Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Preamble’s phrasing offers a compelling interpretation of the Founding Fathers’ intent regarding American identity and citizenship.
The phrase “We the People of the United States” represents a significant departure from previous governing documents. While the Magna Carta addressed “freemen” specifically, the American Founders chose a more inclusive term that theoretically encompassed all inhabitants. The word “people” meant “all people” of the United States. It was used also to describe slaves during that period; the term “people” was commonly used in legal and political discourse to refer to enslaved individuals, often in contexts like “the people of color” or “the people held in servitude.”
Jefferson’s drafting of the Declaration of Independence, and the opening line of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution (We the People) are viewed as contradictions to the reality of the time when one considers the presence of slavery in America, but if one looks deeper into the context of the era and the individuals behind those documents much more becomes particularly revealing. In his original draft of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson condemned the slave trade as a “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberties” and specifically blamed King George for “suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.” He also wrote about “all men” being created equal – after using the word “MEN” (a word he put in all caps and underlined) in his anti-slavery section of 168 words when referring to the slaves of the time – a section ultimately removed from the Declaration of Independence due to protest by South Carolina and Georgia (anti-slavery language the other eleven states agreed to). It is true that Jefferson himself enslaved hundreds of people, but even his ownership of slaves adds a layer to the complexity once the context of the situation is explored. Jefferson rarely purchased slaves, with one story stating that after seeing that a family would be separated at a slave auction, he bought the whole family (parents and children) to keep the family together. Most of the slaves he owned he inherited, and he was too cash poor to successfully free the slaves he owned.
During, and after, the Revolutionary War the animosity toward Tories and European class structures was central to revolutionary thinking. The Founders were consciously creating a new political identity distinct from European models of society based on hereditary status and class divisions. The phrase “We the People” was a radical departure from monarchical language like “We, the King” or “We, the Parliament” or even “We, the Freemen,” and suggested sovereignty residing in the collective populace rather than a monarch or aristocracy.
In America, the intent of the word “of” in the Preamble (We the People “of” the United States) signified a deeper connection than mere residency. The distinction between being “in” America versus being “of” America appears to have been significant to early American political thought. This perspective helps explain why the Naturalization Act of 1790 was passed so quickly, establishing that citizenship required not just presence but a meaningful connection to the American project.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, with its “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language, can be seen as an attempt to codify this distinction between those merely present on American soil and those with a more substantive connection to the Union of States. This interpretation suggests that American citizenship was conceived not just as a legal status but as a form of national belonging with corresponding obligations.
The question of whether “We the People” was intended to create a unified national identity that transcended particular group identities is particularly relevant today. The Founders appear to have been attempting to forge a new political identity based on shared commitment to constitutional principles rather than inherited status or particular group affiliations.
This conception of American identity has evolved over time, particularly through the Reconstruction amendments, the Reconstruction Era, the Civil Rights Movement, and contemporary debates about citizenship and belonging. The tension between the universalist aspirations of “We the People” and the particular experiences of different groups in American history provides a particularly interesting opportunity to study, but in the end we are reminded that the Founding Fathers were well aware of the schemes of identity politics, while they likely did not call such tactics by that name back then.
Historical context and the complexity of evaluating historical figures through a contemporary lens is important when attempting to dissect history and what was originally intended by the Founding Fathers. The Jefferson-Hemings controversy, for example, indeed exemplifies how historical narratives can be shaped by incomplete evidence, political motivations, and changing standards of proof. The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings was more about a newspaper columnist attempting to cause damage to Jefferson’s character than seeking the truth that may or may not have any validity.
Jefferson’s situation with slavery is an interesting and complex study in its own right. Virginia law in the late 18th century created significant barriers to manumission. An 1782 law had eased some restrictions, but it still required slaveholders to provide provisions and ensure that freed slaves could support themselves, which presented financial challenges for many plantation owners. Additionally, Jefferson’s substantial debts, particularly inherited from his father-in-law John Wayles, made it legally and financially difficult to free his enslaved workers.
As for the Jefferson-Hemings question, the historical record is indeed more complex than often presented. DNA testing in 1998 established that a male from the Jefferson line fathered Eston Hemings, but the testing couldn’t definitively identify Thomas Jefferson as the father. Randolph Jefferson, Thomas’s brother, was documented as visiting Monticello during the relevant periods, and other male Jefferson relatives lived nearby. It’s important to maintain a cautious stance on this question, acknowledging the DNA results are not definitive to Thomas Jefferson while noting the limitations of all the evidence.
Today, certain historical narratives become entrenched despite contrary evidence, and historical evidence and challenges to mainstream narratives are always worth exploring further. The process by which historical interpretations gain scholarly and public acceptance often involves factors beyond the evidence itself, including prevailing ideological frameworks, institutional biases, and the influence of prominent historians. In Jefferson’s case, his complex legacy as both a champion of liberty and a slaveholder has made him a particularly contested figure in American historical memory.
This connects back to the original thesis about “We the People of the United States.” If we recognize that the Founders were working within complex historical constraints and that their actions often involved difficult compromises, it might inform how we understand their constitutional design. Perhaps their conception of “We the People” was aspirational, pointing toward a more inclusive vision of American identity that they themselves could not fully realize, but that later generations could work toward achieving.
In that context, we need to consider exploring how the tension between the universalist aspirations of the founding documents and the particular limitations of the historical period shaped the American constitutional project. This may provide a nuanced perspective on how “We the People” has evolved over time while maintaining its core significance as a statement of a unified identity.
The reality is, especially in modern times, America requires constant maintenance like a car, needing direct action to ensure the machinery continues to properly operate due to the dynamic nature of constitutional governance. The phrase “We the People of the United States” wasn’t just a static declaration but an ongoing invitation to participate in the American experiment; a project that remains unfinished and requires continuous renewal.
The reality is that we have not fully realized the vision embedded in the Preamble. The concept of being “of” America rather than merely “in” America remains incomplete, as evidenced by the persistent divisions and identity politics that characterize much of contemporary discourse. However, this doesn’t mean the aspiration is invalid; rather, it suggests we need new and energetic approaches to civic engagement that can bridge these divides.
We need to revitalize civic education that emphasizes our shared constitutional heritage rather than our differences. We should encourage more local community engagement. As I like to tell people, “We complain about the cockroaches in Washington, but we breed them locally. Stop breeding them!” That is only possible if we become locally engaged. And, by focusing on local problem-solving, we can rebuild the sense of shared purpose that transcends ideological differences. We also need to create more opportunities for meaningful participation in governance. When residents are involved it helps develop a stronger sense of ownership and belonging. This could include citizens’ advisory boards, public forums, and other mechanisms that give people a voice in shaping policies that impact their lives. We must leverage media and storytelling to inspire action beyond our immediate circles. Personal narratives that emphasize our shared American identity can help counteract the divisive forces that promote identity politics. By highlighting stories that demonstrate what it means to be “of” America, we can create a more unifying public discourse. And finally, we should recognize that civic engagement takes many forms beyond voting. If voting was all that mattered, the Founding Fathers would have established this country as a democracy. In a republic, it takes much more civic engagement to maintain the system be it volunteering in the community, being informed about local issues, or actually directly engaging in civic activities like attending meetings, speaking at gatherings or running for local office. Each of these activities contributes to the maintenance of our constitutional system and helps strengthen the bonds that unite us as one people.
The lesson of “We the People of the United States” is that citizenship is not a passive status but an active commitment to the strength of our system of liberty and a free market. By focusing on what unites us and by creating opportunities for meaningful participation in our communities, we can move closer to realizing the vision of “We the People of the United States,” without using identity politics that classifies people as a part of a race, economic class, or ideology. In the end, the importance is our shared commitment to constitutional principles and the American experiment in self-government.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the California Primary reaches the end of day one (mail-in ballots may drag the process out for weeks), Karen Bass leads the field for mayor of Los Angeles. My wife asked how anyone could vote for her. Bass is an admitted communist, a failed mayor whose inept policies not only failed to make L.A. and better, but led to the destruction of over 6,000 homes in the Palisades Fire. The answer I gave her is “Ideological Capture.”
The problem is a mindless loyalty to leftist-Democrat policies despite the emergence of facts revealing the failure of the progressive commie left’s agenda. Many voters are unwilling to hear anything to the contrary to what they have been pitched because they suffer from ideological capture.
Rob Schneider used the term, “ideological capture,” on the Sunday Briefing on FOX News May 31, 2026 while discussing the Los Angeles Mayoral Campaign. While Spencer Pratt was doing well enough in the polls to be considered an electoral threat, the two Democrats on the ballot were still outpacing him. Schneider explained it as a scheme that the political left uses to convince some people that their opposition is so evil it’s better to stick with the Democrats who have failed policies than to vote for the evil people of the other side.
Rob Schneider’s concept of “ideological capture” is a compelling analysis of political polarization in general, and a key component in any political argument. No matter how many facts say otherwise, if you believe the other side’s narrative, we all die due to the end of the world. The opponents of the Democrats are so evil they don’t want to protect you from (fill in the blank). It’s a psychological phenomenon where fear and demonization of opposition overrides rational evaluation of policy outcomes or factual information. This creates a situation where voters stick with failing policies or unproven concepts because they’ve been convinced the alternative represents an existential threat rather than just a different approach to governance.
Schneider has been discussing this phenomenon for some time. He’s consistently spoken about how ideological conformity operates within Hollywood, noting that “artists are meant to be the most free-thinking people in the world, but the industry demands conformity above all else.” He’s also warned about how labels like “Nazi” and “White supremacist” are increasingly used to shut down disagreement rather than engage in substantive debate. This aligns with his broader critique that “woke ideology has never been popular with the public” despite being imposed by cultural institutions. Fear, however, can be an effective political weapon. Fear of the opposing party. Fear of the opinion of one’s peers. Fear of backlash if one dares speak in a positive manner of a party or ideology so demonized that it creates ideological capture.
Schneider has personal experience with this phenomenon, claiming his Hollywood career suffered after he began sharing conservative views publicly. He’s described how many in Hollywood “lean towards the right, but they’re just scared of it, because it really is like a mob of ideologues that will attack you.” This firsthand experience informs his analysis of how ideological capture works in broader society.
Schneider’s observation has been that this polarization has become so extreme that it overrides self-interest. Voters maintain loyalty to parties even when those parties’ policies demonstrably fail to improve their lives or has been proven to be a failed exercise. This creates a political environment where persuasion becomes nearly impossible because the debate isn’t about outcomes anymore, but about identity and perceived moral superiority.
When ideological capture prevents people from evaluating policies based on results or proven facts and instead on consensus based on the manipulation of the facts, it undermines the accountability mechanisms in governance.
I recall the first time I saw ideological capture in action during the 2016 Presidential Election. My brother-in-law asked me, “My mother agrees with you on every issue. Abortion. Taxes. Marriage. But she’s going to vote for Hillary because she believes Trump is racist, and will deport her friends from church. How do you convince someone like that?”
Typically, I would respond, “The truth shall set you free.” But with ideological capture, the truth is irrelevant.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tina Peters was released from jail June 1, 2026. The New York Times ran a headline warning that Colorado was “bracing” for the release of Tina Peters, whom they described as an “unrepentant election denier.” The language was deliberate, designed to make this 70-year-old grandmother sound like a menace to society, a hardened criminal who should remain behind bars. But the truth is far different from what the establishment media would have you believe.
I met Tina Peters a year before she was sent to jail at the Constitution Week event in Lake Havasu, Arizona. Earlier that year I also had the opportunity to spend some time with her at an event in the Los Angeles area. My wife and I spent considerable time with her, and what we found was not a criminal, but a virtuous, moral woman who loves God and abhors what is happening to our country. She’s an American hero, as my friend Brady “War Hamster” calls her – someone willing to risk everything to do the right thing.
Here’s what the media won’t tell you: As Mesa County Recorder, Tina Peters and all county recorders were ordered by the Colorado Secretary of State to delete all election data from voting machines. Tina questioned this order, recognizing that destroying evidence is never the right answer. Instead of complying, she preserved the information – information she believed could later become crucial evidence regarding the 2020 Presidential Election which appeared to be filled with anomalies, irregularities, and potential fraud.
For this act of preservation, she was convicted and sentenced to what amounted to the rest of her life. Her crime? Sharing the information she preserved, including with Mike Lindell, who was branded by Democrats as someone “attempting to overthrow the election results.”
This is how the system works now. Anyone who dared to ask questions about the numerous anomalies and irregularities in the 2020 election was branded an “election denier,” a term deliberately designed to evoke Holocaust deniers and make reasonable people sound like conspiracy theorists. The goal was to create a narrative so toxic that legitimate questions couldn’t be asked without immediate social and professional consequences.
If the election was as secure and fair as advertised, why such a coordinated attack against those asking questions? Why the resistance to verification? If everything was above board, there would be nothing to hide, right? But instead of transparency, we got defensive posturing and a narrative that anyone questioning the results was trying to “overthrow” the election – making them “insurrectionists” in the public imagination.
This comparison to the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause was deliberate. An attempt to paint Trump and his supporters as both “deniers” (like Holocaust deniers) and “insurrectionists” (like Confederates during the War Between the States). Optics and perception are powerful tools, and the Progressive Left wields them expertly.
Then came January 6, 2021, the day their trap was sprung. When Trump questioned the election and people gathered at the Capitol, they were framed as violent insurrectionists. The reality? We had a number of senators and congressmen willing to say, “We’re not ready to certify this election. We have questions. We want to send it back to the states.” That was about to happen at around 1:00 p.m. Eastern, right when the so-called “breach” occurred.
What actually happened was that Capitol Police started firing anti-riot measures like smoke bombs into crowds of people peacefully assembling – people who were merely exercising their First Amendment enumerated natural rights. Nobody was violent until the police escalated the situation. Thousands of hours of footage have never been released. The J6 committee deleted their own material. Why would you do that if you had nothing to hide?
This is all part of a pattern of cover-ups. Russia Gate was a Hillary Clinton campaign smear against Trump, and it was completely made up. The Steele dossier, the Mueller investigation, all designed to cover up the Russia Gate lies. Trump was on the verge of declassifying information that would have put many powerful people behind bars forever. Therefore, he could not be reelected. They had to stop him, and they were willing to do anything to achieve that goal.
President Trump believes they stole the 2020 election, and it appears to be that is exactly what they did – using COVID as an excuse to justify mail-in ballots that enabled fraud as a part of that scheme. Then, January 6 was a perfect opportunity for them to manufacture the idea that their opponents are raging insurrectionists, while also coving up what was obvious about the stolen election. It’s one crime to cover up another crime to cover up another crime. This is what happens when deception becomes institutional – lies pile upon lies until truth becomes nearly indistinguishable from fiction.
My friend, Brady “War Hamster,” calls it the greatest crime against humanity in history – a series of cover-ups that might even trace back to Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation’s dealings. The media, of course, has been the accomplice throughout, helping with the cover-up rather than exposing it.
Tina Peters had evidence of what happened – evidence that wasn’t supposed to be revealed. For preserving data that was ordered to be illegally destroyed, she received a sentence that would have taken most of her remaining life. She’s not a villain for trying to reveal corruption and fraud – or at least preserving a record of it. She’s a patriot who did what our system is supposed to encourage: she spoke the truth and sought to preserve the truth.
The establishment made an example of her because she dared to oppose the mighty leviathan. They wanted to send a message: question us, and we will destroy you. But in doing so, they only exposed their own insecurity and corruption.
Tina Peters’ release should be celebrated, not feared. She’s not dangerous. She’s a truth-teller in an age of lies. And that’s precisely why the establishment fears her.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Update: June 2, 2026 – Judge Decides to Follow the Constitution. https://www.newsmax.com/us/tyler-robinson-charlie-kirk-hearing/2026/06/01/id/1258190/
The assassination of Charlie Kirk caught national attention, and now the case against his murderer has all of us paying attention. The legal team representing Tyler Robinson, the individual accused of assassinating conservative activist Charlie Kirk, has waged a sustained battle to shield the proceedings from public view. Their efforts to close hearings, seal evidence, and restrict media coverage, however, is a direct assault on one of our most fundamental constitutional principles: the right to public trials.
The Sixth Amendment enumerates the right to a public trial – deliberately inserted by the Founding Fathers because it was considered an important safeguard against tyranny. They understood from bitter experience that secret courts become instruments of oppression, where justice can be administered without accountability. As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley has emphasized, the presumption of openness in our judicial system is not merely procedural but foundational to our republic.
Judge Tony Graf of Utah’s Fourth District Court recently rejected Robinson’s motion to close the preliminary hearing, ruling that “the presumptive constitutional right to open proceedings had not been overcome.”
This decision correctly recognized that while defendants have legitimate rights to a fair trial, these rights must be balanced against the public’s constitutional interest in transparent justice.
The defense’s arguments for secrecy center on concerns that media coverage might prejudice potential jurors. Yet, as Judge Graf noted, they failed to adequately demonstrate how an open hearing would compromise Robinson’s rights, especially given that “many tools already exist to prevent seating a prejudiced jury” and “much of the evidence prosecutors plan to present at the preliminary hearing is already public.”
This case is particularly troubling because of the strength of the evidence against Robinson. As Turley has observed, the prosecution’s case appears to be exceptionally strong, with what some legal experts have described as the “strongest” evidence they’ve ever seen in a murder case.
When the evidence is so overwhelming, the push for secrecy becomes even more suspect. What exactly requires protection from public view when the facts appear so clear?
The defense has sought to seal alleged confessions, DNA reports, surveillance footage, and key witness testimony – precisely the kind of evidence that the public has the greatest interest in seeing presented openly.
These efforts extend beyond just the preliminary hearing; Robinson’s lawyers have attempted to “close other hearings in the Utah trial, keep motions and evidence under seal and restrict news coverage of the case.”
This systematic assault on transparency reflects a dangerous trend in high-profile cases where defense attorneys increasingly use the pretext of protecting fair trial rights to undermine the very openness that ensures those rights are protected. The irony is palpable: using constitutional protections as a weapon against constitutional principles.
The public’s right to access courtroom proceedings serves multiple critical functions. It deters judicial misconduct, ensures that prosecutors and defense attorneys perform their duties properly, maintains confidence in the judicial system, and provides an educational function that helps citizens understand how justice is administered in their name.
When courts close their doors, they breed suspicion regardless of whether proceedings are fair. As Turley has warned, secret proceedings erode public trust precisely when it matters most – in cases involving prominent public figures where the justice system’s legitimacy is on display.
The Founding Fathers recognized that justice must be seen to be done. They understood that transparency is the hallmark of a free society, while secrecy is the tool of tyrants. In the Charlie Kirk murder case, we face a test of these principles: will we allow the constitutional guarantee of public trials to be eroded by tactical maneuvers, or will we affirm that even in the most contentious cases, our courts must remain open to public scrutiny?
Judge Graf’s decision to keep the preliminary hearing open represents a victory for constitutional principles, but the defense’s continued efforts to restrict access suggest this battle isn’t over.
As Americans who value our constitutional heritage, we must remain vigilant against any attempts to replace the sunlight of public scrutiny with the shadows of secret proceedings.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The violence at Delaney Hall isn’t about immigration. It’s about chaos. Democrats embrace chaos because they believe violence transforms. Their blood-thirst believes violence is necessary to create utopia and eliminate all opposition. Democratic politicians encourage this violence, some participating directly while calling it protest against alleged atrocities.
America has constitutional processes for change, not violence. The First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This is not peaceable assembly because violence is how Marxism overthrows free societies. On the surface, the protestors may be screaming about immigration, but what they are truly saying is “Down with America – burn it all down – bring in the communist revolution.”
Modern Democratic foundational ideology is militant and glorifies violence. Like animals, evil-doers and petulant children, violence is all that remains. The hard-left radical wing, now emerging as the party’s mainstream leadership, calls for full socialism. Karl Marx held that violence and terror are essential political tools to gain power.
Vladimir Lenin encouraged mobs to riot, loot and create chaos in Russia. He promoted terror, asking, “How can you make a revolution without firing squads?” Mao summed up the Marxist approach: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Noah Rothman, in “Blood and Progress,” explains this well. A senior writer at National Review, he contends “Violence designed to advance political objectives is, in our time, more often a product of the left.”
The history of violence is extensive. Since the Fabians introduced creeping socialism during the Progressive Era, leftist violence has grown. In the early 1900s, dozens of radical union organizers were convicted for organizing dynamite plots. Luigi Galleani, a Marxist anarchist, influenced these revolutionaries. Galleanists set off bombs overwhelming police. They bombed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1914, with bombs discovered at the Bronx and Manhattan courthouses.
September 16, 1920, a hundred pounds of dynamite planted by “American Anarchist Fighters” on Wall and Broad Streets exploded, killing pedestrians and damaging the stock exchange and J.P. Morgan Building.
Communist uprisings of the 1960s disguised as protests produced hundreds of race riots. Members of the Students for a Democratic Society and the Weather Underground studied Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and bomb-making manuals. The Marxist Weathermen were responsible for bombings throughout the country in the early 1970s. On May 19, 1972, they bombed the Pentagon.
“This fetishization of violence,” Rothman writes, “as a remedy to the abuses of the state… crystallizes the callous but poetic notion that the blood of innocence lubricates the gears of history.”
Democratic leadership, media allies, and hidden funders foment the violence. Institutional infiltration of education, entertainment, and media has enabled this new rise of revolutionary violence. A UCLA poll indicated 20% of students said “violence was an acceptable means of protest against speakers with whom they disagreed.” A similar Yale survey revealed 41% believe “physical violence to prevent the dissemination of dangerous ideas is warranted.”
Targeted assassinations, assassination attempts, and directed riots against the Trump administration and ICE are on the rise and will continue. This isn’t a mere political disagreement but a war that’s been growing for over two centuries and boiling over. They cannot be appeased or reasoned with. They’re convinced their opposition represents an evil so horrific it requires immediate violent attention.
This is greater than Trump, MAGA, or the Republican Party. Anti-ICE agitators, Black Lives Matter activists, Antifa, and other radical groups creating violent chaos is not an accident. It’s an active manifestation of the grand plan.
At Delaney Hall, Democratic politicians stood with Antifa agitators, screaming, “Every Cop, Every Fed, Shoot Yourself in the Head” at law enforcement. An officer was bitten and required stitches. The planned violence stirs the voting base, a “reaction” to planted rumors about horrid food served to those detained. A DHS release assured detainees receive proper offerings.
The protest is a part of a larger scheme to create a violent scene and convince potential revolutionaries that ICE is Trump’s personal Gestapo. It’s psychological projection.
Islam is also an ally (Red/Green Alliance), because they have the same enemies: the Constitution, American Liberty, Christians, and Republicans.
A shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego on May 18, 2026 spurred selective outrage and identity politics framing the attack as inevitable result of “right-wing extremism,” “Islamophobia,” and a toxic “climate of hate.”
When Islamist terrorists hit targets like the Pulse nightclub or Boston Marathon? Assurance it had nothing to do with true Islam, the religion of peace, who’s angry about Islamophobia.
Major Nidal Hasan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood in 2009 shouting “Allahu Akbar.” Obama classified the attack as “workplace violence.” Illegal aliens with criminal records are repeatedly released, and deaths like Kate Steinle or Laken Riley are swept under the rug.
The trangender killer from the 2023 Nashville Covenant School shooting killed six people, including three children. The left downplayed Hale’s manifesto, filled with anti-Christian hatred and racial slurs, focusing instead on gun control.
August 2025, transgender gunman Robin Westman killed two children during Mass at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. Westman’s manifesto contained anti-Catholic rants and explicit calls to “Kill Donald Trump.” It was treated as a generic tragedy best used for gun control talking points.
But when two non-Muslim teenagers reportedly attack a mosque? The blame was instantly pinned on conservatives, border enforcement, and “The Right.” The same applied after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. The shooter, steeped in left-wing cultural poison, viewed Kirk as a source of hatred. Democrats issued generic condemnations of “political violence” but showed no interest in examining their own toxic rhetoric.
A web-search for articles about agitators’ actions and threats at Delaney Hall or the assassination threat against Ivanka Trump revealed only the New York Post and FOX News reported it. No mainstream leftist news outlet covered these events.
Many of these radicals are disturbingly white feminist women. Tufts University found that 82% of women under 30 in New York City voted for Mamdani compared to 65% of men. The leftist machine understands psychology and the maternal nature of women. They target that maternal instinct and exploit it as a potent weapon against American Liberty. Under the right conditions and effective indoctrination, an otherwise non-violent woman will give herself completely to a charismatic movement that frames violence as the solution to her perceived problems and oppressors.
Manufactured anger and programmed “feelings.” Feminized men and feminist women are perfect tools for the communist revolution fuel pumped into the system by agitators, wealthy money behind the curtain, and the Democratic Party itself.
We’ve gone from “Make Love Not War” to “Death to America,” “Death to the president,” and celebration of assassinations and violence.
Democratic raging communist revolutionaries and mentally ill feminazi women control the party of raging lunatics who cannot spend time around ordinary people without striking out.
The resolution? The Declaration of Independence declared natural rights come from God, not government. Leftist revolutionaries seek to reverse that creed in favor of secular state supremacy.
Natural Rights transcend government, which is why the far left loathes the concept of God-given, unalienable rights, viewing it as an archaic obstacle to overcome to remake humanity into their secular, soulless, socialist utopia.
They believe utopian principles of collectivism can somehow work after discarding God. Why should their opposition hang on to the “archaic” idea of God-given rights beyond the reach of a government limited to enumerated powers requiring consent of the governed?
The opposition are “Christian Nationalists” – another way of saying someone believes in “God and country.” That infuriates them, and reveals their larger frame of mind. They seek stripping away God-given rights for a secular, socialist state that rules without limits and without consent.
Power because “it’s for your own good.” Dispose of your “archaic” belief in “God and Country” and kneel in submission to “Secularism and State.” The “progressive” movement is a socialist attempt to end America’s experiment in self-government and replace it with the rule of an elitist “expert” class.
It’s an ancient war the American Revolution firmly decidit in favor of the individual, not utopianism. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.” It’s a cancer.
Jefferson’s principles influenced the writing of the U.S. Constitution. He defended the Constitution, providing, “The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution.”
We’ve veered far from that original course. We have an amendment process, not a living document, or a system that changes under the threat of violence. Natural Rights. A Creator. Consent of the governed. A limited government governing a virtuous people. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” John Adams stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”
Freedom based on virtue, people freely choosing to do good – not selfish promiscuity and licentiousness. Abandonment of these principles is a “corruption” of the Republic, and the only answer is “restoring its lost principles.”
How can we get our political house in order if we don’t get our religious house in order first? The corruption is wide and deep because we’ve abandoned those principles. We have lost the culture and institutions, and collectivism owns levers hidden below The Swamp’s surface waters.
They’ve moved America far from what our Founders intended. That’s their resolve. That’s their plan. To fundamentally transform America. It is our cause to stop their schemes, and that means we need to stop viewing politics as a spectator sport and jump in the ring.
Grab the reins, and the violent communist revolution stops – and maybe the purveyors of street violence will slink back into their dark crevices for a moment in time, or at least until we relinquish the reins back during some future moment of complacency or apathy.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Tough Love America Needs
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I wear a shirt emblazoned with the American flag, and a simple message: “If you can’t respect this flag, I’ll help you pack.” The response is always the same. People love it. They appreciate it and make comments about it to me because it speaks an undeniable truth. In response, however, the left will call you xenophobic, anti-immigrant, or worse if they see that kind of message. But this isn’t about hate. It’s about common sense.
Our society has been dangerously feminized. We’ve traded the grounded strength of a father for the nurturing embrace of a mother. Now before the outrage mob descends, hear me out. Women’s instinct to nurture and lead with emotion has its place in the decision-making process. But without the balancing forces of logic, analysis, and pragmatism, traditionally masculine traits, we’re flying blind. As the old saying goes, “Don’t expect me to mother our son. That’s what you are for. My job is to father him.” Both roles matter. Being decisive and willing to make hard choices isn’t “toxic masculinity.” It’s the backbone of a successful civilization. When human nature reveals its flaws, we must have the courage to push aside what damages the whole.
Think of the prodigal son. When he rejects the family structure, believing himself above its rules, what’s the right response? Let him go. Enabling his narcissism within the family only breeds more dysfunction. Send him on his way, and if he never returns, so be it. That doesn’t mean we don’t love him. It means we love the family enough to protect it from destructive behavior. But if, like the biblical prodigal, he returns humbled and ready to operate within the family’s rules? Then welcome him home with open arms.
America faces the same choice. We’ve built a system of liberty that has created unprecedented prosperity and freedom. We have a right to preserve it. But we face two enemies: those born here who despise our founding principles, and foreigners we welcomed with open arms who refuse to assimilate and instead work to transform America into the very systems they fled.
To them I say: If you hate this country so much, why did you come here? The answer is simple. Either they fled something worse, or they came as invaders… invaders determined to topple our steeple, burn our Constitution, and replace it with a mosque or a communist “power to the people” temple, or whatever else they left behind that stands in opposition to American Liberty. The very systems that created the misery they supposedly escaped.
If you hate America, then leave. I don’t care how that sounds. If someone enters my house, insults my wife, criticizes my furnishings, and tries to destroy my home, I don’t call them family. I throw them out. It’s time America remembered that sometimes the most loving act is saying “no” to those who would destroy what we’ve built.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary