Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
I was looking up Valentina Gomez, a Republican running for Texas’s 31st congressional district after seeing videos of her launching some fiery language about Democrats and Islam. She is Hispanic and her outspoken conservative views, particularly her willingness to stand firm against Islam, caught my attention. I learned that she has been banned from all major media platforms except X (formerly Twitter), and that the mainstream media labels her rhetoric as hate speech and filled with Islamophobia, while also labeling her as being a far-right candidate “who uses provocative tactics to energize her base.”
The characterization of Gomez as a far-right candidate caught my attention. I disagree with the far-right label considering the context in which it is being used. The Democrats and their hard-left allies have gone out of their way to remind everyone that fascism is labeled by them as far-right, so anyone who disagrees with them are also far-right, guilty of residing in the same space with fascism by political spectrum association.
Such a view of the political spectrum is hardly historically grounded. The right-left dynamic when viewed through a distinctly American lens rooted in constitutional principles looks nothing like European class dynamics.
The French Revolution model of left versus right chases Europe’s history of monarchies and established churches. In the French Assembly those who were revolutionaries, secularists, collectivists, anti-monarchy and seeking change sat on the left side of the auditorium. Those who supported the monarchy, were traditionalists, defenders of the state church, defenders of the aristocracy, and seeking to not allow any change in the system sat on the right. Moderates sat in the center.
America never had a monarchy, or a national state church. The American Constitutional model of a political spectrum is instead based on a concept that places the U.S. Constitution at the center. To the far left is 100% total government control which is where communism, fascism, Islamism and monarchy reside. To the far right is 0% government, which is anarchy. On the right of the Constitution would be pure democracy, libertarianism, and voluntaryism, At the center, the U.S. Constitution created a central government, but limits its authorities, provides checks and balances, and champions our natural rights. Those who are in line with the Constitution would then be constitutional moderates, or classical centrists.
Unlike the French model, in the American model because fascism and communism are both authoritarian, differing only in method, they are both on the far left. The Constitution serves as the balancing point, not a midpoint between European-style ideologies. MAGA and similar conservative movements, while labeled “far right” by legacy media, are arguably close to the center where the Constitution resides, though slightly to the left when measured against the Constitution’s strict limits on federal power.
The reason this matters is because language shapes perception. If fascism is falsely labeled “right-wing,” then anyone advocating for limited government can be smeared by association. Historical accuracy matters. Fascism arose from socialist roots. Mussolini was a Marxist before founding fascism. Both fascism and communism centralize power, and they do so while seeking to control the means of production – communism through governmental ownership of the means of production, and fascism through heavy regulation of the means of production coupled with mercantilistic relationships (crony-capitalism). Islamism also fits as a far left ideology despite being religiously framed. Islam is a politically authoritarian system, thus a far-left ideology in the terms of power structure.
But, the Democrats and their Cultural Marxism allies know that language and perception are key on the political battlefield – which is why they use “far right” in their rhetorical language. That way, advocating for a strong patriotic identity, limited government and cultural preservation can be coupled with fascism on the far right despite the fact that aside from fascism, none of the other stances are even close to being authoritarian. By using the “far right” label, they are able to shut down debate without having to clarify any of their positions.
Don’t fall for the false rhetoric, and don’t fall for the left-right paradigm. In the end it is about authoritarianism versus liberty and evil versus godly.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Donald Trump is actively pursuing plans to sell federal properties to private buyers, particularly underutilized buildings and public lands, as part of a broader effort to shrink the federal government’s footprint and raise funding. Senator Joni Ernst introduced the Disposal Act, which lists six prime properties in Washington D.C. for immediate sale. The bill aims to cut through bureaucratic red tape and fast-track the sale of underused government buildings. The Trump administration previously published a list of over 440 federal buildings targeted for closure or sale, including major sites like the FBI headquarters and DOJ building. Though the list has been revised a few times, and then ultimately was later removed from public release, the existence of it in the first place signals serious intent to sell federal properties to private buyers.
A sovereign wealth fund has been proposed by President Trump, which would serve as a U.S. Government savings account separate from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. The General Fund is used for government’s day-to-day operations like one’s checking account to pay bills. But the sovereign wealth fund would be more like an investment portfolio meant to build long-term wealth. Rather than operating like the General Fund which simply collects taxes, spends them, and borrows into debt, the sovereign wealth fund would invest money, investing to grow national wealth. Norway, for example, uses oil money to invest globally and earns billions. The sovereign wealth fund would be fed by monies from natural resource revenues or budget surpluses, generating economic benefits that would grow the country’s wealth, stabilize the economy, and create a pool of money that can be tapped into for long-term priorities like pensions, infrastructure, or debt reduction. President Trump, after all, is a businessman, so he’s treating Uncle Sam like a potentially smart investor, hoping to make money for America rather than just collecting and spending taxes. The initial funding of the sovereign wealth fund would come from the sale of federal land and buildings, particularly large tracts of federal real estate in the western United States. While still in early stages, the idea reflects a shift toward leveraging government-owned assets rather than relying solely on taxation or borrowing.
The grand plan is to downsize government operations and reduce costs, while growing its assets. To accomplish the feat the General Services Administration (GSA) reportedly plans to sell half of the federal property it manages, aligning with Trump’s push for a sovereign wealth fund. The move initially was designed to coincide with a 90-day hiring freeze for federal agencies. Shortly after taking office President Trump did implement a federal hiring freeze, but it did not last the full 90 days in practice. It actually lasted about 79 days before being replaced by new bureaucratic guidance. Trump has moved to institute another hiring freeze, and wants restrictions on new hiring to become a continuing policy rather than a temporary measure. Along with the freeze Trump is continuing the effort to bring federal employees back to in-person work.
The offloading of federal properties may help in reversing the unconstitutional trend of a federal land grab, or at least that’s the way it seems on the surface. The federal government’s history of extortion against the States in the west which included retaining federal land possession as a condition of statehood, along with other land grabs that include National Park policies, violates Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. So one must then ask, is it constitutional for the federal government to sell property that was unconstitutionally obtained in the first place?
Some of my opponents may also raise concerns about the purpose of conservation behind the ownership of many of these lands in question. With that in mind, I am not saying that land should not be set aside in certain cases for conservation. As a Christian I am a firm believer in being good stewards of our planet. I also recognize the biblical wisdom of Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” The verse essentially reminds us that if we operate on feelings alone our hearts will guide us in a wicked direction. It is important for us as humans with a flawed human nature to also take into consideration a pragmatic way of looking at things, use our discernment, logic, common sense and critical thinking.
I also wrestle with the fact that establishing a sovereign wealth fund may teeter on the edge of constitutionality, and many of the mechanisms attached to the idea are downright unconstitutional for sure. When it comes to the ownership of properties the Constitution is clear that such ownership is limited to what is necessary for “needful buildings” like forts, arsenals, dockyards, and other government functions with state legislature consent. The only exception would be properties obtained from foreign sources by way of treaty.
Historically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, the part that defines that federal properties must be obtained by purchase, consent of the states, and for needful buildings has been stretched by federal agencies to justify vast land holdings, especially in western states, where the federal government owns over 50% of land in states like Nevada. Federal land grabs violate the Founding Fathers’ intent, especially when lands are held indefinitely without fulfilling the “needful” purpose.
Trump’s active exploration of selling federal lands, particularly underused parcels managed by agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), could be seen as a move that could also reverse much of the consequences of the federal government violating the Constitution in the past with massive land grabs. A joint task force has been formed to identify parcels suitable for affordable housing development or other designs for land use, but unfortunately no formal restrictions or conditions are being considered. While I am not a fan of the federal government owning so much land or over-regulating in the private sphere, I am concerned that once these lands are transferred to private ownership there may be issues that will arise regarding environmental protections, public access, or the lands only being used for accessing particular resources or the reality that real estate developers may use their ownership of the land to prioritize profit over common sense public interest. Liberty is a wonderful thing, and private ownership should be unaffected largely by federal regulations, but at the same time I understand the concerns of those who fear misuse of the property by private actors. For fear of going in one direction too far, I want to make sure we don’t lurch too far in the opposite direction and confirm the fears of those who believe we must be good stewards of our world.
President Andrew Jackson comes to mind when I think about Trump’s strategy. Jackson successfully paid off the national debt in 1935, though only briefly, by selling off federal lands aggressively. We have been in debt ever since, providing evidence of government’s inability to remain within its means. Nonetheless, Trump’s strategy mirrors Jackson’s actions in spirit, aiming to reduce the deficit and shrink federal bureaucracy by liquidating assets. But, unlike Jackson, today’s federal holdings are entangled in environmental, tribal, and recreational claims, making the process far more complex.
As a constitutionalist I seek constitutional fidelity, but with an eye on reality I also want to make sure we are fiscally pragmatic and that we are mindful about environmental and cultural stewardship. If President Trump, or any administration, were to pursue the sale of lands it would require a multipronged strategy rooted in consent of the States, constraint, and covenant.
I believe that the sale of federal land is capable of being a good idea, but the state legislatures’ consent regarding the provisions attached to those sales must be included. Depending upon the nature of the lands in question, their locations, or other factors the deeds should contain appropriate restrictions that would prohibit unfettered development in certain situations, especially concerning environmental degradation, or displacement of tribal or historical sites. If the land is misused or left undeveloped beyond a set period, the ownership should then revert to the State. All transactions must be fully transparent, publicly disclosed and subject to review with citizen input. Sales to foreign buyers must be disallowed, though leasing ought to be considered if the use of the land will be for reasons tied to manufacturing or other supply-side activities. Rather than selling to the highest bidder, selling to state governments or tribal nations should be the first opportunity so that they may reclaim or repurpose the land. That part of my list of demands is a tough pill for me because at the same time I must consider that if the federal government obtained the properties in question unconstitutionally in the first place, ought not the properties in question be simply given back to the states? Selling it back to the states, rather than simply transferring ownership back to the states without a condition of payment is sort of like someone stealing something from you, but out of the goodness of their heart giving you the opportunity to buy it back from them.
The reality of the current situation, taking a practical approach that takes into consideration all of the modern nuances and the whole purpose of the federal government unloading the properties for the purpose of debt reduction, however, changes the dynamic which will likely demand that none of the parties involved may consider a true constitutional approach in the first place. I’m not saying that we ought to abandon the Constitution because that’s the way it has been all along. I am simply reminding myself that operating truly in a constitutional manner regarding the whole sovereign wealth fund idea may not be a battle we are capable of winning at this juncture so we might wish to tackle what we can accomplish – slightly moving the constitutional needle in the originalist direction.
The overall benefit these actions may pose for the United States at large is the goal here, I believe. And with that in mind, we may even consider a modernized version of the Homestead Act, offering land to individuals or families who commit to productive use that is beneficial to the country, such as farming or other agricultural operations, or other productive uses we may have not thought of. The monies from the sales, if that were the path, and if we wish to remain true to President Trump’s aims, must then be earmarked only for debt reduction, not general spending. I don’t want the sovereign wealth fund, if it does in fact find a way to pop into existence, to just create another piggy bank for high-spending politicians to raid with ease. A constitutional land commission may even need to be created, empowered to review, approve and audit all land sales for constitutional compliance and common sense public benefit.
As a historian I don’t view these lands as just real estate. Those lands are tied to the past, and can be a gift to the future. President Trump ought to not frame the move as liquidation as much as a move in the direction of the restoration of constitutional order, returning land to the states, the people, and the purposes for which those lands were originally supposed to be used for.
The idea is a good one on the surface, but history tells us that the political class will not behave itself if the proper checks and balances are not inserted. If we don’t step through this potentially explosive minefield properly, it could become a game of political favoritism, risky speculation, and a hindrance to long-term growth rather than a vehicle to provide an important investment strategy for the future. Yes, President Trump, I understand what you wish to do if the U.S. sells some of its federal properties. I would rather the federal government just transfer the lands to their original owners be it the states or tribal nations, but perhaps we can at least make the States and tribal nations the first potential buyers. Give them, in a sense, the first right of refusal. Then, once the sales begin to happen, let’s make sure conditions are attached so that it doesn’t become a nightmare. And in the end, we may get closer to the lands being constitutionally distributed, and get rid of the national debt at the same time. All it takes is discipline, common sense discernment, and a sharp eye on the Constitution – but I know history, and the greedy tendencies of politicians – so I am not going to hold my breath too long regarding the consideration on the table.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Democrats swept the 2025 elections in deep-blue states, but the narrower margins suggest cracks in the foundation. Sure, the results on Election Day 2025 delivered the expected outcome. Democrats won key races across traditionally liberal strongholds. From gubernatorial contests in Virginia and New Jersey to the New York City mayoral race, and the controversial Proposition 50 in California, the liberal progressive left held its ground. But beneath the surface of these victories lies a story that deserves closer scrutiny.
On paper, the results were predictable. We expected a sweep across Deep Blue Terrain.
- Virginia elected Democrat Abigail Spanberger as governor, replacing Republican Glenn Youngkin; as well as winning the Lieutenant Governor’s race with Ghazala Hashmi who became the first Muslim woman elected to statewide office in Virginia and Attorney General with Jay Jones who won despite his violent rhetoric uncovered during the campaign regarding wishing the death of his opponent, and his opponents children. In the House of Delegates early returns suggest the Democrats increased their slim majority flipping several suburban districts in Northern Virginia and Richmond.
- New Jersey elected Democrat Mikie Sherill, and though Republicans made modest gains in suburban districts regarding seats in New Jersey’s General Assembly, the Democrats retained control.
- Communist Zohran Mamdani won the mayoral seat in New York City – a win many commentators are indicating reveals who the new face of the Democratic Party might be.
- California’s Proposition 50, which overrides the independent redistricting commission to favor Democrat-drawn maps, passed in a State where the Democrats outnumber the Republicans 2 to 1, which is expected to flip up to five congressional seats in California from Republican to Democrat in the 2026 midterms – a win framed by Governor Gavin Newsom as being a rebuke of President Trump’s redistricting strategy in GOP-controlled states despite the fact that pretty much anything that gets thrown in the air by Democrats in California is approved by the population dominated by leftist voters.
- Judicial seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin remained in the hands of the progressive left.
- Seattle elected hard-left progressive activist Nikkita Oliver as mayor, signaling a harder shift leftward.
- In Minnesota, Democrats held the state House but lost two rural seats to Republicans.
- Colorado saw Republicans flip three suburban seats in the state House, narrowing the Democratic majority.
- In Florida blue cities like Orlando gained a few Democratic seats.
The races were largely anchored by dense urban centers and progressive populations that have long leaned left. Virginia’s northern corridor, dominated by federal employees, and California’s deep blue population, made these outcomes almost inevitable.
What’s striking is not that the Democrats won, but how they won. In many of the elections where Democrats typically dominate, the margins of victory were tighter than expected. They weren’t landslides as they ought to have been. Some races went well into the night before being called, suggesting a more competitive undercurrent than the party might be comfortable with, especially since they should be winning with even more ease since conservative residents have been fleeing for States like Florida, Tennessee, Texas and the Carolinas which should be leaving the blue states with even greater percentages of Democratic voter dominance.
While the media and Democrat politicians are spinning the results as a referendum on President Trump or a harbinger of the 2026 midterms, the real takeaway is subtler: Democratic dominance in deep-blue states is no longer a given at the scale it once was.
Democrats are hoping to ride this alleged momentum into 2026, but the narrower margins hint at growing dissatisfaction, even in their strongholds. Economic concerns, cultural divides, and the rise of independent and outside candidates signal that voters are open to alternatives, and in the Democratic Party the trend is away from the establishment politicians and toward a radical leftist socialist younger group of candidates who are fresh out of the indoctrination meat-grinder the Democrats have been cranking in the education system.
The leftist Democrats won the day, but the Republicans made inroads. Anger at the Democrats is becoming apparent, and if the Democrats keep lurching radically leftward the low-hanging fruit who traditionally vote Democrat but see themselves having less and less in common with their radically shifting party are going to abandon the Party of the Donkey and go somewhere else for their politics. Shrinking margins suggest that the ground is shifting under America’s feet, and the Democrats are losing trust in places they’ve long taken for granted.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In Nigeria, the rest of Africa, and many regions around the world for that matter, the spread of Muslim rule has offered a brutal wakeup call regarding its legacy of slavery and massacre. It is incompatible with Western values, but is tolerated by the progressive liberal socialist left because they share the same enemies – colonialism, Judaism, and Christianity. Americans have been battling on our own social battlefields, so we have both lacked the will and the capability to address the blood-soaked grounds under the dark shadow spreading across the globe.
There were once truly successful African countries, but they succeeded when they practiced British politics and American economics. Botswana and South Africa were once economic powerhouses, but anti-colonialism and the desire to escape the horrors of Apartheid opened them up to change. But once those kinds of doors open the tendency of a people is to lurch radically in the opposite direction, which then welcomes ideologies like Islam and Communism which can take centuries to be cured from, if not longer. Along that anti-colonial path has risen ruthless powers that blame anything European on the woes of the country. Anti-Christian genocide, all too often, becomes mixed into the recipe to get away from European influences, despite the fact that Christianity is not truly a European religion as advertised. The first churches emerged in the Middle East and Africa before they began creeping into southeastern Europe and ultimately across the White Continent.
Nigeria is currently Africa’s demographic and economic giant, but teeters on the brink of collapse. It is torn apart along religious and ethnic lines by corruption and jihad. President Trump has set his eyes on Nigeria, after seemingly brokering an end to the fighting in Congo. But America cannot consider entering another game of regime change through military might. Iraq and Afghanistan both serve as bitter lessons when it comes to that line of thinking. But Islam and communism are a real threat in those regions, and the only thing that could turn those regions around, Christianity, is what is being targeted for termination.
The problem is, in Europe and even here in America, the war is also raging. Islam and communism are not happy to conquer regions. They both want to rule the world, and they have come together in a strange kind of alliance to make it happen. They have formed a Red/Green Alliance as written about by writer and investigative journalist James Simpson in his multiple books, and in the movies “Enemies Within” and “Enemies Within The Church” by Trevor Loudon. In America that war for the soul of The West has raised its Red/Green head in the candidacy of New York’s Zohran Mamdani. He admits he hates Capitalism. He’s a self-proclaimed socialist convincing a large swath of voters that the free market that transformed this country from frontier towns into a global superpower is our primary problem in America. While the economic system Karl Marx labeled Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, built a middle class and fueled rapid technological innovation with outcomes impossible under socialist regimes, the same kind of voters who have chased after the pipe-dreams that have Europe imploding and fueled failed communist states are now screaming Commie Mamdani’s name and they are pushing for him to be the next mayor of New York City. But his profound anti-American rhetoric is not just some leftist ideology that is rooted in foreign influence and imported from the worst of America’s adversaries. We must be reminded he is also Muslim. He is a perfect example of Simpson’s “Red-Green Alliance.”
The rise of Mamdani’s Red-Green movement is not limited to the raging lefties of New York City, either. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts was quick to publicly voice her support for the New York mayoral candidate back in August, praising the socialist’s communist economic platform, and declaring that his ideas are aligned with the core messaging of the Democratic Party. Mamdani won the Democratic nomination for mayor in June, and has been slowly securing broad support from many of the Democratic Party’s radical leftist leaders like AOC and Bernie Sanders, but he is also cracking into the minds of the establishment leaders. And his supporters are convinced that his anti-capitalism, anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Christianity beliefs represent the direction the Democratic Party should be moving.
The Muslim part of Mamdani has not been touched by the media, however. The emphasis by conservative media has been mainly about him being a self-described democratic-socialist.
As the anniversary of the October 7 massacre in Israel by Hamas approached a little more than four weeks ago some outlets reported that Mamdani refused to condemn Hamas when pressed on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow to destroy the terror group and secure the release of the hostages. When asked directly, he responded, “I am not going to echo the words of Benjamin Netanyahu.” As a Muslim, his hate for Israel, and support for anyone supporting the complete genocide of Israel goes along with the ideology. But if you are a Muslim who hates Israel, then hatred for Christianity is also in the mix. America is the Great Satan to Islam due to its Christian foundation, and Israel is the Little Satan. Mamdani later criticized New York Mayor Eric Adams, who attended Netanyahu’s speech in person. Dozens of delegates staged walkouts before Netanyahu finished his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but Adams remained until the end and later praised the Israeli leader. Mamdani’s response was clear. “To have a mayor who went to the United Nations to watch his address and then thank Benjamin Netanyahu for defending the Western world and our way of life, those are the words that Eric Adams shared, I can’t even begin to explain the offense that that brings to New Yorkers across the five boroughs.” Mamdani has also labeled Israel an apartheid state, and signaled his opposition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism which includes criticism of Israel and Zionism.
Mamdani’s Muslim roots, and his position supporting Islamist extremism and particularly regarding Israel and anti-Semitism is echoed by the rise of other candidates in Minnesota and Seattle, and is occurring at a crucial moment in history while Israel and Christianity has seen an increase in leftist rhetoric against them, and even violence against both Judaism and Christianity.
The NYPD seems to be in lock-step with Mamdani, recently quietly abandoning the concept of assimilation into American culture and instead has been enforcing accommodation, and compliance to Sharia by celebrating the emergence of a soon-to-be first Pakistani-American woman to serve in both the U.S. Air Force and the New York Police Department while also celebrating their accommodation of her Islamic “religious” demands. She has won the battle with her demands to never be required to remove her hijab, not even during gas-mask training in the military, and was granted a full religious waiver from uniform regulations. She also received federally funded Halal-only food while in the military, prayer breaks during duty hours (even in combat environments), and gender segregation and modesty accommodations during physical training (during a time the leftist Democrats also claim that we are all equal and men can be women).
How can America stand against Islamic extremism abroad if we institutionally codify Sharia in America?
These are the same leftwing Democrats who scream about Israel’s alleged sins, while also ignoring the ongoing massacres of Christians in Nigeria. Islamists in Nigeria have murdered tens of thousands of defenseless Christians, displacing around 15 million people from their homes. The Islamist militants have also been committing sexual violence and torture on the Christians and recruit the children into their terrorist army. Catholic priests are regularly targeted for kidnapping. But we haven’t seen any college protests or rallies in the streets of American cities decrying that systemic ethnic cleansing by Muslim forces.
In Sudan, another civil war has broken out, as well. In that country, about 150,000 civilians have been murdered, and around 12 million have been displaced from their homes. The leftist media and politicians have been silent about Christians being driven out or massacred in most Islamic nations, how in the last twenty years the Christian population in Iraq has shrunk from 1.4 million to around 120,000, how in Syria the Christian population has dramatically contracted, how after once in Lebanon Christians made up around 80% of the population but it is now under 30%, how in Turkey genocides against Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks has the Christian population shrinking from about 20% to about 0.2%, how in Egypt the Coptic Christians live in constant fear, and how Bethlehem’s Muslim majority keeps the Christian population out of that city’s region but if Israel were ever to annex Bethlehem the Christian population would explode. The same media and leftists politicians who spend their days accusing Israel of war crimes are the same ones who ignore the atrocities against Christians around the world. And note that these attacks are not only in Africa and the Middle East. They are in Europe and here in America, as well. Just to name a few incidents:
- Two churches were intentionally set on fire in North Carolina in Cleveland County.
- Germany’s open-border experiment has unleashed a wave of anti-Christian hatred with churches under siege, sacred statues mutilated, Bibles burned, and worshippers constantly harassed and living in fear.
- A fatal Catholic School Mass shooting in Minnesota in late August.
According to the Daily Signal’s president and executive editor, Rob Bluey, “We have seen a significant, sharp increase in attacks on Christians and churches.” According to Family Research Council, there were 383 attacks on Christian churches last year alone. There has been a 700% increase in violent attacks against churches and Christians in America. Christians are the most persecuted religious group around the world. Bluey commented, “As people have abandoned religion and faith and the belief in Jesus Christ, we have moved away from some of those very foundational principles that not only were instrumental in the creation of this great country that we live in, but have guided us for thousands of years.”
We see it in media personalities as well. Former CNN personality Don Lemon ranted about the “Christian messaging” and “Religious Nationalism” at Charlie Kirk’s Memorial. Actor Mark Ruffalo claims [illegal] “immigrants” aren’t the criminals. “White People are.” And what he means by that is not his fellow white liberal left collectivists. It was a stab at white Christian conservatives. His claim was launched during a “No Kings Mobilization Kickoff Call” and came two weeks after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the attempted bombing of a Fox News truck, and gunfire against both an ABC affiliate station and an ICE facility in Dallas. In his rant Ruffalo claimed most crimes are committed in this country by white people. When one looks at percentages, of course, that statement can be easily dismissed.
As any Christian will probably tell you, we are not just in a battle for the soul of America. We are smack-dab in the middle of spiritual warfare. Our identity is based on the notion that we have Natural Rights. God-given rights and a moral order that transcends politics or party loyalty. The deterioration of our foundational truths didn’t come from politicians, but the expansion of hatred of Christianity and the loss of values that go along with it which is in direct proportion to the loss of our Christian spirituality in our culture. Our education system has abandoned biblical truths for leftist theoretical conditioning. Skin color is blamed for anything unpleasant, and five year-olds are being told their bodies lie to them. American History is being taught as the birth of a flawed system designed to oppress anyone not white, rather than the greatest story of the triumph of liberty in the history of the world. Americans have been taught to harden their hearts against Christian values, and to trust collective ideology over God.
The good news is that a push for school choice, home-schooling, classical education and a return to traditional methods of education is on the rise. Critical thinking is being sought, rather than teaching that one is only a mindless automaton who must obey their conditioning. Universal morality is reentering the fabric of reality – something taught by Christianity and Judaism – which is a recognition that there is a moral law that fuels the rule of law, rather than the rule of man that is founded upon man’s opinion. The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, is being sought after. While the factions and political leaders may deny that there is a higher authority, Christians have not abandoned that successful framework that made this country great. Christians in America have decided that it is not enough to merely oppose the war launched against us, but to stand in the public square of our culture and battle against it as Charlie Kirk did. A restoration of the voice of Christianity in our culture and American System has suddenly been launched as all of these attacks around the world against Christianity scream for our submission.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” wrote John Adams.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom,” proclaimed Benjamin Franklin.
The path forward is the next step on the Tytler Cycle. We are rapidly approaching bondage, but it is time we have our next spiritual awakening. As Steve Scott at American Thinker wrote, “As faith recedes, government advances. As transcendent morality fades, bureaucratic control expands. As education becomes indoctrination, liberty becomes impossible.”
As I have said many times at my public speaking events, “How can we get our political house in order if we can’t get out godly house in order?”
I believe a spiritual awakening is on the horizon. I see it in the faces behind the demands of parents fighting for their children’s minds. I see it in the faces of those who were shocked by Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I see it in the faces of those in audiences I speak to awakening to the truth. While President Trump is a fantastic President, and the political pendulum seems to be swinging away from the hard left, the restoration of our Republic is not a political maneuver. It is a cultural one. It is a spiritual one.
America’s own enlightenment is gearing up to reach into the heavens and embrace the foundational principles that founded America in the first place. We have traveled full cycle, from spiritual awakening, the rise of liberty through the courage of our Founding Fathers, the prosperity that comes with it, and then through the dark journey through selfishness, complacency, apathy, and dependency upon a government that has been lurching leftward in a fashion that would have alarmed the Founders. The human secular rule of man has reached a point where the people have begun dancing around the golden calf of collectivism, but the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the failures of leftism under Obama and Biden, and the threat of the Red/Green Alliance rising in New York City and other places around the country have shocked us out of our sleep. It is time to shake off the blurriness of newly awakening and regain our place in our culture. We need to be in the public square proclaiming liberty, and our pastors need to be in the public square with us proclaiming the Word of God. We need to be community leaders. We need to be educators. We need to be office holders. We need to get educated again.
And it begins with two literary masterpieces. The Holy Bible, and the United States Constitution.
It’s time for the Tytler Cycle’s bondage to be put behind us, and the liberty of a spiritual awakening to spread like a morning dawn upon America once again.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In a ruling that stunned election integrity advocates, Clinton-appointed Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked President Trump’s directive requiring proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration.
The judge declared that the President lacked authority to instruct the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to update registration forms to require documentation; such as a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Her decision effectively removes any federal-level verification that a registrant is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.
Yet the EAC is part of the executive branch. Article II of the Constitution vests executive power in the President, making him the chief executive over all agencies therein. Unless constrained by statute or the Constitution, he holds the authority to direct executive functions, including those of the EAC.
At issue was the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the so-called “Motor Voter” law, which created a standardized federal form. The Trump administration sought to close a glaring loophole: applicants merely check a box claiming citizenship, no proof required.
Kollar-Kotelly sided with progressive groups who argued that requiring documentation would “burden” voters. Her ruling ignores the Constitution’s repeated insistence that voting is reserved for citizens: the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2; the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments all affirm this principle.
The ruling means anyone, citizen or not, can register using the federal form without ever proving eligibility. In an era of illegal immigration, mail-in ballots, and bloated voter rolls, the government is now relying on the honor system.
Election integrity advocates argue that citizenship verification isn’t voter suppression, it’s common sense. Americans must show ID to buy alcohol, board a plane, or enter a federal building. Yet, Democrats insist voting should require no proof of citizenship.
This decision fits a troubling pattern: activist judges and left-wing organizations using the courts to block nearly every effort to secure the ballot box. From striking down voter ID laws to halting audits and purges of outdated rolls, the rulings consistently favor those who benefit from their version of constitutional interpretation.
The irony is rich. The same voices who accused Trump of winning via “foreign interference” now defend a system that invites foreign interference at the ballot box.
Trump’s legal team is expected to appeal, likely bringing the case before the Supreme Court. Until then, federal voter registration remains a self-attested process; no proof required.
Citizenship was a revolutionary concept at America’s founding. In the Old World, people were subjects, ruled over without recourse. In the New World, citizens ruled government.
Though the original Constitution referenced citizenship primarily in relation to office-holding and state affiliation, the concept evolved. As immigration surged in the 1800s, states began tightening suffrage requirements. Some allowed “declarant alien suffrage” which was voting by immigrants who declared intent to naturalize. By the eve of the War Between the States, half of the states required citizenship to vote.
After the war, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments enshrined citizenship as a prerequisite for voting; intended to guarantee emancipated slaves full participation in the republic.
Citizenship and suffrage became a sacred pairing. But Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s ruling not only undermines the separation of powers by attempting to use the courts to micromanage the President’s duties, but also slashes at the heart of a sacred principle: only citizens should vote, and only citizens belong in the American electorate.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Trump decided it is time to create something that just about every President has called for but didn’t have the ba– … uh … intestinal fortitude to accomplish: Build a great big beautiful ballroom for the White House. Originally, President Trump planned to update the East Wing within its existing structure, but after listening to his construction and architectural experts he has around him, he decided the structural capabilities of the East Wing were not what he’d hoped, and it would be best to bring it down, and then build a new East Wing with modern technology blended into its modernized and more stable framework.
The original White House goes all the way back to shortly after America’s founding. The White House possessed neither the East Wing nor the West Wing during the more than a hundred years of its early life. George Washington oversaw the initial design and planning of the White House but never lived there. Construction was completed in 1800, during the final year of John Adams’ presidency, making him the first President to live in the White House. He moved in November 1800, and oversaw the interior finishing and basic furnishings. Thomas Jefferson, the first President to spend his entire presidency in the White House, added terraces, landscaping, and stables. He commissioned Benjamin Henry Latrobe to add the East and West Colonnades, connecting the residence to service wings. During James Madison’s presidency the White House was burned by the British in 1814 during the War of 1812. It was rebuilt during Madison’s presidency under architect James Hoban, completed in 1817. James Monroe completed the post-fire reconstruction, and furnished the interiors with French décor, with some of the pieces remaining today. John Quincy Adams installed the first indoor plumbing and bathtub, and created an observatory on the roof. Andrew Jackson added running water and central heating (hot-air furnace), and updated public rooms with new furniture. Millard Fillmore installed the first library in the White House. Franklin Pierce refurnished many rooms after a fire in the Library. Ulysses S. Grant installed indoor plumbing upgrades and gas lighting, and added redecorated parlors and formal rooms in Victorian style. Rutherford B. Hayes installed the first telephone and decorated the Red Room and other public areas. Chester A. Arthur conducted a major redecoration installing stained-glass doors, colorful wallpapers, and gaslight chandeliers. Benjamin Harrison installed electric lighting in 1891, and updated the plumbing and heating systems. William McKinley updated the kitchen and communication systems.
Prior to the twentieth century, updates and renovations to the White House were common, and all of it was paid for by American tax dollars, as was all of the subsequent renovations – with President Trump’s latest East Wing project serving as an exception. Despite all of the renovations and projects, the West Wing and East Wing did not exist until the dawn of the twentieth century. Prior to the creation of the permanent wings the President, his family, and staff all worked and lived in the main Executive Mansion. Overcrowding and modernization needs however, led to a major renovation under President Theodore Roosevelt who in 1902 commissioned a major renovation. Roosevelt removed all of the Victorian décor, restoring the Federal-era look. The West Wing was constructed to house the President’s offices. A temporary East Wing was added, mainly as a covered entrance for formal receptions and events. It provided access to the new East Garden and Conservatory, and served as a waiting area for guests. He also remodeled the State Dining Room.
William Howard Taft expanded the West Wing and added the Oval Office. He also installed the first central air circulation system with fans and ducts. Woodrow Wilson installed the first elevator in the residence, and upgraded the telephone system.
The East Wing as we came to know it before President Trump’s construction crew demolished it dates to 1942 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt tore down the old East Wing and commissioned the construction of an updated and more permanent structure. It was built for security and secrecy, with its primary purpose concealing the construction of an underground bunker beneath it known as the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC). The PEOC was a fallout bomb shelter designed for the President and key staff during emergencies, a key feature considering that the United States at the time had recently joined World War II. The PEOC was famously used on 9/11. After World War II, the East Wing remained and was adapted for administrative and ceremonial purposes. FDR also added a swimming pool for therapy, also famously (or perhaps I should say “infamously”) used by President Kennedy, and later removed by Nixon and converted to a press briefing room. Roosevelt, with his expansion of the West Wing added the press room and Map Room.
In the post-war era the East Wing became the domain of the First Lady and her staff. It housed the Office of the First Lady, White House Social Office, Correspondence Unit, and offices for White House Visitors and Tours. The East Wing provided access through the East Wing corridor to the Garden Room, Vermeil Room, and China Room, also rooms closing associated with the First Lady’s activities. Another corridor, the East Colonnade, was designed by Benjamin Henry Latrobe, later modified by Roosevelt’s renovation, connecting the East Wing to the main residence. It was along that passage one could view portraits of the modern First Ladies.
Roosevelt’s neoclassical design harmonized with the White House’s original Federal design, serving as the formal public entry point for visitors on White House tours and for guests attending state dinners or receptions. The Underground Bunker has been maintained and occasionally upgraded a number of times since, remaining one of the White House’s most secure areas. The PEOC is going to be affected by the new East Wing renovation/reconstruction, but details have not been released. The 90,000 square-foot ballroom for the White House will only be a part of the entire new construction project, with the entirety of the East Wing being modernized and upgraded including the underground bunker. Unlike prior White House projects, Trump’s renovation is being funded completely by private dollars – something, perhaps, FDR should have considered since his projects all occurred during the Great Depression.
Democratic President Harry S. Truman carried out a complete gut renovation from 1948 to 1952, claiming it was needed due to structural collapse risk. Only the outer walls remained. The entire interior was rebuilt with steel framing. Truman added a balcony on the South Portico (Truman Balcony), and he updated all of the plumbing, heating, and electrical systems.
Eisenhower installed the first air conditioning, modernized television and radio equipment, and refurbished the Cabinet Room and West Wing offices.
John F. Kennedy’s restoration was considered a historic preservation project. He refurnished all of the rooms with authentic period antiques, created the White House Historical Association, and the White House Guidebook. He reestablished the mansion’s role as a “museum of American History.”
Lyndon B. Johnson upgraded communication systems for the Vietnam era, added television broadcasting facilities, and created the Family Theater.
Nixon remodeled the West Wing, adding the press briefing room over FDR’s old pool, updated the Situation Room, and installed a tape recording system which was later removed after Watergate.
Gerald Ford continued Nixon’s West Wing updates, and added new security systems. Jimmy Carter installed solar panels on the roof (later removed by Reagan). Ronald Reagan conducted major security and infrastructure upgrades, modernized communications, and refurbished the private quarters. George H.W. Bush also conducted modernization projects, and updated the Situation Room and HVAC systems. Bill Clinton refurbished the State Dining Room, Oval Office and Map Room while also improving the computer infrastructure. George W. Bush expanded and modernized the PEOC, added secure communications upgrades, and refurbished the West Wing offices. Barack Obama restored the Blue Room, Red Room, and State Dining Room; modernized White House IT systems, and upgraded energy efficiency. During Donald Trump’s first term he overhauled HVAC, electrical, and security systems while also refurbishing the Oval Office, East Room and Blue Room. He added gold curtains, redesigned décor reminiscent of early classical tones, and oversaw a Rose Garden restoration which was led by First Lady Melania Trump. Joe Biden continued the modernization and restoration projects, including West Wing refurbishments, updated Situation Room and press briefing technology, and completed further energy and security retrofits.
As we have discussed, a large number of Presidents have made renovations, additions, or changes to the White House throughout history, most of them doing so without any explicit congressional blessing or heavy public scrutiny. All of them were conducted using taxpayer dollars, with the exception of Trump’s latest ballroom project which is being paid with private dollars which removes any need for congressional involvement.
The 1902 White House renovation during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency was paid for with federal funds appropriated by Congress. The funding came through an appropriation for “repairs and improvements” to the Executive Mansion in the Sundry Civil Appropriations Act for that year. Congress allocated approximately $575,000 (equivalent to about $20 million today) for the entire renovation project.
The project was overseen by the Public Buildings and Grounds Office, then a part of the War Department. Roosevelt personally selected the architect and construction team to carry out the work. The bill’s general appropriation allowed all renovations without worrying about line item approval for new construction. With a few exceptions, all of the funding under all of the Presidents was achieved by specific congressional appropriations through the Executive Office Building maintenance budget or special White House improvement bills.
Prior to World War II, the East Wing was little more than a covered entrance and guest reception area. In 1942, Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt tore it down, ordering a new East Wing to be constructed – and he sought no approval from Congress including the funding. While his project did conceal the construction of the PEOC, Roosevelt also viewed the new East Wing as necessary not only to increase indoor space that may be utilized by him, but also it was a plan for modernization. Because of its wartime secrecy, the East Wing’s construction was paid for through wartime defense and emergency appropriations, not regular White House maintenance funds. The money came from the President’s Emergency Fund, a flexible allocation under Executive Office of the President wartime contingency funds, approved by Congress but without detailed disclosure of each project for national security reasons. This allowed the administration to build both the East Wing and the PEOC discreetly under the guise of “temporary wartime office space and protective measures,” and do so without any direct congressional involvement.
As the East Wing became the domain of the First Lady with the First Lady’s Office and White House social operations its maintenance, renovation, and modernization of both wings have since been handled by annual appropriations to the White House Office account within the Executive Office of the President budget.
In the text of the U.S. Constitution there is no direct enumerated authority to Congress regarding any congressional approval of any renovation or construction projects regarding the White House. The only reason in the past Congress was involved at all (on the occasions that they were involved) was so that the funds could be appropriated for the projects. Presidents typically used existing statutory discretion over Executive Mansion maintenance to plan the projects and carry them out, funding each project by operating through administrative interpretation of appropriations, rather than seeking any direct legislative authorization or appropriations.
Under President Trump’s current project the modernization of the East Wing required a demolition of the outdated and unsafe structure, but the President has also confirmed that the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized” in the process. The project documentation explicitly mentions that the PEOC will be upgraded, and that the new East Wing will be better than before, larger than before, and more appropriate as a representation of American Greatness.
Looking back into history it is clear that the White House has never been static. Each renovation tells the story of America’s journey from a developing country to a world power – from the architectural vision of Washington and Jefferson to the wartime pragmatism of Franklin Roosevelt to President Trump’s modernization of the East Wing and the PEOC. It all reminds us that safeguarding the executive branch is not just about aesthetics or convenience, but about preserving the continuity of our constitutional republic itself. The White House is both the home of the President and an American fortress. It is a living symbol of liberty’s endurance in an uncertain world, and a visible message to the rest of the world about our values, readiness, resolve, and role as a beacon of freedom on the world stage. We are steadfast, sovereign, and ready to defend the principles upon which it is founded. The new grand ballroom is an important symbolic message to the world, which is watching. It projects strength, stability and confidence as it hosts dignitaries, world leaders and citizens alike. The new East Wing will serve as a place where peace is pursued through conversation, mirroring America’s founding philosophy that power when tempered with principle creates order and liberty. The new ballroom and East Room will serve as a symbol of strength under grace and will better define American character as an enduring symbol of the White House on the World Stage. It continues the legacy that began with Jefferson’s classical vision and Roosevelt’s wartime practicality.
The White House has always embodied the balance between might and civility, resilience and refinement and liberty at home as something that may be emulated abroad. The new East Wing with its secure foundation and stately ballroom captures that balance perfectly. In the bunker below it protects our leaders in times of peril, and above it we will have a polished face that welcomes the world in peace. The new East Wing with its grand ballroom projects the truth of strength and liberty, ready to defend freedom around the world while standing as an enduring example before the eyes of the world. And that is why the left hates it. They are collectivists. In their eyes America is not supposed to be great, it is supposed to be a lowly equally socialist member of a global collective. Their argument against it is not just crazy, it reveals exactly who they really are. They abhor America as a sovereign, independent and powerful member of a global community who refuses to bow down to any other power, but is willing to be involved on America’s terms when it best serves our interests a country.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary