamic revolutionary aims – and they believe they cannot be destroyed, anyway. Allah will either save them, or allow them to die to further the Islamic cause – and either is acceptable to them.
While I hope the people in the streets will rise up and rid themselves of the regime in Iran, the reality is due to the fear held by people, and the brainwashing of Islam, desperation alone will not yield political change. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij forces are ready and still able to suppress any unrest.
President Trump said in a recent interview, “They want to make a deal. Look, it’s obvious. They don’t want to be hit. Ok? They want to make a deal. So we will see.”
The President would be absolutely correct when talking about sane, reasonable, and common sense populations – but Iran’s leadership is none of those things.
I am not saying that hitting Iran was a mistake. It had to be done. Because of the reasons I have presented we must never allow them to have nuclear weapons. The Strait of Hormuz is a minor part of it, in the broad scheme of things. The hardcore leadership of Iran who believes in the 12th Imam and the apocalyptic prophetic vision of the future that goes along with that belief does not care about mutually-assured destruction or whether or not their own citizens suffer or die. Chaos is the goal. Death is the aim. And from it, they believe, through all of the madness and fire, a new worldwide caliphate will arise. You cannot honestly negotiate with them. They have no mercy. They have no reasonable view of the world or their future. The only thing they understand is being beaten into submission… and then maybe there will be a deal of some kind – one they will break and deny the moment they think they have the Will of Allah on their side once again.
Islam is in it for the long-game, and for them what is going on in Iran is a minor part of the war. It is just a battlefield that they can throw away if they have to. Their war is worldwide. Their aim is world domination. And despite the kinetic warfare that is in their face in Iran, they have their own forces marching across America. Their war against the infidel has their armies infiltrating each country, creating inside the borders of their enemy Muslim neighborhoods, Muslim influence in the media, Muslim influence in the culture, and the placement of Islamic politicians like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan inside the very political systems of their enemies. He says he’s a socialist. He says he’s a doctor. He says he’s a part of a new force rising in the Democratic Party. But in the end, he too is a part of the war. He is a Muslim who hates Israel, hates Jews, and hates America – and he is poised to be a part of the giant Islamic attack against America from within.
Like the leadership in Iran, El-Sayed’s concern is not his own opportunities as an individual, or the welfare of anyone he might represent. His aim is only one thing. The furtherance of Islam.
He will lie. He will curse. He will claim he has your best interests at heart. He is a part of Islam’s bizarre partnership with the Democratic Socialists because they both have a few things in common. They hate America. They hate Jews. They hate Israel. They hate Christians. They hate individualism. And while the two ideologies are deep-down incompatible, their focus is not on if they can get along – their focus is on destroying the enemies of their ideologies who stand in their way.
Abdul El-Sayed on the ballot in November for United States Senator from Michigan is only the latest turn in this war. They’ve already placed many more boots on the ground. Over a hundred Muslims reside in political seats around the country. Some you heard of: Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Each of them are not just Muslim, they are ready to take their Islamic war to the full length of the field. They are willing, able, and enthusiastic contributors in a battle to normalize their anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Jewish, and anti-Christian platform. They are using “democracy” to force into place what would seemed unimaginable before, and shortly after, 9/11. Now, in today’s America, we have Hamas-loving mobs marching through New York City screaming for the murder of Jews.
Just imagine how New Yorkers would have reacted to this madness on Sept. 12, 2001? We were told to Never Forget, and now the mayor of New York City is an outspoken socialist-Muslim who defended an al-Qaida terrorist to serve as the city’s chief counsel. Islam, after they attacked us, played the victim, and we fell for it.
As Ronald Reagan famously said: “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people…And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
So, we are continuing to launch devastating bombing campaigns on Iran. Donald J. Trump did not want any forever wars, not realizing that we are already locked in one. Iran is not the first chapter. It is the latest chapter. The Iraq War. Afghanistan. The Persian Gulf War. The Lebanon Crisis. The Barbary Wars. The Crusades. The forever war has always been there. And Islam will not stop until they are utterly rendered incapable of continuing, or as Golda Meir proclaimed, they begin to love their children more than they hate us.
By haggling, Iran’s Islamic leadership shows us that they believe all they need to do is run out the clock – and they are banking on a Democratic win in the Mid-terms to shorten that wait. We have said all along we do not want boots on the ground, and so far the bombing has not descended into a ground war. We don’t truly know the true extent of the damage to the Iranian regime and its military-industrial-nuclear-complex because there are no embedded reporters or Western journalists in Iran. We don’t truly know the mood of the people of Iran; if they have enough resolve to eventually protest again, or overthrow the regime. We don’t know if there will be any future assistance from other countries to keep this regime from rising up again and obtaining nuclear weapons. All we know is that the tensions are increasing as Iran runs out of money and basic goods. All we know is that if this ends, it is getting to the point that it will take decades for Iran to rebuild, and they will be at a disadvantage when dealing with their neighbors who they so gratuitously attacked. The regime has no money. No effective combat or air defenses. No allies. Except…inside the deepest hearts of Muslims who agree that someday they will finally defeat The West and launch a worldwide caliphate that will bring peace into the world…until they, of course, go back to fighting each other as they have throughout the history of Islam.
As long as the Trump administration is in place, and his opponents are on defense, Iran and Islam will only be able to wage the war on minor battlefields. Once the Democrats, if the Democrats, regain power, the entire world will once again be Islam’s battlefield – and this time they will go for broke.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In recent conversations with fellow conservatives, I’ve encountered a troubling sentiment: a growing willingness to abandon constitutional principles in favor of federal solutions to problems we find particularly vexing. A friend recently argued that since some states aren’t “tough enough on crime,” the federal government should impose nationwide standards like uniformly applied death penalties. This well-intentioned but dangerous position reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of why our constitutional system exists in the first place.
The federal government possesses no constitutional authority to impose criminal sentencing standards on states. This isn’t an oversight. It’s the deliberate design of our founding document. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers, with all other authority reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. This structure wasn’t created by accident but through careful consideration of human nature itself.
My friend dismisses state sovereignty as “antiquated,” but this view fails to recognize that localism remains essential precisely because it creates laboratories within our republic where different approaches can be tested. When a state implements flawed policy, the damage is contained. When the federal government imposes the same flawed policy nationwide, the consequences become catastrophic. It’s far easier to correct bad policy on a state level than to reverse a federal mandate affecting 50 states simultaneously.
The Constitution’s genius lies in its recognition of human nature’s darker aspects – the desire for power, the tendency toward greed, and the temptation to consolidate authority. The Founders understood that concentrating power in any single entity, whether federal or popular, creates an irresistible target for those who would abuse it.
Their solution was multi-layered:
- Separation of Powers: The three federal branches possess their own powers, with the ability to check and balance each other while also not being able to micro-manage each other.
- Federalism: Power is distributed between federal and state governments.
- Republicanism: We elect representatives, along with other components of a republic, to protect us from direct democracy so that our natural rights are properly secured.
This intricate power distribution wasn’t designed for efficiency but for protection; protection from ourselves and our worst impulses. When we advocate for federal solutions to problems we find urgent, we’re essentially saying, “Let’s ignore all these safeguards because I’m confident my side will always be in control.”
There are foundational reasons for this structure, and a large part of that is human nature. Human nature includes not just admirable traits like leadership and courage but also dangerous impulses like the desire for power and the tendency to believe we know best for everyone else.
We all possess the same basic human attributes, but we express them differently. The same assertiveness that can make someone an effective leader can, in different circumstances, make them a tyrant. The same passion for justice can become zealotry. The Constitution doesn’t assume the best of human nature – it plans for the worst.
If something truly requires national uniformity, the Constitution provides a mechanism: the amendment process. This deliberately difficult procedure requires supermajorities at both the federal and state levels precisely because national standards should only be imposed when overwhelming consensus exists.
The amendment process respects state sovereignty by requiring permission from the states through ratification. This ensures that changes to our fundamental governing document reflect broad agreement rather than temporary passions or the whims of a simple majority.
In our constitutional system, citizens facing policies they dislike in their state have three legitimate options:
- Stay and Advocate: Work to change the laws through the political process.
- Vote with Your Feet: Move to a state whose policies better align with your views.
- Accept and Endure: Recognize that in a diverse nation, not every state will reflect your preferences.
What is not an option is to bypass the constitutional process because you’re impatient for change or frustrated with your state’s direction. To do so is to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The Constitution doesn’t need updating. It needs to be applied as originally intended. The problems we face today often stem not from deficiencies in our founding document but from our failure to operate within its framework. When we abandon constitutional principles because they seem “antiquated” or “inefficient,” we’re not adapting to modern times – we’re repeating the same mistakes that have plagued governments throughout history.
The next time you’re tempted to advocate for federal solutions to state problems, remember why our system exists: to distribute power as broadly as possible, to make it difficult for any faction to dominate, and to protect us from our own worst impulses. That’s not antiquated thinking, for the basic foundations of liberty and tyranny have never changed – that’s timeless wisdom about human nature and the proper role of government in a free society.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Great Munitions Deception, and how the Fake News Targets Trump
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I came to a realization long ago that if the mainstream media is reporting something, it must be researched because it is probably not completely true. The latest, or should I say ‘among the latest,’ are reports that America’s munition supplies are “dangerously low.” The ‘leak,’ if it wasn’t made up out of thin air, is from those considered to be inside the government, but they hate President Trump. So, they put out these false statements in the hopes of hurting his presidency.
Is it likely that we’ve used quite a bit of our stockpile? Sure. We are in the midst of a military operation that is using a lot of munitions during strikes against Iran. But, are the enemies of America truly convinced that they can make us believe that America is so witless that we don’t possess enough munitions to endure any kind of campaign that lasts longer than a few months?
The stockpile is, and this is just from a common sense point of view, likely large enough to endure many years of military operations if such were necessary. And, as President Trump has indicated, at the same time large amounts are being manufactured and added to what we have as needed.
The enemies of Trump through the Washington Post, however, think that we are so stupid that we’ll believe that Secretary of War Pete Hegseth misled Trump on “extreme munitions shortages.” Then, they cited such shortage as the reason Trump called off strikes against Iran, recently.
The Washington Post reported:
President Donald Trump’s frustration over the Iran war boiled over at Camp David last week, where he demanded answers from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on why he had apparently been misled on extreme munitions shortages that now threaten to limit military options with Iran, two people familiar with the exchange told The Washington Post.
The encounter took place on the sidelines of his Cabinet meeting at Camp David on Friday where Trump vented at Hegseth that he thought the munitions issue “had been fixed,” according to both people familiar with the conversation, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity due to fear of retaliation.
Back at Camp David, as he was confronted by Trump over the bare weapons stockpile, Hegseth defended himself and blamed his deputy, Stephen Feinberg, for the shortages and for not ensuring Trump was fully apprised of the issue, both people familiar said.
The exchange underscored Trump’s increasing frustration with his defense secretary, who was one of the biggest early advocates for taking military action against Iran, convincing Trump it would be a quick and relatively easy win, according to multiple officials.
CNN earlier reported that, according to anonymous sources, the military had used up nearly 90% of its missile interceptors since the war with Iran began.
“That banner is NOT TRUE, CNN. Shame on you,” the Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said in a post on X. “We don’t hate the Fake News media enough.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied the Washington Post report, calling it “100% fake news. Literally never happened. President Trump as the utmost confidence in Secretary Hegseth.”
President Trump said the United States has “massive amounts” of munitions, and said, “Leakers of these treasonous statements are being hunted down. Long term jail sentences will be sought.”
While President Trump indicates the United States and Iran are having “very good discussions” on a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, he warned that if they don’t work with him, “they’re going to get hit very hard.”
President Trump has indicated the United States is prepared to launch “a tremendous attack” against Iran that would be “the biggest since World War II.”
As the media tries to strike out against President Trump with false stories about munition shortages, congressional Democrats are working to hit the president with a long list of lawfare investigations involving President Trump’s political and business network. According to sources, senior Democratic congress-critters have discussed using congressional hearings, subpoenas, and document requests from businesses and financial entities associated with Donald Trump as we approach the mid-term elections. If they gain a majority after the November mid-term elections, they will also begin investigations targeting the president’s decision-making under the guise of accusing him of using the powers of his office to benefit himself, political allies, or campaign supporters. A fascinating behavior by someone who does not accept his 400,000 annual presidential salary, and instead pledges those funds to federal agencies, public projects, and historical efforts. During his first term, President Trump publicly donated his quarterly salary payments as well.
President Trump remains focused on opposing what he describes as the “radical left’s agenda,” and preserving Republican majorities in Congress.
As for Iran, despite arguments that the U.S. has a munitions issue, President Trump says he’s shifting gears in how he is handling Iran, dialing back military action while turning up the economic pressure on Tehran.
Iran’s economy is buckling under inflation, sanctions, and pressure from the U.S. naval blockade. “We are low-keying it. We are only semi-negotiating with them. We are just watching Iran with its huge inflation and the fact they have no money.”
Trump argued that Tehran is already in serious financial trouble and struggling to pay its forces.
“It will work out. It always works out. It’s like a chess game,” he said.
Related: The Iran Contradiction
President Trump’s comments follow Iran’s sweeping list of new demands. Tehran demanded an end to U.S. threats, a permanent halt to the war involving Iran and its armed allies, an end to the naval blockade of Iranian ports and the withdrawal of American forces from the region. The regime also called on Washington to ‘completely compensate’ Iran for war damage, lift sanctions and ‘unconditionally’ release frozen assets.
Trump did not publicly accept those demands.
If pounding them militarily can’t get them to cry “uncle,” then perhaps letting economic pressure do the work might.
Israel remains locked in military conflict with Hamas in Gaza and states they will not withdraw until Hamas is completely disarmed, and the Houthi’s continue their own attacks targeting weapons depots and Saudi troop concentrations.
In a recent video by Iran to prove Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei is alive and well, the video came with no clear date, location, or explanation of when it was recorded. Khamenei has not been publicly seen in nearly six months, and was reportedly badly injured during a February 28 strike. Washington and Tehran have both acknowledged Khamenei suffered serious leg and facial injuries during the attack that killed his father. Reports have indicated his face had been disfigured, yet in the newly released video, Khamenei appears free of any obvious injuries.
Iran previously released AI-generated images of Khamenei after early reports suggested he may have been killed in the Feb. 28 strike.
Representative Nancy Mace (SC-R) in a post on X dropped a pretty straightforward assessment of Muslim office-holders in America, as members of the leftist establishment lose their minds, suggesting they are a clear and present danger to the Republic – echoing my thoughts about Islam in general, and why Iran’s leadership operates the way it does. She posted, “Every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic. We refuse to be silent.”
Appreciate the content? Drop a few coins in the tip jar…
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary