Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
There is a fundamental debate in constitutional history that sits at the heart of originalist thought. The shift from textual application based on original intent to interpretive expansion fueled the departure from the Framers’ design.
Hamilton’s argument for implied powers in his 1791 opinion on the constitutionality of the National Bank is a perfect starting point. He argued that while the Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant Congress the power to create a bank, the Necessary and Proper Clause implied such authority. Originalists counter this by pointing to James Madison’s opposition, who argued that “necessary” meant strictly essential – not merely convenient or useful. Madison’s view was that if the power wasn’t explicitly enumerated, it didn’t exist, a position that aligns with originalist perspective.
John Marshall’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison then established judicial review, giving the judiciary the power to strike down laws. While originalists don’t necessarily reject judicial opinion entirely, Marshall overstepped by making the judiciary supreme rather than a lesser branched tasked only with application of the law. Marshall’s later decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) expanded Hamilton’s implied powers doctrine further, with his famous statement that “we must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding.”
Originalist scholars like Robert Bork and the late Justice Antonin Scalia argued that this interpretive approach opened the door to judicial activism. Scalia often emphasized that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed at the time of its ratification and should be applied, not adapted to modern preferences. The problem is that once we start “interpreting” rather than applying, we replace constitutional government with judicial government.
The Constitution’s structure – limited government, separation of powers, and federalism – has been eroded precisely through these expansive interpretations that found powers never intended by the Framers.
Those guilty of interpreting rather than applying the Constitution have even developed a specific “method” in how to interpret – and that is precisely problem – it transforms constitutional application into a judicial philosophy exercise.
The debate over interpretive methods has become a cornerstone of modern constitutional law. The primary competing methods are:
- Originalism: This is the method I support. It holds that the Constitution’s meaning is fixed at the time of its ratification. The judge’s job is to discover that original public meaning and apply it. As Justice Scalia put it, the Constitution is not a living document, but an enduring one. The method involves historical research into the text, the Federalist Papers, ratification debates, Madison’s Notes of the Philadelphia 1787 Convention, and the understanding of the words at the time they were written.
- Living Constitutionalism: This is the primary alternative. Proponents argue that the Constitution’s principles are timeless, but their application must evolve with societal changes and modern values. They see interpretation as a dynamic process. This method allows judges to consider contemporary values, societal progress, and the consequences of their decisions. It’s this approach that originalists see as a blank check for judges to impose their own policy preferences under the guise of interpretation.
The existence of these formalized “methods” is what has turned constitutional debate into a battle over judicial philosophy rather than a straightforward application of constitutional and legal text. When a judge says they are “interpreting” the Constitution, they are now often signaling which of these competing methods they subscribe to.
This is why the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices have become so contentious. It’s no longer just about a nominee’s legal qualifications; it’s a proxy war over which interpretive method will dominate the Court for a generation. Senators on both sides grill nominees on whether they are “originalists” or believe in a “living Constitution,” because they know that method dictates outcomes on everything from Natural Rights to social issues to federal power.
This codification of interpretive methods is the institutionalization of the very problem Hamilton and Marshall started. It replaces the simple question “What does the law say?” with the far more malleable question “What is the proper philosophical method to understand what the law should mean today?”
This framework effectively legitimizes the idea that the Constitution is a puzzle to be solved through a specific judicial technique, rather than a clear set of rules to be followed. It’s the ultimate justification for judges to become policymakers.
Which brings us to the latest anti-Constitution group of people, modern progressivism. The calls for court packing aren’t a good-faith response to judicial overreach; they’re an admission that their preferred interpretive method – living constitutionalism – has lost its institutional foothold on the Supreme Court.
The hypocrisy is glaring. For decades, progressives championed an “evolving” Constitution when the Court, led by figures like Earl Warren and later William Brennan, was discovering new rights and expanding federal power in ways that aligned with their agenda. The judiciary was their preferred vehicle for social change when they couldn’t win through the legislative process. Now that the Court has a majority that applies textual and historical constraints, the institution itself is suddenly “illegitimate” and “undemocratic.”
This reveals their true position: they don’t believe in a separation of powers or that the judiciary was designed to be the weakest branch of government; they believe in a judiciary that serves their policy goals and must rule over the other branches of government. When the Court was a policy-making engine for the left, it was a vital safeguard and the final arbiter of the Constitution. Now that it’s reverting to its constitutional role, it’s an obstacle to be dismantled.
The threats to “blow up the system” are the ultimate tell. The Constitution establishes a specific process for amending its structure or changing the number of justices. But that process is difficult by design, requiring broad consensus across states and political factions. Instead of engaging in that hard work of building genuine consensus, they propose extra-constitutional shortcuts like court packing. It’s the constitutional equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you’re losing the game.
This behavior fundamentally undermines the Rule of Law itself. The Rule of Law, from an originalist perspective, means we are all governed by fixed, neutral principles applied equally, not by the whims of a temporary political majority. When one side signals that the only legitimate court is one that rules in their favor, they’re replacing the Rule of Law with the Rule of Political Preference. They’re essentially arguing that the system’s legitimacy is conditional on it producing their desired outcomes.
It’s a transactional view of our founding institutions that is profoundly dangerous. If the number of justices can be expanded anytime the Court issues an unpopular ruling, the Court ceases to be a body of law and becomes another political prize to be won, its “justice” for sale to the highest bidder in the next election cycle.
The American constitutional system is not an accident, but a product of deliberate design based on centuries of political philosophy and hard-won experience. Its success is empirical proof of its genius.
The core the Constitution’s structure (limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and individual natural rights) is the engine of American prosperity and freedom. When we adhere to it, we thrive. When we drift into interpretation and judicial invention, we create instability, erode public trust, and open the door to the kind of power grabs we’re seeing.
Preaching this message means reframing the entire debate. It’s not about being “stuck in the past,” but about preserving the proven mechanism for a free and stable society. It’s arguing that the Founders weren’t just wealthy white men from the 18th century; they were political architects who designed a system superior to any that had come before, precisely because it was designed to constrain human nature’s lust for power, not unleash it.
This approach directly counters the progressive narrative. While they see the Constitution as a flawed document that needs to be “fixed” by modern sensibilities, the originalist argument is that its perceived flaws are often features, not bugs. The difficulty of amendment, the gridlock of separated powers, the emphasis on enumerated powers rather than what the government must do for you – these are the very safeguards that prevent tyranny.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. The United States, operating under this constitutional framework, became the wealthiest, most powerful, and most free nation in human history. It attracted immigrants from every corner of the globe and defeated totalitarian ideologies. That track record is the originalist’s strongest evidence. The argument becomes: “Why would we abandon the blueprint for the most successful republican experiment in history in favor of the unproven, ever-shifting theories of modern academics and activists?”
Ultimately, doubling down on constitutionalism is a call for intellectual and moral clarity. It’s an assertion that there is such a thing as truth in governance, that the principles of liberty are timeless, and that our duty is not to reinvent the wheel every generation, but to maintain the magnificent machinery we were given. It’s the ultimate argument against the “blow up the system” mentality: you don’t destroy the most successful system in history because you’re not getting your way; you recommit to the principles that made it successful in the first place.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In recent conversations with fellow conservatives, I’ve encountered a troubling sentiment: a growing willingness to abandon constitutional principles in favor of federal solutions to problems we find particularly vexing. A friend recently argued that since some states aren’t “tough enough on crime,” the federal government should impose nationwide standards like uniformly applied death penalties. This well-intentioned but dangerous position reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of why our constitutional system exists in the first place.
The federal government possesses no constitutional authority to impose criminal sentencing standards on states. This isn’t an oversight. It’s the deliberate design of our founding document. The Constitution establishes a federal government of limited, enumerated powers, with all other authority reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment. This structure wasn’t created by accident but through careful consideration of human nature itself.
My friend dismisses state sovereignty as “antiquated,” but this view fails to recognize that localism remains essential precisely because it creates laboratories within our republic where different approaches can be tested. When a state implements flawed policy, the damage is contained. When the federal government imposes the same flawed policy nationwide, the consequences become catastrophic. It’s far easier to correct bad policy on a state level than to reverse a federal mandate affecting 50 states simultaneously.
The Constitution’s genius lies in its recognition of human nature’s darker aspects – the desire for power, the tendency toward greed, and the temptation to consolidate authority. The Founders understood that concentrating power in any single entity, whether federal or popular, creates an irresistible target for those who would abuse it.
Their solution was multi-layered:
- Separation of Powers: The three federal branches possess their own powers, with the ability to check and balance each other while also not being able to micro-manage each other.
- Federalism: Power is distributed between federal and state governments.
- Republicanism: We elect representatives, along with other components of a republic, to protect us from direct democracy so that our natural rights are properly secured.
This intricate power distribution wasn’t designed for efficiency but for protection; protection from ourselves and our worst impulses. When we advocate for federal solutions to problems we find urgent, we’re essentially saying, “Let’s ignore all these safeguards because I’m confident my side will always be in control.”
There are foundational reasons for this structure, and a large part of that is human nature. Human nature includes not just admirable traits like leadership and courage but also dangerous impulses like the desire for power and the tendency to believe we know best for everyone else.
We all possess the same basic human attributes, but we express them differently. The same assertiveness that can make someone an effective leader can, in different circumstances, make them a tyrant. The same passion for justice can become zealotry. The Constitution doesn’t assume the best of human nature – it plans for the worst.
If something truly requires national uniformity, the Constitution provides a mechanism: the amendment process. This deliberately difficult procedure requires supermajorities at both the federal and state levels precisely because national standards should only be imposed when overwhelming consensus exists.
The amendment process respects state sovereignty by requiring permission from the states through ratification. This ensures that changes to our fundamental governing document reflect broad agreement rather than temporary passions or the whims of a simple majority.
In our constitutional system, citizens facing policies they dislike in their state have three legitimate options:
- Stay and Advocate: Work to change the laws through the political process.
- Vote with Your Feet: Move to a state whose policies better align with your views.
- Accept and Endure: Recognize that in a diverse nation, not every state will reflect your preferences.
What is not an option is to bypass the constitutional process because you’re impatient for change or frustrated with your state’s direction. To do so is to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was designed to prevent.
The Constitution doesn’t need updating. It needs to be applied as originally intended. The problems we face today often stem not from deficiencies in our founding document but from our failure to operate within its framework. When we abandon constitutional principles because they seem “antiquated” or “inefficient,” we’re not adapting to modern times – we’re repeating the same mistakes that have plagued governments throughout history.
The next time you’re tempted to advocate for federal solutions to state problems, remember why our system exists: to distribute power as broadly as possible, to make it difficult for any faction to dominate, and to protect us from our own worst impulses. That’s not antiquated thinking, for the basic foundations of liberty and tyranny have never changed – that’s timeless wisdom about human nature and the proper role of government in a free society.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In a stunning demonstration of effective governance, the Trump administration’s Fraud Task Force has identified a staggering $230 billion in fraudulent payments since its establishment in March, while preventing an additional $56 billion from reaching the hands of criminals. Vice President JD Vance announced these figures at an August 5 roundtable, showcasing what happens when conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and accountability are applied to federal bureaucracy.
The task force, born from President Trump’s March 16 executive order, represents a fundamental shift in how Washington addresses the hemorrhage of taxpayer dollars through systemic fraud. For years, conservatives have warned about the unchecked growth of federal assistance programs becoming magnets for fraudsters; warnings dismissed by progressive politicians as “overblown” or “mean-spirited.” Now, the numbers speak for themselves.
“This is what happens when you put competent people in charge of protecting taxpayer money,” Vance stated, flanked by FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. “We’ve been able to identify $230 billion of fraud just since the task force was set up, and that’s by conservatively estimating it.”
The task force’s success stems from three core conservative principles: 1) dismantling bureaucratic silos that enable fraud to hide, 2) restoring meaningful consequences for criminal behavior, and 3) prioritizing American citizens over illegal immigrants in benefits distribution.
The Minnesota Medicaid scandal that triggered the task force’s creation, where fraudsters bilked taxpayers out of hundreds of millions, was just the tip of the iceberg. As Vance explained, current systems often prevent federal authorities from even knowing when states distribute benefits to illegal immigrants or violent criminals. “If a state gives food stamp benefits to an illegal immigrant or a violent criminal, the federal government often cannot detect who is receiving those benefits,” Vance noted.
This isn’t just about money. It’s about the rule of law and national sovereignty. When taxpayer-funded benefits flow to those who entered our country illegally, it creates a powerful incentive for further illegal immigration while disrespecting those who followed the rules to come here legally.
The administration’s solution involves both immediate action and long-term safeguards. Ferguson emphasized that fraudsters target federal programs because “the punishments associated with much of the fraud are relatively low.” The Trump administration seeks to implement mandatory minimum sentences for fraud convictions, similar to the successful approach used in the 1980s to combat organized crime.
The recent indictment of 19 individuals for $4 million in Medicaid fraud demonstrates the task force’s effectiveness. This coordinated effort between federal and state agencies, once hampered by jurisdictional disputes, now operates with the streamlined efficiency conservatives have long advocated for interagency cooperation.
Perhaps most importantly, Vance called on Congress to codify these anti-fraud measures to prevent future administrations from reversing them. “We don’t want the next administration to undo all the incredible work we’ve been doing,” he said, implicitly acknowledging how quickly Biden-era officials dismantled successful Trump initiatives during their four years in office.
The $230 billion in identified fraud represents more than just savings; it’s a moral victory for fiscal conservatives who’ve argued for decades that government programs must be designed with accountability in mind. It’s proof that the “waste, fraud, and abuse” politicians routinely decry can actually be addressed when there’s political will to do so.
As Vance emphasized, the work is just beginning. With Congress’s help in mandating data sharing between states and the federal government, implementing stronger sentencing guidelines, and closing loopholes that allow illegal immigrants to access benefits, the task force could potentially save taxpayers trillions over the next decade.
The message is clear: conservative governance works. When you combine decisive leadership with sound fiscal principles, you get results that benefit all Americans – except, of course, when it comes to those who’ve been gaming the system for far too long.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
According to the numbers, under President Donald J. Trump our society is more secure and more orderly – and the media simply is not talking about it. Crime rates have fallen to “historic lows” across the United States with homicides on track to register its lowest level in at least 126 years. When compared to the year before the COVID-19 scamdemic, carjacking, robberies, homicides, aggravated assault, gun assault, vehicle thefts, sexual assault, and domestic violence are all lower in the first six months of 2026. 18 months in, despite the riotous and violent opposition against ICE and other federal officers doing their job regarding the illegal alien invasion, President Trump has restored law and order…as promised.
FBI Director Kash Patel said the United States’ crime reduction is a “direct result of the Trump administration letting good cops be cops and this FBI taking on violent crime in ways never done before…A safer America is no accident – it’s the work of the FBI and our partners every day, taking 118 percent more violent criminals off the street last year, breaking the drug trafficking and financial networks who fuel the organized crime industry, and working with the interagency more seamlessly than we ever have before.”
The data comes from the nonpartisan Council on Criminal Justice. According to those numbers as reported by WLT Report, across 30 cities with homicide data, killings fell 18 percent during the first half of 2026 compared with the same period last year. That’s 215 less murders in just six months. Homicides are down 51 percent from the first half of 2022. For violent crimes, 2 percent fewer aggravated assaults and 6 percent fewer gun assaults were reported in the first half of 2026 compared with the same period last year. Carjackings dropped 73 percent since 2023. Residential burglaries are down 56 percent from 2018. Motor-vehicle theft is down 51 percent from 2023. Based on 13 offenses in 36 large cities that consistently publish monthly figures, nine of those 13 offenses were lower in the first half of 2026 than they were during the same stretch of 2025. Only shoplifting has remained above its pre-pandemic 2019 level when researchers compared the broader nine-year trend, and in the short-term when compared to the first half of last year domestic violence incidents were up by 8 percent and sexual assault by 3 percent.
The homicide count fell in 21 of the 30 cities that supplied data for that offense. That said, in eight of those cities violence increased 8 percent and drug offenses rose 12 percent – revealing that some cities moved in the wrong direction. Not every neighborhood is suddenly safe, but the national trend is that we are headed in the right direction and we do tend to judge Presidents by what happens under their leadership.
The Trump administration ties these results to backing police (abandoning the defund-the-police movement that the DSA and many Democrats back), enforcing immigration law, targeting violent offenders, and refusing to treat public disorder as an unfortunate and unfixable feature of American life.
The numbers produced favorable statistics in cities where federal task forces put more agents, prosecutors, intelligence, and enforcement pressure against repeat offenders and organized criminal networks. The strategy in Memphis produced 200 less murders in Memphis last year for the first time since 2019.
This is what happens when we put law enforcement back on offense, rather than defunding police. “President Trump promised to make America safe again, and he has done just that,” Lauren Bis, assistant secretary at the DHS’s Office of Public Affairs, said in a statement. “Crime has fallen to record lows under the Trump administration…it’s no surprise that this drop in crime coincides with deportations of dangerous criminal illegal aliens. It is common sense. When you remove criminals from the country, crime rates fall.”
In the first year of the current Trump administration, almost 3 million illegal migrants left the United States. While looking at impacts from the changes in criminal justice operations and strategies, shifts in society and culture, and technological advances, two potential causes for the improved numbers stand-out: abandoning the defund-the-police strategy, and the removal of massive numbers of criminal aliens.
One thing is for sure; as the White House has indicated, the end of the crime surge seen in the past decade is “not accidental.” According to the White House, “It is the direct result of the Trump Administration’s relentless efforts to enforce the rule of law, back the police, and surge resources into communities.”
The federal government, however, can only impact these numbers through strategies authorized to the federal government by the Constitution. The work also falls upon the shoulders of state and local jurisdictions. Localism demands, after all, local participation. As long as certain cities continue to refuse to place law enforcement on a higher level in their local plans, and as long as certain states refuse to get back to using higher deterrents like longer prison sentences and the death penalty for capital crimes, their numbers will not join the trend and those places under hard-left leadership and infested with cultural rot will continue to fail to move in the same direction as the general trend.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The divided political landscape is not as divided at the Democrats would like you to believe, especially when it comes to election integrity. A remarkable consensus has emerged regarding the security of our electoral system. A recent McLaughlin & Associates poll, commissioned by Tea Party Patriots Action, reveals that 82% of Americans believe only U.S. citizens should be permitted to vote in federal elections for president, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. This overwhelming majority spans the partisan divide, with 91% of Republicans, 72% of Democrats, and 84% of independents in agreement. This data confirms what the U.S. Constitution calls for: the preservation of the franchise as a sacred privilege of citizenship.
The SAVE America Act, legislation passed by the House but stalled in the Senate by procedural maneuvers, would operationalize this widely held belief. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote and mandates photo identification for casting a ballot. These provisions represent a constitutionally authorized federal power under Article I, Section 4 to regulate the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” when the States are not operating in line with Constitutional principles.
The poll’s findings extend beyond the principle of citizenship-only voting to the practical mechanisms that safeguard it. Seventy-eight percent of respondents support requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, and an identical 78% endorse photo ID requirements at the polls. These figures decisively refute the notion that election integrity measures are partisan projects.
The practicality of these requirements is evident in the fact that 95% of respondents possess a valid photo ID, such as a driver’s license, state ID, or passport. Moreover, 66% recognize that requiring such identification is a reasonable measure that the vast majority of Americans can easily satisfy. The SAVE America Act does not impose an undue burden; it reinforces a standard that Americans already meet in countless aspects of daily life, from boarding aircraft to purchasing certain goods.
Despite this overwhelming public mandate the Democrats are crying foul, and Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune has cited insufficient votes to overcome the filibuster. This stands in stark contrast to the will of the American people and the principles and language of the U.S. Constitution. President Donald Trump has rightly pressed the Senate to cancel its recess until this vital legislation is passed recognizing that the consent of the governed and constitutional necessity to secure our elections must not be disregarded by procedural gamesmanship.
The SAVE America Act is rightfully at the top of President Trump’s domestic agenda, and despite arguments to the contrary, it does not represent a radical departure from American norms. Elections were such a concern for the Founding Fathers that during the Constitutional Convention, after many debates that allowed the Federal Government to negative state laws regarding other issues, they ensured Congress could do so regarding elections in Article I, Section 4.
The SAVE America Act is not merely about preventing illegal voting; it is about preserving the meaning of citizenship itself. In an era when the concept of national sovereignty is under assault, reaffirming that the ballot is a privilege of citizenship sends a powerful message that America remains its own sovereign Union of States with defined borders and a coherent political community. The legislation’s opponents, who argue that noncitizen voting is statistically insignificant, miss the constitutional point: the Republic has an obligation to prevent the dilution of the franchise, regardless of the scale of the problem.
The American people understand this intuitively, which explains the broad support for the SAVE America Act across demographic and partisan lines. They recognize that election integrity is a component of the bedrock upon which our constitutional system rests. Without confidence in the process of selecting representatives, the legitimacy of the government itself erodes. The SAVE America Act is a necessary step toward restoring that confidence and reaffirming that the United States remains a government of the United States, not one bending to the whims of the World, and those who may be illegally entering the country to undermine it.
As the Senate considers its path forward, it would do well to heed this clear expression of the public will. The Constitution established a system of representative government precisely to translate such public sentiment into law. When 82% of Americans agree on a fundamental principle of our constitutional order, the Senate’s duty is clear: pass the SAVE America Act and send it to the President’s desk.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
The Iran Contradiction
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Trump has announced, once again, that Iran wants to make a deal – and I believe that they told him that – but they are lying. They are lying not because they should want to make a deal, but because Islam sees everything as a temporary move so that it can reposition and reorient itself for the ultimate goal: worldwide domination by Islam and the death of all infidels… particularly America and Israel.
Currently, during this current war, the Iranian economy is in shambles. Ordinary residents in the country are resorting to stealing basic groceries from supermarket shelves. The Islamic Republic’s economy is nearing complete collapse, but as the people starve and die, a quote comes to mind from the past by former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir (keep in mind the word “Arabs” was used instead of Muslims, but her quote was about Islam – and technically Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians, but the quote applies):
“Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
She followed that quote up with another important one:
“When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”
Islam teaches that Meir’s plea is impossible. Islam is incapable of caring about their own children. They send out their children to be warriors against the infidel, to wear suicide bomb vests, and to carry no mercy for anyone who is an infidel. It is all about their perception of the barbaric and murderous will of Allah. Because of that belief system they are willing to kill their own people in the communities in Iran rather than truly make a deal with the United States. And that is why Iran must never possess a nuclear weapon. That is why it was reasonable for President Trump to begin his campaign. If ever Iran possessed nuclear warheads and the ability to deploy them, they would be willing to annihilate Israel, Europe, America, and even their own people if they believed it was what Allah wanted for the furtherance of Islam.
So, their own people steal to eat and the leadership continues to allow the economy to deteriorate as they delay and stall with President Trump because they believe they have the upper-hand. Time. They are willing to allow millions of their own people die because they are convinced that the United States will either back-down under tremendous pressure from the world, from the Progressive Left, or eventually they can out-wait Trump because in two years he will no longer be president and in a couple months he may lose any semblance of support in Congress if the mid-terms go the Democratic Party’s way. Deals are temporary, and the furtherance of Islam is a game of patience, and time that they are willing to utilize.
Official statistics paint a grim picture of hyperinflation eroding purchasing power in Iran. While food inflation is in triple digits, oils and fats have exceeded 270% inflation during some periods during this conflict. The response by the leadership is that, “The enemy is exerting pressure in an attempt to provoke the people into protesting,” therefore, “remain powerful and respected” by sticking it out. In a sense, the message is, die of starvation for Allah commands it rather than make any sincere deal with America. They would rather be completely destroyed than to step away from Iran’s Islamic revolutionary aims – and they believe they cannot be destroyed, anyway. Allah will either save them, or allow them to die to further the Islamic cause – and either is acceptable to them.
While I hope the people in the streets will rise up and rid themselves of the regime in Iran, the reality is due to the fear held by people, and the brainwashing of Islam, desperation alone will not yield political change. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij forces are ready and still able to suppress any unrest.
President Trump said in a recent interview, “They want to make a deal. Look, it’s obvious. They don’t want to be hit. Ok? They want to make a deal. So we will see.”
The President would be absolutely correct when talking about sane, reasonable, and common sense populations – but Iran’s leadership is none of those things.
I am not saying that hitting Iran was a mistake. It had to be done. Because of the reasons I have presented we must never allow them to have nuclear weapons. The Strait of Hormuz is a minor part of it, in the broad scheme of things. The hardcore leadership of Iran who believes in the 12th Imam and the apocalyptic prophetic vision of the future that goes along with that belief does not care about mutually-assured destruction or whether or not their own citizens suffer or die. Chaos is the goal. Death is the aim. And from it, they believe, through all of the madness and fire, a new worldwide caliphate will arise. You cannot honestly negotiate with them. They have no mercy. They have no reasonable view of the world or their future. The only thing they understand is being beaten into submission… and then maybe there will be a deal of some kind – one they will break and deny the moment they think they have the Will of Allah on their side once again.
Islam is in it for the long-game, and for them what is going on in Iran is a minor part of the war. It is just a battlefield that they can throw away if they have to. Their war is worldwide. Their aim is world domination. And despite the kinetic warfare that is in their face in Iran, they have their own forces marching across America. Their war against the infidel has their armies infiltrating each country, creating inside the borders of their enemy Muslim neighborhoods, Muslim influence in the media, Muslim influence in the culture, and the placement of Islamic politicians like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan inside the very political systems of their enemies. He says he’s a socialist. He says he’s a doctor. He says he’s a part of a new force rising in the Democratic Party. But in the end, he too is a part of the war. He is a Muslim who hates Israel, hates Jews, and hates America – and he is poised to be a part of the giant Islamic attack against America from within.
Like the leadership in Iran, El-Sayed’s concern is not his own opportunities as an individual, or the welfare of anyone he might represent. His aim is only one thing. The furtherance of Islam.
He will lie. He will curse. He will claim he has your best interests at heart. He is a part of Islam’s bizarre partnership with the Democratic Socialists because they both have a few things in common. They hate America. They hate Jews. They hate Israel. They hate Christians. They hate individualism. And while the two ideologies are deep-down incompatible, their focus is not on if they can get along – their focus is on destroying the enemies of their ideologies who stand in their way.
Abdul El-Sayed on the ballot in November for United States Senator from Michigan is only the latest turn in this war. They’ve already placed many more boots on the ground. Over a hundred Muslims reside in political seats around the country. Some you heard of: Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Each of them are not just Muslim, they are ready to take their Islamic war to the full length of the field. They are willing, able, and enthusiastic contributors in a battle to normalize their anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Jewish, and anti-Christian platform. They are using “democracy” to force into place what would seemed unimaginable before, and shortly after, 9/11. Now, in today’s America, we have Hamas-loving mobs marching through New York City screaming for the murder of Jews.
Just imagine how New Yorkers would have reacted to this madness on Sept. 12, 2001? We were told to Never Forget, and now the mayor of New York City is an outspoken socialist-Muslim who defended an al-Qaida terrorist to serve as the city’s chief counsel. Islam, after they attacked us, played the victim, and we fell for it.
As Ronald Reagan famously said: “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people…And those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.”
So, we are continuing to launch devastating bombing campaigns on Iran. Donald J. Trump did not want any forever wars, not realizing that we are already locked in one. Iran is not the first chapter. It is the latest chapter. The Iraq War. Afghanistan. The Persian Gulf War. The Lebanon Crisis. The Barbary Wars. The Crusades. The forever war has always been there. And Islam will not stop until they are utterly rendered incapable of continuing, or as Golda Meir proclaimed, they begin to love their children more than they hate us.
By haggling, Iran’s Islamic leadership shows us that they believe all they need to do is run out the clock – and they are banking on a Democratic win in the Mid-terms to shorten that wait. We have said all along we do not want boots on the ground, and so far the bombing has not descended into a ground war. We don’t truly know the true extent of the damage to the Iranian regime and its military-industrial-nuclear-complex because there are no embedded reporters or Western journalists in Iran. We don’t truly know the mood of the people of Iran; if they have enough resolve to eventually protest again, or overthrow the regime. We don’t know if there will be any future assistance from other countries to keep this regime from rising up again and obtaining nuclear weapons. All we know is that the tensions are increasing as Iran runs out of money and basic goods. All we know is that if this ends, it is getting to the point that it will take decades for Iran to rebuild, and they will be at a disadvantage when dealing with their neighbors who they so gratuitously attacked. The regime has no money. No effective combat or air defenses. No allies. Except…inside the deepest hearts of Muslims who agree that someday they will finally defeat The West and launch a worldwide caliphate that will bring peace into the world…until they, of course, go back to fighting each other as they have throughout the history of Islam.
As long as the Trump administration is in place, and his opponents are on defense, Iran and Islam will only be able to wage the war on minor battlefields. Once the Democrats, if the Democrats, regain power, the entire world will once again be Islam’s battlefield – and this time they will go for broke.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary