Political Pistachio

In the early twentieth century, after Fabian Socialists had carved out influence within the American system, the Democratic Party popularized the slogan “soak the rich.” The phrase suggested a righteous effort to tax the wealthy, but in practice it created a structure the powerful could exploit while shifting the long‑term tax burden onto everyone else. Efforts marketed as “fairness” and “equity” often end up harming the very people activists claim to defend.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

The strategy hasn’t changed. The collectivist model still carries the flaw Margaret Thatcher famously described: “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Fast‑forward to 2026 and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. The democratic‑socialist mayor claims the city faces a $5.4 billion budget shortfall. His solution, delivered with confidence, is a slate of new taxes.

As with many socialist proposals, the target is the wealthy. One of Mamdani’s ideas is a 50% tax on estates worth more than $750,000; a dramatic leap from the current 16% rate applied to estates over $7 million. His property‑tax proposals are unlikely to pass, even with a Democratic governor, because they would obviously hit far more than the rich, so the estate‑tax hike has emerged as his most convenient tool.

A high estate tax accomplishes more than raising revenue. It undermines private ownership. When parents die and their heirs cannot afford the tax bill, they are forced to sell homes, businesses, and land. Over time, as fewer buyers can afford such properties, the government becomes the only entity capable of taking them on. Farms, restaurants, gas stations, and family homes eventually drift into state hands not because the wealthy were “soaked,” but because ordinary families were priced out of inheriting what they built.

Mamdani’s plan, then, is not truly aimed at the ultra‑rich. It targets anyone who owns a business or property. Once small businesses and family assets are weakened or eliminated, the government can step in as the universal landlord and manager. At that point, there is no need to “fund” programs… the state simply owns everything and dictates the terms.

In short, while socialists claim they will soak the rich to pay for their agenda, the real impact falls on the middle class, especially entrepreneurs, small business owners, and families with tangible assets. The result is a weakened private sector, diminished personal wealth, and a path toward government control in the name of equality. Everyone becomes equal, but equal in misery, poverty, and dependence.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Iranian Regime’s Collapse and the Losers Who Hate It

By Douglas V. Gibbs

Despite the mainstream media’s propaganda a majority of Americans (51%) support President Trump’s military action, Operation Epic Fury against the Islamic regime in Iran, and according to a recent poll among Republicans 83% of likely Republican voters “strongly” or “somewhat” supports the military action. MAGA Republicans are at an even higher percentage, approving of the President 100%.

President Trump has removed from power the evil regime running Iran for 47 years, and now some kind of skeletal remains grasps at what little fragment of levers it has, now. While the ruling class has been weakened, and Iran’s military is all but obliterated, the question is, can we now make sure the government of Iran becomes one that acts responsibly rather than seek nuclear weapons in the hopes of bringing about an apocalyptic 12th-Imam scenario prophecied to bring about the final worldwide Islamic caliphate?

The term “regime change” has been thrown around a lot. The leftist media and its social media allies have been bombarding us with information and opinions that go straight to the negative, trying to make comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan, and trying to convince you that we are somehow losing this war. They claim President Trump is an idiot, a liar, or both.

America and Israel have accomplished an unparalleled achivement with a victory so complete that there has never been anything in history that could compare (save for President Jefferson and Madison and their handling of the Barbary Pirates). Within days the leadership was dead or hiding, and their allegedly advanced military is currently in shambles. The air defense system is gone, the Iranian navy is all but gone, and their ability to strike with missiles has been reduced to a point that is just about laughable. The remnants of the flailing regime is now down to using drones, and eventually that will be nullified as well.

Iran’s only allegedly successful buffoonish action, if you can call it a success at all, has been essentially closing the Strait of Hormuz… but that won’t last.

War is diplomacy by another means, and unfortunately the Iranian religious extremist government thumbed their noses at any other kind of diplomacy. So, the Trump adminstration set out to eliminate the nuclear threat, eliminate its ballistic capabilities, and change the regime to one that will work with America and no longer act as a threat in the Middle East. What that means is that the new regime must abandon their Islamist ways.

President Trump, I believe, understands this. I am amazed at the fact that he sees things way beyond what most see. He’s the best ally Israel has had in my lifetime, he understands military strategy in ways that even military lifers often fail to, and he sees the dangers of Islam more deeply than anyone else in the room. He recognizes the threat Islam poses to the United States and the world, especially in the hands of fanatics in Iran, and that is why the President is making sure that the end doesn’t arrive prematurely and the Islamist factions in Iran are completely eliminated. America First includes getting rid of the forever wars the establishment uses to pad their pockets, yet also understanding that sometimes war is necessary to stop the worst from happening. The might of the stars and stripes is indeed the best solution when the world is threatened by a bunch of radical murderers, and sometimes the only negotiation tool remaining in one’s diplomatic pouch is a one-two punch in the mouth of the enemy.

Winning, however, is something the opposition can’t stomach because they’ve invested on America being just another country in some socialist utopia of worldwide mediocrity. It angers them that the current President has the stainless steel marbles to achieve what is necessary, and does so as he waves the American Flag and proclaims American know-how. Communist regimes in Venezuela and Cuba are crumbling, the world is changing, Islam is nervous, China has been limited to a small list of strategic options, and the world recognizes that daddy is in the White House… and the left cannot stand it.

Winning, after all, makes enemies of losers.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

The Immigration Debate: Historical Context Matters

By Douglas V. Gibbs

In today’s heated immigration discourse, some advocates for open borders and global governance attempt to rewrite history to support their arguments. They cherry-pick historical facts while ignoring crucial context, creating a distorted narrative that serves their political agenda.

A fundamental flaw in this approach is presentism: judging historical actions by modern standards and values. We cannot apply today’s cultural norms and legal frameworks to people who lived centuries ago. They operated under different circumstances, with different knowledge and different societal structures.

If we want to play the “stolen land” argument, then all people live on stolen land. Throughout human history, territories have been conquered, reconquered, and reestablished. Consider Britain: the original Britons are long gone. The island has been controlled by Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Vikings, Normans, and others. Today’s British people are largely a genetic mixture of all these groups and more. This pattern repeats across the entire globe.

Sovereign nations have the right to maintain their identity or change it as they see fit. History reveals that civilizations achieving longevity typically follow deliberate plans. Rome implemented strict assimilation policies. America, adhering relatively closely to its Constitution and embracing free markets, natural rights, and limited government, has prospered.

Unfortunately, some politicians now seek to undermine America’s founding principles. Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD) recently claimed during a subcommittee hearing that the Founding Fathers were “undocumented immigrants,” specifically mentioning Thomas Paine. When questioned, he doubled down, stating Paine was an “undocumented immigrant, just like Thomas Jefferson’s family was.”

This comment came during a Republican hearing examining the effects of the 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe, which extended public education to illegal immigrant children based on the equal protection clause. The problem is, the decision violates Article IV’s privileges and immunities clause, which restricts constitutional protections to citizens.

Raskin’s argument, including his claim about undocumented founders, rests on the idea that America should fulfill its promise as an “asylum to humanity,” a refuge for those seeking freedom from persecution worldwide.

History reveals a different story. The English Colonies were part of the British Empire at the time. Thomas Paine, born in the U.K., was a British subject and legal resident. The British Empire didn’t use documents for colonial immigration because the system worked differently then. Most of our ancestors arrived without documents because the laws and processes were different.

Once America became independent, immigration laws were actually quite strict. The goal was to grow the country with the best the world had to offer. Think of it like a business seeking top employees, interviewing candidates and ensuring they have no criminal record or characteristics that might harm the enterprise.

Early American immigration policies carefully screened out Tories and those with low skills who might become dependent on the system rather than productive contributors. The Founders expressed the need for newcomers to have good moral character and adopt American principles. They specifically sought white Europeans, not due to some kind of racism, but at the time those were the peoples and places that best fit what the Founding Generation was trying to create. This context is something Raskin conveniently omits, preferring short, decontextualized soundbites to defend destructive leftist positions.

The debate over immigration deserves honest discussion grounded in historical fact, not revisionist history that ignores context. America’s founders understood that sovereign nations have the right, and the responsibility, to control their borders and determine who enters. That’s not xenophobia; it’s common sense nation-building.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Tuesday LIVE: Rise of the British Political System

Tuesday Online Constitution (and history) Class

Online Mr. Constitution Class www.mr-constitution.com

When the Saxons Became the System… again.

Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel

Supreme Court Elections Case

By Douglas V. Gibbs

A legal dispute over allowing mail-in ballots that arrive after election day to be counted has worked its way to the United States Supreme Court. Watson v. RNC challenges federal laws that establish an election day for federal races. More than a dozen states permit the countine of late-arriving ballots as long as they are postmarked before election day.

Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution establishes that federal elections are to be handled locally by the states, but if the times, places and manner of holding elections for any reason needs to be adjusted according to Congress, the federal legislature may at any time by law make or alter such regulations. So, the key in this lawsuit is simply, “is there federal law that requires all ballots must be received and handled by election day.”

The key federal laws being used to argue that late-arriving ballots cannot be counted are the statutes that Congress has passed to set a uniform Election Day for federal elections. These are primarily found in the United States Code at 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 11.

These federal statutes establish “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every even-numbered year” as the single “election” day for federal offices. The Republican National Committee’s position, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, is that these laws create a hard deadline requiring ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials by the end of Election Day.

The Fifth Circuit specifically ruled that Mississippi’s grace period violated federal law, stating that federal law “does not permit the state of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days or 100 days” and that the statutes require ballots to be in the custody of state officials by the end of Election Day.

This interpretation is contrasted with Mississippi’s argument that “election” has historically meant when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots — not necessarily when they are received and counted. The Supreme Court’s decision will effectively determine whether “Election Day” is a voter deadline or an administrative cutoff for receiving ballots.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Political Pistachio