Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The hard left doesn’t seem to learn, and every time they apply their socialistic anti-American strategies it always ends up as a loss of money, loss of freedom, loss of economic prosperity, and a destruction of the American Way. The latest case of chasing Karl Marx involves Delta Airlines and their idea that claims to be good for ticket prices – but what it really turns out to be is a play to be social engineers with your wallet. The plan is to use artificial intelligence to do it. According to the New York Post, Delta plans to let A.I. set ticket prices on 1% of its flights based on what a customer is “willing to pay,” with the goal of expanding that model to 20% of domestic flights by year’s end.
Now, on the surface, this sounds like innovation. Progress. Efficiency. But dig deeper and you’ll find the same old leftist playbook — redistribution of wealth dressed up in a digital tuxedo.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about helping travelers. It’s about punishing success. Delta’s A.I. will analyze your income, spending habits, and digital footprint to decide whether you should pay more — not based on the value of the seat, but based on your ability to afford it. That’s not capitalism. That’s communism with a search algorithm.
This is the same flawed logic that says if you’ve worked hard, saved, and climbed the ladder, you should subsidize those who haven’t. It’s the economic equivalent of enabling a narcissist — rewarding irresponsibility while penalizing discipline. And it kills the very thing that drives people to improve their lives: incentive.
You want proof this model fails? Look no further than Carnival Cruises. They slashed prices to make cruising “accessible,” and what happened? Ships turned into floating frat houses. Loud music, trashed cabins, zero respect for fellow travelers, and they became nicknamed “Ghetto Cruises.” Why? Because when you give something away, it loses its value — and so does the experience.
Delta’s A.I. pricing scheme is a digital redistribution engine. It’s not about fairness. It’s about control. It’s about using data to enforce a socialist model where the productive pay more so the unproductive can pay less. And let me tell you — that model fails every time. History proves it. Economics proves it. Common sense proves it.
What we need is a return to individualism. Personal responsibility. The idea that you earn your way, and in doing so, you build a better life. That’s what built America. That’s what built prosperity. And that’s what Delta — and every other company flirting with this ideology — needs to remember before they trade freedom for fairness and end up with neither.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There’s a pro-constitutional trend sweeping the country – a restoration of liberty through legislative actions by individual states in America. It’s called Constitutional Carry, and it’s the kind of sanity that would make our Founding Fathers stand up and cheer.
Twenty-nine States – think about that, it’s nearly three-fifths of the United States – have recognized that the Second Amendment was never meant to be questioned in the first place. Every federal gun law is unconstitutional, and now the states are working to bring our right to keep and bear arms back to its right place; in the hands of We the People. The right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a natural right that exists without any constitutional authority for bureaucratic roadblocks or permission slips. North Carolina’s legislature, sensing the pulse of freedom, recently passed such a law. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party governor of North Carolina, Josh Stein, vetoed the legislation.
Governor Stein, it seems, believes he is the ultimate gatekeeper of natural, God-given rights. One person, versus the voice of North Carolinians in their legislature, believing he can wield god-like powers to trump our gift from God – the right to keep and bear arms.
Let’s go back – way back – to our roots. The Saxons, from whom much of our political framework is derived, believed that being armed was synonymous with being free. Their weapon, the Saex (short sword/long knife), wasn’t just a tool – it was a symbol. If one broke the law, he forfeited that blade. Only when the weapon was returned was he considered free once again. That went way beyond symbolism – it was systemic. Liberty wasn’t granted by rulers; it lived in the grip of an armed citizen.
The Founders while crafting the Bill of Rights knew this. They didn’t draft the Second Amendment as a casual footnote, or a suggestion. They codified it as a warning to tyranny. They wrote, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” and if we reference the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary (the first dictionary of the English Language focusing on America’s version), we can decipher exactly what they meant. “Well regulated” did not mean micromanaged by government – it meant well ordered, well equipped, well trained and well armed. The militia? George Mason said it best. “The whole of the people.” Not the massive bureaucracy. Not the elites. Not just the military or law enforcement. You. Me. All of us.
It is the “right of the people,” an individual right that each of us possess, to “keep and bear arms.” Keep. To keep in this context means to possess and own. “Bear” includes concealed carry – not just to carry on one’s body, but to conceal carry. How do we know this? We go right back to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary where one of the examples for the word is to “carry under one’s coat.” That’s not speculation. That’s not just some guideline or suggestion. It’s a conclusive definition.
If a right is natural, intrinsic, given by God and enumerated in the Constitution – not granted by government – then what in the world makes anyone believe that we need a permit to exercise it?
Let’s not forget the Constitution’s Article IV Full Faith and Credit Clause. Textually, and with original context, it means that any permit issued in one state must be respected by all of the states. Yet, even this constitutional safeguard is being routinely ignored. So, the states came up with Constitutional Carry laws, which bypasses that entire tangled web seeking to return to reason and reset a foundational principle.
The natural right to keep and bear arms is about much more than personal defense. It’s about our communities. It is about our duty as members of our communities to defend them against enemies – foreign and domestic. And it’s that last word that sends shivers through the political class. Domestic enemies. The very reason that Constitutional Carry matters most. Tyranny doesn’t wear a foreign uniform. It sits behind a desk along the halls of our own government challenging the sovereignty of each individual. That is why we must be armed, vigilant, and united.
Make no mistake: The Constitutional Carry Movement isn’t about pushing policy. It’s about pulling liberty back to its roots. And the more states we see passing these laws, the closer we get to restoring the original vision that forged this Republic – not one based on the whims of bureaucratic elites and their shuffling of paperwork, but on the unalienable rights of a free citizenship.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In June of 2010 I wrote about an Arizona Immigration Law, S.B. 1070. The law was called at the time misguided, irresponsible, and racist. It was mischaracterized as one that used racial profiling, even though the law specifically had text that not only did not allow racial profiling, but required the police to provide evidence other than racial profiling to justify their reasonable suspicion regarding the legal status of the suspect.
California Congresswoman Linda Sanchez even went so far as to tell a Democratic Club that white supremacist groups were influencing lawmakers to adopt laws that will lead to discrimination, in reference to Arizona’s immigration law.
Note that the Democrats were using the White Supremacist argument even before the emergence of Donald J. Trump on the political scene.
President Barack Obama pursued a legal investigation into Arizona’s immigration law, and ultimately filed a lawsuit against the State for having its own immigration law – citing that Arizona was violating Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution stating that while federal immigration laws are on the books, and Arizona’s law mirrors those laws nearly perfectly, Arizona’s desire to enforce immigration law was contrary to the actions of the federal government and therefore were unconstitutional.
In Article II. of the United States Constitution the document calls for the President to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, therefore refusal to carry out those laws, much less go after a State for daring to do so themselves, would be unconstitutional.
In California protests against Arizona’s immigration law led Los Angeles and San Francisco to boycott Arizona. Thousands of Southern California activists headed to Arizona to protest against Arizona’s immigration law.
The Arizona law was simply the State’s attempt to ensure the laws the federal government refused to enforce were enforced for the purpose of protecting their own State against what they believed to be a dangerous invasion of a foreign force.
U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325 considers it a felony to conceal, harbor, or shelter illegal aliens. The Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275 consider illegal entry into the United States to be a misdemeanor. Repeated illegal entry is a felony. In short, the federal government sought to sue Arizona for enforcing law that was on the books, calling Arizona misguided for acting upon the laws the federal government refused to enforce.
Opponents of Arizona’s law claimed it was unconstitutional because it is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce federal law. Robbing a bank is breaking federal law. Should the police wait for the FBI to show up before chasing the bank robbers? Alcohol is taxed federally, and a federal agency is set up regarding alcohol (ATF), so should the local police wait for a federal agent to show up before pulling over a drunk driver?
As for any argument that Arizona’s law might have been contrary to federal law, when one compared Arizona’s S.B. 1070 with the U.S. Code and the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and then compared those laws to California’s Penal Code Section 834b, there is one glaring difference. Arizona’s law was completely identical with one exception: the Arizona State law was the only one that did not allow racial profiling.
In other words, the Arizona law, from a strictly legal viewpoint, was tamer than federal law and California’s immigration law on the books, not harsher as argued by its opponents.
Fast forward to today, the Supreme Court on July 9 declined to overturn a lower court’s order blocking enforcement of a Florida law that makes it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to enter Florida.
The new decision in Uthmeier v. Florida Immigrant Coalition took the form of an unsigned order. The high court did not explain its decision. No justices dissented.
The justices turned away a June 17 emergency application by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asking to overturn U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams’s order blocking state officials from enforcing the law while a legal challenge remains pending in the lower courts.
Williams had ruled that the state law, known as SB 4-C, was at odds with the federal government’s exclusive authority on the subject of immigration and was probably unconstitutional – a similar argument used by the Obama Administration back in 2010.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit declined to pause Williams’s ruling, finding the law was “likely” preempted, or overridden, by federal law.
The application said SB 4-C makes it a state-level criminal offense for someone who has entered the United States illegally to enter Florida and remain in the state. To respect federal authority, the law is silent on who should be admitted to or removed from U.S. territory. The law was “a measured effort by Florida” to safeguard state sovereignty, according to the application.
Florida argued that States are allowed to enact laws aimed at stemming the flow of illegal immigration into their territory. The Supreme Court, according to Florida’s application, has never held that the federal Immigration and Nationality Act “fully displaces the States from regulating in the field of alien movement, and nothing in SB 4-C poses a conflict with federal law.”
The lower court, argued proponents of Florida’s law, was wrong to find that the Florida law, which actually complements federal law, was preempted by federal law.
Article I, Section 8 and Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution provides authority to the Federal Government regarding naturalization and migration – ultimately the power to handle immigration law. However, immigration is one of those issues that is in part shared by both federal and State governments. A “concurrent” power. While immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government, States have the authority to protect themselves from the lawbreakers getting into their State, and once they are in their State.
The best way I can explain the dynamic is metaphorically.
Imagine a schoolyard. The Principal is tasked with campus security. The fence around the campus is designed to keep out people who are not supposed to be on campus. If anyone outside employees or students wish entry into the campus, or to go through the paperwork to become a new student or employee, the process would be taken care of by the Principal’s office.
Imagine, now, that a student from another school, a disciplinary problem on top of that, enters the school grounds without permission, and may be dangerous to the inhabitants of the school. While it would be the Principal’s job to apprehend, detain, and ultimately expel that invader from the school’s campus, that does not mean that the teachers cannot lock their doors to protect their classroom, and even detain the unwelcome encroacher, contact the Principal’s office, and hold the hoodlum until the school’s security arrives to take the detainee away and ultimately remove them from the school’s grounds.
The States are the same. While it is the ultimate responsibility of the Federal Government to apprehend, detain, and process out of the country (deport) migrants who have entered illegally, the States have every right and authority to lock their doors and police their territory regarding these unwanted illegal aliens.
In short, the court’s ideologically driven decisions are unconstitutional. Florida is constitutionally authorized, as was Arizona over a decade ago, to protect their State from illegal aliens.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
We, and by “we” I mean the conservative Trump-supporting side of politics, knew from day one that the Russia-Russia-Russia claim in 2016 that Donald J. Trump was somehow in collusion with the Russians or that Trump won the presidency for his first term because of Russian hacking, influence and meddling was false. On my radio programs I told my audiences that the Democrats had gotten to the point where they believed their own B.S., which was predicated on the idea that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable heir for Obama, and that because of the Obama presidency the GOP would never win the presidency again…ever. The polls, of which they were manipulating, said so. So, when Donald J. Trump won in 2016 it seemed in the minds of the deep state establishment and their Democratic Party allies to be absolutely impossible that it had happened fairly – or, at least that’s what they needed to convince the voting public of so that it never happened again.
Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a whole list of players who have their hands on the levers of the Democratic Party, went into action. If Trump’s win was an impossibility, yet it happened, then it must’ve been rigged – which shocked the Democrats because a part of the reason that they knew that they would win was because they were rigging the system for perpetual wins. So, they couldn’t say that Trump rigged the election directly, or that the voting machines were involved in any way because then people would want to investigate domestically any election inconsistencies and that would create a discovery of their electoral shenanigans. So, the threat needed to be external.
It must’ve been Russia.
The problem was, already having a Russian influence excuse cooking up as a back-up plan, the intelligence community had already provided a report explaining that Russia had no interest in election interference, and were not capable of it. Besides, considering the Democratic Party’s left-leaning tendencies, it would be a big pill to swallow to convince folks that Putin wanted Trump to win. If he wanted an ally in the White House, that person would be Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s already had a history of cozying up to communists, selling them American technology, and selling them uranium – not to mention the left-leaning tendencies of Democratic politicians of which Republicans typically were repulsed by. The Democratic Party’s purposeful weakness when it came to geopolitical affairs was what Putin needed to carry out his global agenda of increased Russian influence and seeking to return to the glory days of the Soviet Union which at the time may even mean an invasion of former Soviet republics…like Ukraine. So, the Democrats altered their story once that all surfaced, and settled on saying, “Well, he just wanted chaos. Putin just wants to create disruption.”
Again, an argument to deflect any eyes away from their own deceptive meanderings that were already in the making.
The problem was, they had no proof, and the intelligence community disagreed with the preferred narrative and assessment. So, Obama went to Brennan and Comey (CIA and FBI) to get them to change the intelligence community’s findings while the media stepped in to make sure that everyone just knew that the Russians were the problem, and that Trump’s win was a lie. Then, to help solidify the whole thing, Hamilton 68 was launched to also prove to everyone that hard evidence was found revealing that the Russians were scouring the internet with their bots and technology wizardry to put out a false narrative on Trump to falsely convince voters to not vote for the billionaire businessman who was a threat to the political establishment machine. Then, the infamous Steele dossier emerged into view – a collection of unverified claims funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee – which was dismissed internally as “internet rumor” but still influenced the whole scheme.
It was obvious that the Democrats were lying, and had cooked up the whole scheme. However, like a Scooby Doo cartoon, we still needed proof of the whole deception, and the meddling kids from the GOP didn’t have any access to prove anything. I was beginning to wonder if the Democrats were going to get away with their Russia-gate hoax.
In 2020, the Democrats made sure they weren’t caught flat-footed again. They threw fifteen million more votes in Biden’s direction through their own election fraud schemes, and it was enough to bring the election win back into the laps of the Democrats. And Biden, the sweet old man in the eyes of the public from the Democrats’ point of view would be acceptable, adored, and easy to manipulate.
The Republicans, or at least Trump-supporting folks out there who were paying close attention, realized that the 2020 Election had been stolen. So, they began doing their own investigations, and began talking about it. The Democrats needed to do something fast, so when Trump-leaning Republicans went to Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021 to air their grievances, a new plan was cooked up – one that should end the Trump-supporting MAGA scourge forever by creating a production to show the rest of the country that Trump-supporters were angry, dangerous and violent insurrectionists willing to violently attack The Capitol to try to overturn the election. Then, the Democrats put everything they could into it, arresting over 1,500 people in connection with the alleged January 6 Insurrection. Despite evidence that the whole thing was not an insurrection, that there was agitation perpetrated by the Democrats’ allies in the Capitol Police ranks, and that FBI assets were on the ground manipulating the scene (and that Antifa was being brought in by the bus loads) the January 6 Committee put out damaging findings against Trump and his MAGA supporters, and then the Democrats kicked into high-gear a lawfare blitz aimed at making sure Trump was branded a criminal just like his January 6 supporters. The narrative was simple. Trump was a criminal, his supporters were insurrectionists, and the whole GOP membership was filled with a bunch of anti-democracy, racist, white supremacist, fascist domestic terrorists who must be kept out of political power forever.
Meanwhile, Biden’s mental acuity was on the decline. Now the Democrats had something new to deal with. No problem – it was nothing they couldn’t handle with a lot of secrecy, keeping Biden off the air as much as possible, and the autopen.
Fast Forward to 2024. Election Integrity was in place thanks to many patriots around the country with memories of the horrors of the 2020 election steal clearly pulsing in their minds. Americans were fed up with the Democrats and their “Hate Trump” fervor along with the failure of Progressive policies during the Biden administration. Then, during the election cycle Biden’s lack of mental acuity became apparent no matter how hard they tried to hide it (the final straw being during the debate against Trump), and then when they forced Kamala Harris into the race, despite them using the media to prop her up and cook the polls, Trump won the 2024 Election – and while slim, the Republicans kept a majority in the House of Representatives and one in the Senate when you factored in the Vice President’s duty as President of the Senate to break any ties in any of the votes.
Disaster!
The Democrats were on the ropes again. How could this possibly happen?
No problem. They would do what history reveals they’ve done many times before: retreat to the stronghold of the courts where it would be more difficult to dislodge them, and fight against them.
Lawfare refocused from the lawfare of the previous four years against Trump-the-civilian to using the federal inferior courts against Trump-the-President – where activist judges would be used to unconstitutionally strike down everything that Trump tried to accomplish.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the Court of Public Opinion sees what they are doing and it is garnering even more support for President Trump. His popularity is rising no matter what they try to throw at him. The “Hate Trump” agenda is backfiring, and the Democratic Party looks like a party coming apart at the seams. All of their dirty games have not been working, and now people like Kash Patel, Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi are looking under the skirt of Democratic Politics over the last eight-plus years. Sure, the Democrats have done their share of destroying documents, and doctoring documents, but it hasn’t been enough. Somewhere, they missed a few dotting and crossing of certain letters and the truth is finally beginning to bubble to the surface.
Which brings us to Tulsi Gabbard.
The former Democrat, and now the Trump #47 United States Director of National Intelligence, has put out there that a recently declassified report from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has shed light on the origins of the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. However, the report reveals some interesting findings. Then CIA Director John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of potentially unreliable and biased reports to support the narrative, despite previous intelligence reports showing a lack of solid evidence.
Why would Brennan do such a thing?
Then, the big reveal: Because President Barack Obama gave the order to release that false information.
According to the document:
Acting on President Obama’s orders, DCIA Brennan directed a “full review” and publication of raw HUMINT information that had been collected before the election. CIA officers said that some of this information had been held on orders of the DCIA, while other reporting had been judged by experienced CIA officers to have not met longstanding publication standards. Some of the latter was unclear or from unknown subsources, but would nonetheless be published after the election – on orders of DCIA and cited in the ICA to support claims that Putin aspired to help Trump win.
The damning 2020 report was scoured out of existence by the Democrats, except that Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA), a Trump ally, saved it, and stored it in a secure vault at CIA headquarters.
The whole assessment and Russia Hoax plan was put into place by a small team of five CIA analysts right before Trump’s 2017 Inauguration, overlooking sourcing and analysis because of the haste it was put into action.
The plan went into full-force, cherry-picking intelligence, ignoring or downplaying any information that contradicted the narrative, and claiming that reliable sources indicated that Russian officials anticipated a Clinton win and were determined to create chaos in the election.
Real intelligence, however, did not fit the narrative. Putin believed he would be able to negotiate more effectively with a Hillary Clinton administration because the Democrat was a weaker leader who could be more easily influenced.
The narrative, however, needed voters to believe that Trump was the person Putin preferred – that Russia believed they would get their way more with Trump, rather than Hillary. But if that was so, then why wasn’t Russia during their alleged meddling releasing damaging material on Clinton as the race tightened, despite having opportunities to do so?
The report being revealed by Tulsi Gabbard reveals that two high-ranking CIA officers reportedly advised CIA chief Brennan that no concrete evidence existed to support claims of Putin’s Pro-Trump bias.
The declassification and big reveal by Tulsi Gabbard not only confirms what we already had suspected, but also points a great big finger at President Obama. Former CIA Chief John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey then lied to Congress about the whole thing way back when. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, along with his CIA and FBI buddies, tossed aside any evidence that did not fit their narrative, and then rushed out a doctored “intelligence assessment” that falsely claimed the opposite. The manipulated evidence was designed to stop the Trump presidency, and at least get Trump prosecuted.
Understand, this is not just a hunch or a little bit of information. What Tulsi Gabbard has put out there is overwhelming evidence showing that President Barack Obama and his national security team “manufactured and politicized intelligence” in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. The Democrats weaponized federal agencies against a duly elected President. Many years ago we knew that the Russia collusion narrative was false, but extensive investigations were never able to produce the hard evidence needed to prove it. This new information surfacing reveals not only that it happened, but the political motivation in place as the Democrats pursued the Trump Campaign with sweeping, fabricated allegations of ties between Trump and Russia.
According to Gabbard: “The years-long Mueller investigation, two Congressional impeachments, high-level officials being investigated, arrested, and thrown in jail, heightened US-Russia tensions, and more — all of these were the direct result of this manufactured narrative.”
The whole thing reveals corruption at the highest levels. The whole thing was not designed to protect national security as advertised, but to dismantle the legitimacy of an election that shook the leftist corrupt establishment to the core.
Gabbard said regarding the conspiracy: “Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.”
This “coup,” as Gabbard described it, involved the misuse of intelligence, the weaponization of law enforcement agencies, and a sustained campaign to delegitimize a sitting president.
She said, “President Obama, former Director of the CIA John Brennan, and others fabricated the Russia Hoax, suppressed intelligence showing Putin was preparing for a Clinton victory, manufactured findings from shoddy sources, disobeyed IC standards, and knowingly lied to the American people.”
That means that President Barack Obama and the U.S. leaders directing intelligence agencies at the time lied about the whole Russian-Collusion thing. President Richard Nixon resigned, and was under threat of impeachment, for lying to the American People. President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to the American People about services rendered in the Oval Office by Monica Lewinsky. Lying to the American Public is a big deal. This is not the kind of thing that should go quietly into the dark as the Golden Age finally gets its chance to unveil itself.
And Obama didn’t just lie. His administration used U.S. intelligence to back false claims about Trump and Russia, doing what they could to try and sabotage a peaceful transition of power. Didn’t the Democrats claim that trying to “overturn” an election or messing with an election is “insurrection” while they were deceptively barking about January 6, 2021?
They wasted millions of taxpayer dollars and damaged U.S. foreign policy to try to deny the American voting public their choice for President, and then by hitting Trump with fabricated scandals, including a massive special council investigation.
The Democrats lied to Americans about Russian interference and smeared Trump as a treasonous colluder with Russia.
Is not those actions, based on the very definition given to us by the Democrats over January 6, treasonous actions by Barack Obama and everyone else involved?
Obama lied to Americans in speeches about Russian election interference, well knowing that U.S. intelligence before he ordered them to change their assessment had assessed his statements to be false. Then, they erected a totalitarian censorship edifice under the pretext of “misinformation” and “disinformation” to cap the deception. They blatantly leaked false intelligence to the Washington Post, they falsely claimed that Russia used “cyber means” to influence “the outcome of the election.” The narrative spread throughout the willing corporate media web like a virus, infecting the news cycles with the false information, and filling the heads of Americans with doctored information and false claims in the hopes of hamstringing the first Trump presidency. An echo chamber was created in the mainstream media selling that Trump was a treasonous colluder with Russia, and that Obama’s payout of American tax dollars to Iran and the government takeover of formerly private health markets with Obamacare were good things. The fact is, Obama got the ball rolling, and according to Tulsi Gabbard’s document release Obama was likely directly involved with his administration’s spying on the Trump campaign (a practice Biden’s administration also took advantage of in 2024), the Obama administration spied on domestic political opponents, an email from Susan Rice implicated Obama in the Russian collusion smear against Trump, Obama intelligence officials likely lied to Congress, and that Obama himself was involved in ensnaring Trump’s first national security advisor in yet another fabricated scandal using spying, leaking, and manipulation of U.S. intelligence.
Meanwhile, as all of these ground-breaking, earth-shattering revelations emerge with Tulsi Gabbard’s releases the mainstream corporate media has been silent about it all. Gabbard is accusing Barack Obama and the top knuckleheads of the Democratic Party deep state swamp of orchestrating a “years-long coup” and manufacturing and politicizing intelligence so that they could set the stage for the Trump-Russia collusion narrative against President Donald Trump following his 2016 election win with overwhelming evidence and the media has largely ignored or downplayed Gabbard’s explosive claims. ABC and NBC have failed to cover the story at all.
Don’t forget that these same news outlets were screaming in support to help promote the anti-Trump Russia hoax when the thing was first being perpetrated against the American people.
The Democratic Party political class is also trying to deflect from the revelations, suggesting that the timing of Gabbard’s releases are designed to distract away from the Jeffrey Epstein case, another basket full of lies that the MAGA movement is refusing to take the bait regarding.
Former CIA Director John Brennan has been slamming Gabbard’s findings as “misrepresentations,” and “ludicrous.”
The information Gabbard has, meanwhile, has been given to the Department of Justice, adding to the building of a major criminal conspiracy case targeting the Deep State’s decade-long effort to derail Donald Trump. This all goes way beyond Crossfire Hurricane, extending all the way back to 2016 and extending all the way forward to 2024 encompassing a large series of events by the Democrats aimed at stopping Trump from winning the presidency.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon on Steve Bannon’s Real America’s Voice, Pam Bondi doesn’t have to seek a grand jury or the indictment in Washington D.C., either, where the jury pool is coming from a 90% Democrat environment. Because of the Mar-a-Lago raid, the case could be brought in Florida, where “several overt acts of the conspiracy occurred.”
Solomon also explained that the conspiracy spanned multiple events, including the Trump-Russia hoax, the Ukraine impeachment, and even the FBI’s refusal to act on intelligence regarding Chinese interference in the 2020 election. “They didn’t want to help Donald Trump, so they ignored a potential counterintelligence threat,” he said. “It allows for a very large series of events to be wrapped into a single conspiracy.”
When asked whether this approach could overcome the statute of limitations for certain crimes, Solomon explained how conspiracy charges work. “You can charge a series of events into a larger conspiracy and go back beyond the window of time that the normal statute of limitations for any single crime occurred,” he said. He also noted that prosecutors could argue the statute was tolled if crimes were hidden from the public.
Bannon summed it up as a potential game-changer: “That means… we can go back in time 10 years and still get Brennan and still get all these guys for more serious charges of conspiracy to — of a coup d’état?”
“That’s how conspiracy cases can work,” Solomon replied.
Perhaps Barack Obama himself is not as clean and as untouchable as originally advertised by the rabid Democratic Establishment. Despite the Democrats portraying Obama as the gold standard of presidential perfection, the façade is falling apart real fast. The former president is now at the center of the entire Russia hoax, with evidence to back it up. Could Obama’s framing of Trump as some would-be “Russian asset” lead to something bigger that may even allow the former president to be prosecuted for his part in, do I dare say it, insurrection? No matter what happens, after all of the dust settles I am figuring that Barack Obama will lose more than merely his legacy-building image.
We must remember, before we get so excited that we begin investing in orange jump suit producing companies, investigations like this takes time. Matt Taibbi, an award-winning journalist, indicates that we also need to realize that there are layers of protection around someone like Obama. The evidence is there, and he could be in serious hot water, but cases need to be built and challenges appear at every turn. And don’t forget, “if you read between the lines of the documents, some of these folks were in CYA mode even back then.”
Either Obama falls, someone else does, or perhaps a whole bunch of them do. That fact is, according to Gabbard’s releases, Obama knew, Obama ordered it, and Obama owns one of the biggest scandals in U.S. political history. Will all involved, including Obama, be “investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?”
If false intelligence really was manufactured at “the President’s request,” then Barack Obama is in really big trouble. He engaged in a “treasonous conspiracy,” and Gabbard is calling for “every person involved in this conspiracy” to be prosecuted. Gabbard told Maria Bartiromo that whistleblowers are starting to “come out of the woodwork.” President Donald Trump posted an AI video that depicts Barack Obama being arrested.
The Supreme Court ruling regarding presidential immunity, according to the Democrats, shields Obama from prosecution – but if you read the ruling it is about the President performing his presidential duties – something that straight out treason would not be protected by.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are re-opening the Clinton email probe. Several thumb drives were never analyzed, and the DOJ’s prior investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server also served as a piece of the overall conspiracy against Trump. The information related to Hillary Clinton’s emails constitute material evidence in Obama’s broader criminal conspiracy, and contain information relevant to the conspiracy investigation. In the batch of information is also some of Obama’s emails, and purported communications with Democratic National Convention people like then Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and two different individuals who worked for the Soros Open Society Foundations. The intelligence reports allege that the Obama administration took efforts to scuttle the investigation into Clinton to protect her candidacy. Weeks after Comey exonerated Clinton in a public statement (July 5, 2016), on July 31, 2016 Comey’s FBI formally opened the bogus Crossfire Hurricane investigation into President Trump’s disproven collusion with Russia.
Sources:
https://canadafreepress.com/article/hamilton-68-fraud-regarding-russian-bots#google_vignette
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/06/trump-popular-vote-republican-candidates
https://thelibertydaily.com/declassified-report-reveals-obama-gave-order-release-fake/
https://protrumpnews.com/tulsi-gabbard-releases-more-russiagate-docs/
https://slaynews.com/news/corporate-media-blackout-tulsi-gabbards-bombshell-criminal-referral-obama/
https://thelibertydaily.com/trump-admin-cooking-major-criminal-conspiracy-case-against/
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Democratic Party is all over the map when it comes to what to do with radical socialist Zohran Mamdani’s shocking victory in New York’s Democratic Party mayoral primary. The ripple effects washed across mainstream media quickly, and know the tsunami has reached Washington D.C.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a.k.a. AOC, Bernie Sanders’ radical commie heir apparent until Mamdani surfaced on the streets of Gotham, has embraced Mamdani’s radical mystique and recently rolled out the red carpet for him when he visited The Beltway. She even hosted a breakfast at the National Democratic Club to promote Mamdani, embracing the 33-year-old’s self-description as a democratic socialist.
While Mamdani has not landed any key endorsements from powerful New York Democrats, he’s got his feelers out hoping to get someone, anyone, in the broader Democratic Party scene. Despite AOC’s support, however, none of those endorsements have materialized. Democratic leadership, New York’s and beyond, is very hesitant to throw anything behind the radical leftist.
That said, the Democratic Party has been moving leftward. In 2016 the party boxed out Bernie Sanders because he was too radical compared to Hillary Clinton, but now he’s pretty much the mainstream of the party. Recognizing that, Zohran Mamdani is then the logical move leftward – and the GOP is capitalizing on his rise warning Americans that radical figures like Mamdani represent the future of the Democratic Party.
The problem is not just that he is a representation of what the Democratic Party is becoming, but that Mamdani is looking to take the reins of heart of what was once the proud symbol of American capitalism — New York City — some might even say the economic center of the world.
New York City has been the home of many mayors. Most of them leaning leftward, but a wide variety that even included an exceptional man that got the city turned around like Rudy Giuliani. But Mamdani is no Giuliani, much less anything else that New York has ever seen before. He’s not just a progressive. He’s not even just a socialist. No — Mamdani’s a self-declared communist who’s running on a platform that would have made Khrushchev blush.
And the most astonishing part? By the voters in New York, he’s being taken seriously.
Let’s not sugarcoat this: Mamdani’s agenda isn’t some quirky millennial daydream. It is a full-blown manifesto for the destruction of private property, the evisceration of public safety, and the systematic dismantling of everything the American constitutional order stands for.
The communist agenda includes the destruction of what America is about, and Mamadani is true to that Cloward/Piven attitude – and is calling for policies that are proven not only to be failed ideas, but destructive.
He, for one, plans to defund the police and abolish prisons — two foundational pillars of civil society. The idea isn’t to reform or improve our justice system. No, his solution is to eliminate it. To empty the jails. To strip away law enforcement. To replace the police with social workers. In the Marxist fantasyland of Mamdani’s mind, criminal behavior is just a symptom of capitalism — and therefore, the criminal is the real victim.
Then there’s the assault on private healthcare — he wants universal, government-run healthcare, while simultaneously proposing that state-operated hospitals be prohibited from suing anyone for medical debt. In other words, make healthcare free, destroy any mechanism to keep it solvent, and let the taxpayer carry the wreckage.
Communism abhors ownership of any kind. Possession to them leads to greed and inequality. A friend of mine when he visited Moscow back in the seventies told me that residents not only lived in stack-em-and-pack-em housing, but that window coverings were not allowed so that the resident could not conceal their possessions – a strategy by the government to ensure equity. Mamdani, in true communist fashion, also seeks government controlled housing, and an elimination of possessions. Mamdani wants to ban private ownership of housing and convert it all into government-controlled rental properties. You don’t own your home. The government does. And if you want to keep living there, you’d better stay in line. It’s not just bad policy. It’s an open war on the American dream.
He wants to ban all firearms, in direct contradiction to the Second Amendment. He wants to implement rent control across the board. He calls for government-run grocery stores, which history has shown us result in shortages, rationing, and economic collapse. He wants to decriminalize prostitution, create safe injection sites, end cash bail, decriminalize all drug possession, and completely end cooperation with ICE — making New York not just a sanctuary city, but a sanctuary for lawlessness.
And here’s the kicker — none of this is happening in a vacuum. Mamdani represents the next phase of the progressive left’s ideological evolution. They’re not hiding anymore. The careful creeping incrementalism/Frog-In-The-Pot method has gone out the window. They’re not just inching toward socialism—they’re sprinting into Marxism at warp speed with a mischievous smile befitting of the Cheshire Cat.
This isn’t just a New York problem. This is a preview of coming attractions if conservatives, independents, and even classic liberals don’t take seriously what’s unfolding.
We used to argue over tax rates and infrastructure. Now we’re arguing over whether America should continue to exist as a free constitutional republic at all.
Mamdani isn’t just a fringe candidate. He’s the logical result of a generation taught to despise its own founding, convinced that the Constitution is an outdated relic, and seduced by the utopianism of “equity” by force.
So what’s at stake here? Everything. Because if New York embraces a communist future, the ripple effects won’t stop at the Hudson River. And if we don’t draw a line here, we may not get another chance to stop the slow, smiling collapse of the country we love.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Warped American Communist Mind versus Foundational Limited Government Constitutionalism
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The minds of the progressive leftist commies in America have shut out any truth, reason, or original intent of the United States Constitution. They cannot see the truth because they have a warped view of government, politics, and reality.
Their perception can only see through one lens. It’s like Black Lives Matter – once they convinced themselves that everything in America is racist and institutionalized racism runs through the veins of American History and every white person alive, they saw racism everywhere at every moment in everything because they expected to see it – even though it was not there.
Communist/Socialist/Progressive minds work the same way. They have convinced themselves that Communism works, and that it is already seething through our system and that socialist philosophies work wonderfully even though history reveals over and over again that socialism has never been successful and every time it has been tried it has resulted in economic suffering, hunger, death and ultimately societal collapse – but when you point out their policies are socialist, communist, or somewhere in the same family, they will deny that to be the truth and then project all of their true hidden ideas onto their opposition and claim that their opposition is the leftist/commie/authoritarian/fascist wanna-be dictators.
They know we look unfavorably at communism, so they find a way to twist it, while attempting to hide their true selves – claiming their ideas are the basis of what will be successful communism, but all of the sins of communism and authoritarianism in the past actually somehow are in line with conservative policies and that their opposition are the true communists in a bad way. For example, I remember a little over a decade ago Congressman Joe Garcia tried to compare border security to the horrors of communist policies. Fences and walls are something that communism puts up. He compared the ideas of fences and walls at the border to the Berlin Wall – AOC did the same, claiming the walls are designed to keep good people from escaping bad humanitarian disasters for a safe haven. And illegal alien holding facilities for criminal aliens who are being deported are being called concentration camps – a lame attempt to continue with their “Trump and MAGA are Nazis” narrative.
On the flip side, one time, when Political Pistachio was still over at its old home, a leftist wrote in my comment section, after reading my opinion of how the liberal progressive leftist democrats are following the historical path of communism, and after I agreed with Allen West’s comparisons of Democratic Party policies to policies of past Soviet regimes, left the following:
The Soviet Union wasn’t “lefty”. It was a hard line, right wing, authoritarian regime, not unlike North Korea. That’s not the type of government any western Liberal advocates. When you make that sort of claim, it’s just propaganda.
While speaking with a young man of the age of 29, after he spewed a number of leftist talking points, and proclaimed my image of the political spectrum was backwards. He said:
The 100% government is supposed to be on the right. It’s the rightwingers that want to use government to force a woman to not be able to have an abortion if she wants, and use government to control marriage. The religious right wants the church to control us, our thoughts, our decisions, and to force us to not act in the way we want. Democrats want government out of our lives on that, which makes it obvious that the 100% government lunatics are on the right.
Another once told me:
You already have communism in your life. Police services, and other emergency services, being government agencies, is communism. If you were true to your rightwing ideology, you’d want them to be run by for-profit companies.
When I ran for city council in Murrieta back in 2010, after a debate at the clubhouse of a senior community called The Colony, a man walked up to me and said, “You say you are for smaller government. So what do you plan to take away if you are elected? Parks? The Senior Center?”
It’s the all or nothing argument and the absolutism when it doesn’t belong, but not absolutism when it should be applied. Backwards, warped, and convoluted.
The definitions have been so twisted by the teachings of leftwing progressivism that people don’t even know what the truth is anymore.
Limited Government is not defined as a government that “takes things away,” as perceived by the older gentleman at The Colony. A limited government is one that functions within the limited authorities granted. A small government is one that does not exceed those authorities granted, remaining within the limitations established by the rule of law.
As for all of the “rightwinger” stuff, in reality, the Constitution does not lean to the right. In fact, it is dead center. Though I identify myself with the GOP (which the media and political hacks will say is “The Right”), and I even go so far as to call myself a conservative, in reality I am a Classical Centrist (or a Classical Liberal), because I hold the opinion that government must operate within the definitions originally assigned by the United States Constitution (including any amendments). And if you want to be totally honest, there is no rightwing – if the Constitution is dead center, aside from Anarchy and a pure democracy, everything is to the left of the Constitution…including the GOP.
To answer the 29 year old with his “tyranny of the right” argument, the argument is not whether or not government is forcing women not to have an abortion. Do we have laws to force a person from not murdering another person? From the point of view of pro-personhood/pro-life groups, the goal is to protect the lives of every American “persons,” and that includes the unborn. Simply put, abortion supporters are calling for the legal murder of persons in the first developmental stage of their human existence – and worse, they are unable to fight against those seeking to kill them so we must stand up and fight for their right to live.
Life, Liberty and Property – notice, life is always listed first.
As for the constitutional viewpoint, the federal government was never granted any authority to make law regarding any health issue, including abortion, therefore it is a State issue. The States need to decide that issue for themselves. As a pro-life advocate, I would hope that all fifty States would outlaw the genocide of the unborn through abortion, but at the same time, I would accept it if some States outlawed abortion, while others upheld it because that is within constitutional expectations and law. The States, after all, through our voice and our vote, are individual entities just like you and me, and are supposed to be making that decision for themselves. The federal government is not authorized to force the States to do one, or the other. The federal government, according to Federalist #45 by James Madison, was designed to handle external issues and issues that directly influence the preservation of the Union – domestic issues are local issues, belonging to the States.
That goes for marriage, too. In fact, my question has been, “Why is government involved in marriage in the first place – be it homosexual, heterosexual, inter-racial, or whatever? I support traditional marriage, I disagree with homosexuality, and history shows that when homosexuality becomes normalized in a society it is a sign that the civilization is reaching the twilight of its existence. However, from a limited government point of view, technically marriage is a State issue. But going back to my question earlier about government’s involvement in marriage in the first place, shouldn’t the churches make those decisions, as we would see in any free market atmosphere? Shouldn’t they then be able to reap the benefits, or the consequences, for their decisions? Instead, the democrats have politicized marriage (and sexuality to the point that we are told by some that nobody really knows what a woman is). By doing so, they have used their WOKE agenda to culturally and politically control various definitions, and by politicizing these issues they are now controlling speech regarding everything that were once none of the government’s business and in reality none of society’s business when it comes to the children. Now, we’ve gotten to a point that calling homosexuality or transgenderism a sin or a mental misbehavior or any other negative comment places one on some kind of enemies list. And nobody who disagrees with those behaviors have ever said that laws should be used to force people to act a certain way, or that those folks should not enjoy the blessings of liberty. People who agree or disagree or carry out their lives in line with these moral deviations still can have a job, can operate in society freely, can own a home, etc. etc. Despite their arguments, there are no legal limitations on their freedoms – just a bunch of people who say, “practice it in privacy and don’t push it on our kids.” But, if you disagree with the homosexual/transgender/queer agenda, then the supporters of their version of the new civil rights movement claims that their opponents are horrible people. Then, to stop any dissent against their agenda they have been seeking to put in place legal barriers to stop any dissent so that they can force their opinions about this into American Society and stop those who dare to disagree with them with hate speech laws and the like. Are they going to start monitoring pastors’ sermons? Will we become like Europe and the moment a social media post appears criticizing some WOKE agenda thing the person will be arrested? And, getting back to religious freedom, should Pastors be fearful to speak on the issue, when before it was no problem, because the issue was not politicized until the last couple decades? Then there’s the anti-religion argument who claims to be in line with a warped definition of the First Amendment saying churches cannot have an opinion on political issues. Therefore, since homosexuality is now a political issue, all preaching on the topic must stop. Are you kidding me? Suddenly, a bunch of lawmakers are going to dictate to churches what they are allowed to believe?
Remember, government’s involvement in marriage goes way back – it was created by the democrats so that they may control marriage just as they are doing today with this issue. After the Civil War marriage licenses surfaced so that the democrat-dominated governments in the South could disallow whites from marrying blacks. In the 1930s, marriage licenses again surfaced, this time to control marriage in relation to the entitlement programs that were emerging due to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal.
As for the claim by the 29 year old that Christians desire a theocracy, I have never heard any Christian call for an established church that controls everything like it did in old Europe at the time of the founding of the United States. That is a straw man argument completely created by the liberal progressive left in order to attack Christianity as a whole.
Propaganda.
So, that all said, let’s get back to Representative Garcia’s and AOC’s claim that border security is an example of communism.
The liberal left has created an “all or nothing” political environment. In other words, if you believe government control is wrong on a single issue, then you must believe it is wrong on all issues. That line of thinking led former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to call the TEA Party Republicans a bunch of “anarchists.” In his mind, compared to his Democratic Party idea of government-for-all-from-cradle-to-grave, limited government might seem sort of like anarchy.
Border Security is a necessary part of any society. But Trump’s call for a strong border is not designed to keep people in like the communist Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain, but to keep out those who would seek to harm our society. I love immigrants. My wife is an immigrant. But you don’t just open the border and let anyone and everyone in. There has to be a vetting process. Do you leave your front door open at your house hoping people will just walk in? No. And chances are, you lock it. Chances are when someone knocks on the door you ask, “Who is it?” Chances are you sometimes use the little peep hole to get a look at who it is. You have strict border standards for your house, and vet anyone who wants to enter. Why shouldn’t our border not be the same?
And if someone got into your house without your permission, wouldn’t you throw them out? Don’t you consider it a crime for someone to come into your house without being invited? And nobody says, “but gosh, even though they broke into our house, we can’t have them removed because they do jobs we don’t want to do. They do the yard work and the dishes.” No, they broke into your house, and you have them removed. End of story. Breaking in is an invasion, and you would not put up with that.
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government “shall protect each of them (the States) against invasion.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 allows the federal government to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution.”
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines “invasion” as “An intrusion or encroachment.” Crossing a national border illegally is intruding or encroaching into a country, against the laws in place that were necessary and proper to carry out the constitutional authority to protect the States from invasion. Border security is an integral part of protecting any nation from invasion. Therefore, the federal government’s authorities in the Constitution includes using federal immigration personnel (ICE and the Border Patrol) to protect the country from an invasion by illegal immigrants and to remove them if they get in illegally – especially if they are criminal aliens on top of all that.
Not exactly “communism,” as Garcia and AOC claims. Communism would be using a government program like Obamacare to enable the central government to control healthcare, in violation, I might add, of constitutional authorities granted. Communism would be using the government to control gun ownership, pursuing the ultimate goal of gun confiscation, as we are seeing right now with the liberal democrats. Communism would be government control of private industries through government dictates, heavy regulations, and the government purchase of portions of the industries, such as we have seen in the automobile industry, banking industry, credit industry, Wall Street, and health insurance industry, while Barack Obama and Joseph Biden were in office (and in reality, the methods used mirror fascism even more than they do communism since fascism is the control of the means of production through heavy regulation and mercantilistic agreements with businesses, rather than outright owning them through government takeovers as communism would dictate).
Why would AOC, Mamdani, Bernie Sanders and other radical Democrats make these kinds of statements and push for communist policies (while calling them by another name) in the first place? Do they not realize that they are supporting the policies of communists?
Of course they act like they are taken aback when the comparisons of their plans, policies and promises are compared to communism, spitting out some argument that they are not communists but they are instead Democratic Socialists and Progressives. When the policies are the same, calling the ideology a different name does not make it something other than communism.
The democrats, as I explained to the 29 year old so many years ago, are not only the ones that believe in big government, but they are proud of it. . . they just try to hide it, because if voters knew what the democrats were really about, they would never be voted into office – at least that is what I used to think; but after a lifetime of indoctrination some of the youngsters are happy to welcome people like AOC or Mamdani into American politics. They’ve been trained to.
The reality of late of who the progressive lefty democrats truly are has been poking its head out, and Americans are recognizing the socialist tint of Democrat Party politics. That’s among the reasons President Trump won in November of 2024. People are beginning to see who the Democrats really are, and they reject the collectivistic socialist garbage these people are pushing. Fortunately, finally, under Trump’s leadership, the Republicans no longer refuse to shed light on it, expose it, and draw attention to who the democrats are. And if enough people are watching and paying attention, we may see a new Golden Age on the horizon, after all – without the Democrats doing what they can to throw hammers and sickles into the spokes.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary