Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
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
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A constitutional violation by a law in Oregon has produced profound implications for justice, victim rights, and the rule of law. Dustin Wallace, who at age 16 raped and murdered five-year-old Sahara Grace Dwight, received a life sentence without parole in 2010. Judge Randy Garrison explicitly stated that Wallace “poses too great a risk to the public ever to be allowed free” and should never be released on parole.
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution explicitly states: “No State shall… pass any… ex post facto Law.” This is not a suggestion. It’s a fundamental prohibition that protects citizens from arbitrary government action.
Senate Bill 1008 is retroactive in its application, changing the legal consequences for actions already committed and sentences already imposed. By definition, this is an ex post facto law, precisely what our Constitution forbids.
The legal precedent on this is clear. The Supreme Court has consistently held that laws that retroactively alter punishments or legal consequences violate the ex post facto clause. In the 1798 case Calder v. Bull, the Court defined ex post facto laws as those that “aggravate a crime, or make it greater than it was, when committed” or “change the punishment, and inflict a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.”
Oregon’s SB 1008 does exactly this: it changes the punishment from life without parole to the possibility of parole, effectively lessening the legal consequences for Wallace’s horrific crimes. While one might argue this benefits the defendant, the constitutional prohibition applies regardless of whether the retroactive application benefits or harms the offender. The principle is that laws cannot be applied retroactively to change legal consequences.
This isn’t just about one case. It’s about preserving the rule of law and constitutional protections that form the foundation of our legal system. When states can pass retroactive laws that alter sentences, it undermines the entire concept of finality in criminal justice and creates uncertainty about the meaning and effect of legal judgments.
The father of Sahara Grace Dwight, Tyler Dwight, if armed with this information (and I plan to try to contact him to inform him of this information), whose daughter’s memory and justice are directly impacted by this unconstitutional law, has clear standing to seek legal intervention.
With proper legal counsel, an emergency motion could be filed to halt the parole proceedings based on the ex post facto violation. Such a motion would request immediate review of SB 1008’s retroactive application and ask for a stay of the parole hearing until the constitutional issues can be fully litigated.
The legal argument would be straightforward: SB 1008’s retroactive application violates Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution by changing the legal consequences of Wallace’s actions after the fact. The original sentence of life without parole was legally imposed at the time of sentencing, and any law that retroactively alters that sentence is unconstitutional.
This isn’t just about justice for Sahara Grace Dwight. It’s about upholding the Constitution that protects all Americans from arbitrary government action. If we allow states to pass retroactive laws that alter punishments, we undermine the very foundation of our legal system.
I urge all Oregonians, and Americans, who value constitutional principles to join me in this fight. Contact your representatives. Support legal challenges to SB 1008. Stand with victims’ families who deserve finality in their pursuit of justice.
Some crimes are so horrific, so evil, that they forfeit any claim to future freedom. The horrific rape and murder of a five-year-old child certainly qualifies. Dustin Wallace earned his life sentence without parole (and in reality, the death penalty), and both justice and the Constitution demand he serve it.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Evil exists in our world, and in Oregon, it wears the name Dustin Wallace. In 2010, at just 16 years old, Wallace committed an act so depraved it defies human comprehension – he raped and murdered five-year-old Sahara Grace Dwight in her own Roseburg home. The details of this crime horrify even the most hardened investigators: Wallace entered the little girl’s bedroom while she slept, sexually assaulted her, and when she woke up and fought back, suffocated her to death. The assault continued even after Sahara had died, with medical evidence showing severe trauma consistent with violent sexual assault.
For this monstrous act, Wallace received a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Judge Randy Garrison made it unequivocally clear during sentencing that Wallace “poses too great a risk to the public ever to be allowed free” and that justice required he never be released on parole. For Sahara’s family and for all Oregonians who value justice, this sentence provided at least some measure of closure after enduring one of the worst tragedies imaginable.
But Oregon’s progressive left Democratic Party leadership had other plans. In their relentless pursuit of criminal justice “reform,” they decided that even the most heinous crimes committed by juveniles deserved a second look. Under Senate Bill 1008, signed into law in 2019 by former Governor Kate Brown, Oregon eliminated life without parole sentences for crimes committed before age 18, even in cases of aggravated murder. This legislation wasn’t just prospective; it applied retroactively (which is unconstitutional as per Article I, Section 10’s ban on states passing ex post facto laws), reopening wounds for victims’ families and undermining the sentences handed down by our courts.
The parole eligibility stems directly from these legislative changes that eliminated life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. Under these legal frameworks, certain individuals who were sentenced as juveniles and have served extensive time are now granted the opportunity for parole board hearings. Has the left not learned from the heightened violent crime by repeat offenders in our society?
The hearing, scheduled for June 3, 2026, has sparked a fierce statewide debate in Oregon regarding juvenile justice reform, victim’s rights, and whether perpetrators of aggravated child murder warrant the opportunity for early release. Sahara’s family has actively campaigned to keep Wallace incarcerated, with her father Tyler Dwight pleading through emotional TikTok videos: “That’s my baby girl. She doesn’t have a voice anymore. Let’s be her voice.”
This case exposes the moral bankruptcy of our current criminal justice system. Supporters of SB 1008 argue that children and teenagers have underdeveloped brains and diminished impulse control (remember, these are the same people who believe the brains of those youngsters, however, can decide for themselves if to have an abortion or a life-changing sex change operation – without parental knowledge). Regardless of the left’s argument, it all falls apart when confronted with the premeditated nature of Wallace’s crimes and the sheer depravity of his actions. As Christians, we understand that while all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, there must be consequences for evil actions that protect the innocent and uphold justice. The Bible teaches us in Romans 13:4 that the governing authorities “are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” When our government fails to administer justice appropriately, it betrays its God-given purpose.
The progressive approach to criminal justice has become so twisted that it now prioritizes the theoretical “rehabilitation” of monsters over the safety of our communities and the memory of innocent victims. This isn’t justice. It’s moral relativism run amok. It’s the same worldview that calls good evil and evil good, which Isaiah warned against: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20).
Sahara’s father has launched a petition urging the Oregon State Parole Board to deny any future release of Dustin Wallace. In it, he recounts the devastating loss of his daughter and notes that the original sentencing judge stated Wallace should never be allowed back into society. “This isn’t just about justice for my daughter,” the petition states. “It is about the safety of our children nationwide.” As the June 3 hearing approaches, the campaign has begun gaining momentum online as more people across Oregon learn about the case and its connection to the state’s juvenile sentencing reforms.
What happens on June 3? Wallace is not automatically being released. Instead, a motion will be presented to the court as part of the legal process created under Oregon’s revised juvenile sentencing laws. The courts will consider multiple factors, including conduct while incarcerated, psychological evaluations, rehabilitation efforts, risk assessments, victim impact statements, and community safety concerns. But let’s be clear: no amount of rehabilitation can undo what Wallace did, and no psychological evaluation can guarantee he won’t reoffend.
For many Oregonians, this case has become symbolic of broader frustrations with Oregon’s criminal justice policies. It represents a system that has lost its moral compass, that values the theoretical rights of monsters over the actual safety of children. It demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of justice – one that sees punishment as inherently cruel rather than as a necessary component of a righteous society.
As Christians and conservatives, we must stand against this perversion of justice. We must speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, like little Sahara Grace Dwight. We must demand that our government fulfill its biblical mandate to punish evildoers and protect the innocent. We must reject the progressive narrative that all offenders are capable of redemption and that society owes them endless second chances.
Some crimes are so horrific, so evil, that they forfeit any claim to future freedom. The rape and murder of a five-year-old child certainly qualifies. Dustin Wallace made his choices when he violated Sahara Dwight in the most unspeakable ways imaginable. He earned his life sentence without parole, and justice demands he serve it.
As the June 3 hearing approaches, we must ask ourselves: What kind of society releases a child rapist and murderer back into our communities? What kind of justice system values the theoretical rehabilitation of a monster over the memory of an innocent child? And what kind of people would we be if we remained silent while this injustice unfolds?
The answer is clear, according to her father Tyler Dwight: We must be the voice for Sahara Grace Dwight and all victims of violent crime. We must demand that justice be done and that Dustin Wallace remain behind bars for the rest of his natural life. Anything less would be an insult to her memory and a danger to our children.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As Americans watch the political landscape unfold, a troubling pattern emerges from the Democratic Party – one that reveals a willingness to manipulate foundational American institutions when unable to win in the arena of ideas. This systematic approach to power preservation demonstrates something way beyond mere political opposition, but a fundamental challenge to the constitutional order that has guided our republic for over two centuries.
When electoral defeat looms, Democrats have increasingly turned to restructuring the very systems of American governance rather than adjusting their policy positions. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently made this explicit, stating at a progressive conference: “We’re going to have to explore judicial ‘reform’ state by state and at the federal level…everything should be on the table as far as I’m concerned.”
This isn’t theoretical. In Virginia, Democrats reportedly considered lowering the mandatory retirement age for state Supreme Court justices from 75 to 54, a move that would have forced out every sitting justice and allowed their replacement with sympathetic Democratic lawyers. The purpose? To overturn a court decision that blocked a gerrymandering scheme designed to add four Democratic seats to Congress.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris has gone even further, urging Democrats to consider expanding the Supreme Court and abolishing the Electoral College when they regain power. “We’ve got to neutralize this red state cheating,” Harris declared, adding, “There’s a brutality at play on the other side, and a ruthlessness. And we need to play to win.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson aptly described this approach as “institutional arson,” noting, “You don’t just blow up the system when you lose.”
Perhaps most chilling is how Democratic leaders now frame their relationship with political opponents. At the Center for American Progress IDEAS Conference, Jeffries didn’t mince words about his party’s intentions toward tens of millions of Americans who voted for President Trump: “Either MAGA extremists are going to break the country, or we’re going to break them, and our goal is to break them.”
He elaborated: “We will defeat them. We have to beat them electorally, and then we have to break their spirit, because of the extremism that’s being unleashed on the American people, that’s completely and totally unacceptable.”
This isn’t just political rhetoric. It’s a declaration of war against fellow citizens. As Edgar Barrios, spokesperson for Speaker Johnson, responded: “Hakeem Jeffries says he wants to ‘BREAK the spirit’ of 77 million AMERICANS. This is how Democrats talk about people who don’t agree with them: violently.”
This institutional assault is enabled by media allies who demonstrate remarkable comfort with falsehoods. Jen Psaki recently attempted to paint Eric Trump as engaged in influence peddling similar to the Biden family’s activities in China, claiming he sat on the board of ALT5 and had business interests in China.
Eric Trump’s response was unequivocal: “Contrary to her monolog and blatant lies, I have NEVER been on the board of ALT5 — not now, not ever. Any person with basic access to Google and willing to open a company’s annual report or proxy statements would know this.” He further stated he had “zero business interests in China” and joined his father’s trip simply as “a loving son who adores my father.”
The pattern is clear: when facts don’t support the narrative, falsehoods will suffice.
Perhaps most disturbing is the alleged use of intelligence agencies as political tools. According to recent reports, the CIA allegedly spied on Tulsi Gabbard’s team as they investigated the Deep State. This represents a dangerous escalation, using agencies designed to protect national security as weapons against political opponents.
Why this desperate approach? The answer may lie in emerging revelations about potential Democratic corruption. News has surfaced that Tim Walz and Ilhan Omar were allegedly fully aware of the $250 million fraud scheme in Minnesota. How many other such schemes operate with Democratic knowledge and protection?
The Democratic strategy appears to be: make America look broken. They need to convince Americans that this country is broken and that it requires a collectivistic revolution – class warfare fought in Congress, in culture, and perhaps even in the streets.
This is where President Trump disrupts their plan, or as I like to say, “Stuck a stick in their spokes.” Under his administration, violent crime rates have seen the largest decrease since 1937. Murder rates are at their lowest since records began in 1900. Stephen Miller (White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy) indicates that fraud crackdowns could correct so much lost federal spending that they might actually be able to balance the budget.
The gravy train for the establishment is ending, and they are panicking. Their response? Lashing out and doing whatever they can to stop Trump.
The ultimate Democratic vision is perhaps best encapsulated by Texas Candidate Talarico’s far-left agenda:
- Abolish the Filibuster
- Tear Down (Abolish) ICE
- Implement a “Welcome Mat” border policy
- Promote transgender ideology (even calling God “nonbinary”)
- Argue that biological sex is fluid
- Label white men as the greatest domestic terror threat
- Expand the Supreme Court
Despite these efforts, the pattern may be turning against them. Recent polls show broad support for Trump’s agenda ahead of the midterms. Trump-backed candidates remain undefeated in 2026 primaries so far.
The American people are increasingly recognizing this pattern for what it is: not political opposition, but an assault on the constitutional order itself. If GOP voters turn out in November’s general election, and if non-hardcore Democratic voters vote their conscience and values, the election in November may indeed be devastating for the Democrats.
The choice before Americans is clear: preserve the constitutional system that has endured for centuries, or allow it to be dismantled by those who cannot win in the arena of ideas.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I recently received a thoughtful message from a reader in Kentucky who expressed concerns about what she perceived as libertarian infiltration of conservative politics. Her questions about libertarian principles and how they differ from traditional conservatism deserve careful consideration, as they touch upon important distinctions in political philosophy that affect our national discourse today.
As a Christian and a constitutionalist, my first thoughts typically run along what is in line with my Faith and the founding document that established our system of governance. In Jeremiah, the Lord reminds us that the heart is wicked – meaning that if we are to rely only on our feelings and emotions, they will lead us astray. We also need to reason, using logic, pragmatism, morality, our ability to analyze deeper than what is on the surface, and so on and so forth. Scripture also reminds us to avoid extremes. It teaches, often, moderation. So, when I look at issues, rather than get into the trap of binary thinking where it must be one thing or the other, I consider that there may be degrees of variance in between. This is not to say there should not be absolutes regarding everything. There are times to recognize absolutes, and times to recognize that the answer may reside in something many of us call the gray area.
I have a friend of mine who tells me all the time that he is a “small l” libertarian. His point is that he adheres to much of the libertarian philosophy, or perhaps some of them, but he is not necessarily in line with the “Big L” libertarian position, which would fit the political party’s platform. And we must recognize this as a crucial distinction. There is definitely a need to distinguish between libertarianism as a political philosophy and the Libertarian Party as a political organization. Many Americans embrace libertarian principles without formally joining the party. I believe I align with many libertarian principles on some issues, and, to be honest, as I’ve watched politics, philosophical libertarianism has gained significant influence in recent decades.
Libertarianism fundamentally emphasizes individual liberty and limited government intervention in both personal and economic matters. At its core is the non-aggression principle, which holds that initiating force against others is inherently illegitimate. This principle shapes libertarian views on everything from taxation to foreign policy.
The Libertarian Party, established in 1971, translates these philosophical principles into specific policy positions. However, many politicians who incorporate libertarian ideas, such as Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, operate within the Republican Party rather than as third-party candidates.
Libertarians and traditional conservatives share common ground in their desire for limited government and constitutional constraints on federal power. Both generally support free markets, property rights, and individual responsibility.
However, significant differences emerge in their approach to government’s role in society:
- Foreign Policy: Libertarians typically advocate non-interventionism based on the non-aggression principle. They oppose military engagements unless directly defending against aggression. This contrasts with a more traditional conservative view that recognizes the necessity of strategic international engagement and occasional military action to address genuine threats. As George Washington wisely cautioned against foreign entanglements, he also understood that a world with hostile regimes sometimes requires difficult choices.
- Social Issues: Here lies perhaps the greatest divergence. While conservatives often support laws reflecting traditional moral values, libertarians generally believe such matters should be left to individual conscience rather than government regulation. This explains libertarian support for drug decriminalization and marriage issues, positions that concern many conservatives.
- Immigration: Most libertarians favor more open immigration policies based on free market principles, while conservatives tend to emphasize border security and controlled immigration.
As a constitutional originalist, I believe the federal government’s powers are properly limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reserves all other powers to the states or the people. This framework allows for local solutions to local problems while maintaining national standards for issues truly requiring federal attention. James Madison explained in Federalist #45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined” while those remaining with the states are “numerous and indefinite.” This constitutional balance doesn’t mean states should become tyrannical; Article IV, Section 4 requires them to maintain republican forms of government. But it does answer the question about issues like abortion, marriage, or drug criminalization – those issues ultimately belong to the states to decide for themselves. None of those issues are any of the federal government’s business.
The libertarian tendency is to push limited government principles further than constitutional parameters allow for, which can create tension. For instance, while I might question whether federal regulation of aviation properly falls under the Commerce Clause, my response isn’t to eliminate all regulation, but to either clarify constitutional authority through amendment or return such powers to the states.
Regarding libertarian positions that trouble many conservatives:
- “No Borders”: Most libertarians don’t advocate completely open borders, but rather emphasize property rights and voluntary association. They support immigration reform, but recognize some border security as legitimate.
- Drug Policy: Libertarian opposition to drug prohibition stems from viewing substance use as a personal choice rather than a matter for criminal prosecution, not from promoting drug use itself.
- Social Issues: Libertarian support for same-sex marriage and other social freedoms doesn’t necessarily reflect approval of these choices, but rather a belief that government shouldn’t regulate personal relationships. One who believes in the presence of a national government with centralized power might argue that the laws regarding such issues belong to the federal government. A constitutionalist like myself will argue that those issues belong to the states. Generally, libertarians will argue there should be no laws whatsoever regarding those issues at the federal or the state level.
The tension between libertarian and conservative approaches reflects broader questions about America’s future. Should we prioritize individual autonomy above all else, or should we preserve institutions and traditions that have sustained our civilization? And if there are people who hold what might be considered “extreme views” on these issues, should the GOP consider jettisoning those individuals from the political party? Regarding that last question, two things come to mind – how quickly progressives cancel anyone who is not purely 100% in line with their narrative, and how Ronald Reagan famously stated, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”
This quote reflects Reagan’s pragmatic approach to politics and his willingness to build coalitions with those who might not agree with him on every issue. It encapsulates his belief that political progress often requires working with people who share most of your views, even if there are some areas of disagreement. It might be a lesson for us to consider when, as conservatives or constitutionalists, we operate with libertarians in our midst.
Reagan was known for his ability to unite different factions within the conservative movement, and this quote illustrates his philosophy that political alliances should be based on common ground rather than demanding ideological purity. This approach was particularly evident in his ability to bring together traditional conservatives, libertarians, and former Democrats into what became known as the “Reagan coalition.”
This quote is often cited in discussions about political strategy and coalition-building, particularly in conservative circles where there’s ongoing debate about how broadly the movement should define itself.
So, when it comes to libertarian-minded Republicans like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, and how to work with them, the answer may lie somewhere between the extremes. We can respect individual liberty while recognizing that certain moral standards and social structures benefit society. We can limit government power while acknowledging that some regulations protect rather than threaten freedom – and then take into consideration who should be legislating regarding those issues: the federal government, the states, or local jurisdictions.
For those concerned about politicians like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, it’s worth noting that they don’t consistently adhere to libertarian positions, but incorporate libertarian elements into a broader conservative framework. Their libertarian-leaning positions on civil liberties and government spending coexist with more conservative views on other issues.
Understanding libertarianism’s appeal while recognizing its limitations helps us navigate today’s political landscape. We can appreciate libertarians’ important contributions to discussions about government overreach without adopting their more extreme positions.
As we debate these issues, let’s remember that constitutional governance requires balancing competing values, liberty and order, individual rights and communal responsibilities, local autonomy and national security. This balance, not ideological purity, should guide our political judgments.
With that said, as often is the case, when a person with views outside the grand scheme, or outside what is acceptable to the culture, deviates too far from where they need to be, their seat in government may be shorter-lived than they might expect. In some cases, there may even be more issues and complexities beneath the surface than most Americans can see – but the local voters are well aware of these things. This is why the republican form of government contains components that ensures local voices have a voice over a nationalized democracy, and that is an important part of what our republic is all about. Case in point, Thomas Massie’s loss in Kentucky during this year’s Republican Primary. When left to the culture, more often than not, the culture will decide if someone might have gone too far, and needs to be replaced – or at least that tends to be the reality for the GOP and less lefty-leaning organizations, parties, and groups.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary