Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the long-time flagship of progressive smugness, has once again convinced itself it uncovered a grand conservative contradiction. The show, once hosted by Stewart, then fumbled by Trevor Noah, and now dragged back to Stewart in a desperate attempt to resuscitate Comedy Central (which misplaced the “comedy” part years ago), thinks it landed a clever blow on the Second Amendment argument.
The Conservative position is simple: guns are not the problem, people are. A firearm is a tool. If you want safer communities, disarming the law-abiding is not the answer. Yet, Jon Stewart jumped in claiming that the Trump administration’s argument regarding the shooting of Alex Pretti was that the gun was the problem. “You don’t bring a gun to a protest,” said one Trump official in a clip he played. “The gun was the problem,” said another. According to Stewart, that alone proves the whole conservative position in one big contradiction.
Except, it isn’t. His logic is not only shallow, it exposes how little the modern left understands the Second Amendment and the Natural Right is secures.
“Are you saying that the problem was that the guy had a gun?” Stewart pressed, flicking his pencil between f-bomb laced outbursts of “are you kidding me?”
If you want a “yes” or “no” answer, the answer is “yes,” and “no.”
That’s where the left always stumbles. When it’s convenient, the Cultural Marxists demand absolutes. They insist on a binary world when it serves them, and abandon it the moment nuance threatens their narrative.
The First Amendment enumerates the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. It also secures the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances – protests included. The Second Amendment secures the right to keep and bear arms. But none of these rights imply that we should exercise them recklessly. “Congress shall make no law” at the beginning of the First Amendment limits government, not morality. It doesn’t give anyone license to storm though the neighborhood with guns blazing and profanity flying simply because they feel government has overstepped.
This whole debate reminds me of a recent moment on Greg Gutfeld’s show. He decided to tease Shannon Bream about the title of her new book, Nothing is Impossible With God.
“Can I test this?” he joked. He hinted that having an affair wouldn’t be impossible either. Shannon smiled and asked, “With who?”
“Who wrote the book? I’m testing you Shannon. Is it impossible?”
“There are some things in the Ten Commandments about adultery,” she replied.
“Foiled again,” quipped Greg. “Rules, I say. I kid, of course.”
But the exchange is a perfect illustration of the point. Playing with language is easy. Pretending that rights erase moral boundaries is easy. Confusing possibility with righteousness is easy.
That is exactly what Stewart is doing.
And that’s the point Jon Stewart and his cheering section never seem to grasp about our Natural Rights, be it Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Rights are not toys, and they are not loopholes. They are sacred endowments. Gifts from God, recognized by the Constitution, not granted by it. But every right carries with it a moral framework. The Founders assumed a virtuous people. They assumed self‑restraint. They assumed that the citizen would exercise judgment, not juvenile provocation.
The left hears “right” and thinks “permission.” The Founders heard “right” and thought “responsibility.”
So when Stewart tries to score a “gotcha” by pretending that conservatives contradict themselves, “guns aren’t the problem, but bringing a gun to a volatile protest is a problem,” he’s not exposing hypocrisy. He’s exposing his own inability to distinguish between the existence of a right and the wisdom of exercising it in a particular moment.
It’s the same category error Greg Gutfeld was playing with. “Nothing is impossible with God” does not mean God endorses every foolish impulse we can imagine. The Ten Commandments still stand. Moral law still stands. The fact that something is possible does not make it righteous. And the fact that something is lawful does not make it prudent.
The Second Amendment secures your right to keep and bear arms. It does not guarantee that every context is appropriate for doing so. The First Amendment secures your right to assemble. It does not sanctify violent mobs or justify turning a protest into a powder keg.
The left wants to collapse all of this into a single, childish question: “So is the gun the problem or not?”
But the adults in the room understand that two things can be true at once:
- A gun is not inherently the problem.
- Bringing a gun into a volatile, emotionally charged crowd can be a profoundly stupid decision.
That’s not contradiction. That’s discernment. That’s moral reasoning. That’s the difference between a constitutional republic and a late‑night comedy monologue.
And this is where the deeper issue lies: the modern progressive movement has abandoned the concept of virtue. They have replaced it with feelings, slogans, and power plays. They do not believe in constitutional or moral principles because they do not believe in self‑control. They do not believe in natural rights because they do not believe in the natural law that undergirds them.
The Founders warned us that liberty without virtue collapses into chaos. Scripture warns us that freedom without righteousness becomes bondage. And history warns us that when a people lose the ability to govern themselves, someone else will gladly step in to govern them by force.
So here is the real contradiction…not in the conservative argument, but in the progressive worldview: They demand absolute freedom from moral restraint while demanding absolute government control over everyone else. They reject personal responsibility but insist on collective punishment. They mock the very virtues that make liberty possible, then wonder why society is unraveling.
And they call that “progress.”
If America is going to remain free, we must recover the truth the Founders assumed and Scripture affirms: Rights require virtue. Liberty requires responsibility. Freedom requires moral clarity.
That is the conversation Jon Stewart will never have. But it is the conversation the country desperately needs.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The video of the shooting of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minnesota has been analyzed over and over and over again, and nobody I have watched has brought up a key point that answers everything. Am I the only one taking the full context into account and noticing a key aspect that nobody else has even muttered about? A listener sent me a video by “Dr. G Explains” titled “The Shooting of Alex Pretti the Missed Details: Body Language & Psychology,” which gives the best views and careful analysis of the video, but even this clinical and forensic psychologist missed the obvious.
In the video, the psychologist carefully analyzes every body movement, the shuffling of feet, and each of the aggressive movements by each of the persons on the scene. He admits most of what is being said cannot be fully understood, and we don’t know what is going through the minds of those involved. Hindsight is twenty-twenty, and careful examination of the video doesn’t take into account the heat of the moment. Decisions needed to be made based on each person’s viewpoint of the situation – what they heard, what they saw or didn’t see, and what they believed to be a threat – is not being considered as a part of the analysis.
According to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and claimed he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,” justifying the agent’s actions as defensive. The shooting has the opposition voices calling for ICE to depart from Minnesota screaming even louder. Antifa is calling for guerilla warfare against ICE.
As the media attempts to paint Pretti as “the perfect guy,” and someone “peaceful, not violent,” video of his violent actions against ICE a little over a week before has surfaced showing otherwise – cussing at agents, kicking out their tail-light, and violently resisting as they attempt to detain him in response to his violent actions. On the day he was shot and killed, as before, Alex Pretti came to the anti-ICE protest armed and with the intention to interfere with law enforcement operations. The Border Patrol agents reacted as any human being would when they saw a weapon in the confrontation, and believed that their own lives were in danger. An investigation has been launched, and a judge has ordered the federal government to retain all of the evidence.
While I support everyone’s right to keep and bear arms, one has to ask in the case of Pretti, why did he have his weapon on his body, but not any identification on him as required by law in Minnesota when concealed carrying? Why would he carry a loaded firearm (and two loaded magazines) at a protest designed to clash with federal law enforcement, and multiple times at protests that have a history of violence? Yes, we have a right to keep and bear arms, but with our rights come responsibility. With any of our freedoms comes responsibility. Was Pretti carrying for defensive reasons, or did he plan to use the firearm against federal agents? And, when we consider he was a professional agitator in a potentially violent situation with a mission to create a confrontation in that violent situation, the only reasonable assumption is he planned to use that firearm to create chaos, or kill agents.
This is also likely what was going through the minds of the federal agents. They knew the agitators wanted confrontation. The agitators wanted the cameras to record violence. The agents knew that the protesters were shouting for the deaths of the agents. And now, suddenly, this guy is having it out with them while he has a gun?
In the heat of the moment, their senses were likely expecting the worst.
According to DHS, the Border Patrol agents were attempting to disarm the man – that was the main reason for the confrontation. It wasn’t just some random scuffle, and then a man got shot. It wasn’t a random tackle of a shouting protester. Pretti approached the officers, threatening them, with the gun in plain view. So, believing his words that he meant them harm, they began the work of disarming him because he refused to obey commands. He resisted.
Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino explained, “The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots…about 200 rioters arrived” and “began to obstruct and assault law enforcement.”
The man that was killed, Bovino said, “also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID…This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”
Now, at the beginning of this article I mentioned that I saw something that nobody else has mentioned in their analysis of the video of the Border Patrol shooting of Alex Pretti. If you watch it carefully, and remember that the speed of the event for the officers on the scene was normal speed with only their personal perception available to them, two things happen simultaneously. The agent that disarms Pretti pulls the gun away, but his body is blocking the officer that fires upon Pretti from seeing the gun. At the same time, Pretti’s hand draws away from his torso area. I don’t know why the agent who disarmed Pretti did not shout that he had the gun, and I don’t know why Pretti’s hand got pulled away from his torso, but from the point of view of the officer who fired his weapon and killed Pretti, here’s what he knew at full speed:
- The individual is armed.
- The gun is out of his sight.
- The hand that may have the gun is out of his sight and being moved into a new position.
- The suspect, through his words has said, and is saying, he wants to injure the officers on the scene.
- The agent who was trying to reach the firearm shouted “gun,” and is moving away from the scene quickly.
What is the officer, in a split second, supposed to think? Remember, at full speed you don’t have the time to reason as you would normally, and you don’t have the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight to study and analyze. All you know is the guy wants to kill you, a gun was on his hip and now it isn’t, his hand has moved from your vision, and one of your fellow officers just yelled, “gun!”
I think the answer is obvious. The shooting was justified.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Senate Democrats have outlined specific demands regarding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill, primarily focused on reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following fatal shootings and street violence between agitators and ICE agents in Minneapolis. Their demands include:
- A prohibition on federal agents wearing masks during immigration enforcement operations.
- Implementation of a code of conduct for federal agents involved in immigration enforcement.
- Independent investigations of violations by federal agents.
- “Real reforms” to ICE operations before voting for the spending bill.
- Five “non-negotiable” items to be included in the bill, the details of which have not yet been made public.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated that Democrats will not provide the votes necessary to advance the DHS appropriations measure without these reforms, and has demanded that the bill be given “a rewrite” and considered separately from other funding measures. The Democrats have indicated they are willing to pass the other five spending bills that fund departments including labor.
The standoff increases the likelihood of a partial government shutdown as the funding deadline approaches, with Senate Republicans attempting to advance all six bills as a package. Even if the other five bills are passed, and the one the Democrats are standing firm against, the partial shutdown could negatively affect federal funding of important operations including Transportation, Education, Department of War, Treasury, State Department, Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Within DHS, a loss of funds would also negatively affect FEMA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which would negatively influence air flights as we saw last November. Some reports indicate that Senate Democrats are considering a short-term funding measure for DHS to allow time for negotiations on their proposed reforms, but the other departments and agencies affected by the bill may still face shutdown.
Senate Democrats are leveraging their opposition to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill to demand significant restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, but the Democratic position faces practical limitations since immigration agencies have already received substantial funding through previous appropriations like through the One Big Beautiful Bill, including the $64.4 billion allocated to DHS with $10 billion specifically for ICE. The White House has rejected tying these reforms to the current funding negotiations, making the Democratic demands largely symbolic since ICE would continue operating regardless of the outcome of this specific funding battle.
The request to prohibit agents from wearing masks would be particularly dangerous. Without masks, their identity becomes available for all to see, and considering how violent anti-ICE operatives have become, including hunting them down at hotels where they are staying, removing their masks also places their families at risk and opens up the opportunity for the anti-ICE activists to attack the homes and neighborhoods of the ICE agents. Mandating body cameras is not only fine, but a recommended action that should be supported by both sides. The POV of the ICE agent would minimize the misinterpretation of confrontations by providing more video context. It took additional videos, for example, to disprove the false information being provided by the media regarding Renee Good, and the shooting of Pretti. The call for coordination with local authorities and a code of conduct is backwards. The law already requires coordination, and federal agents already have a federal code of conduct they are required to follow. The recommendation is an attempt to allow outside agencies or groups to dictate the actions of federal agents, and force the agents to follow the lead of local demands in the name of “coordination.” Sanctuary Laws prohibit coordination from the other direction, but they demand it from theirs. You can’t have it both ways. What the Democrats are calling for is that local authorities set the limitations and that ICE must follow those demands – a violation of the Constitution since immigration laws which are made in pursuance of the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land. Regarding investigations of alleged violations by federal agents by independent investigators, I believe a compromise ought to be reached on that one – a joint investigation with independent investigators and federal investigators working together.
In an interesting twist in the story, the Democrats stood against increased state authority regarding immigration law in 2010 under the Obama administration. Arizona SB 1070 was a state immigration law that sought to expand state and local authority to enforce federal immigration laws rather than giving all authority to the federal government. The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act required Arizona law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of anyone they had “reasonable suspicion” of being in the country illegally during routine stops. This law essentially mandated state-level enforcement of federal immigration statutes, creating new state immigration-related crimes and broadening the authority of local law enforcement.
The Obama administration challenged this law in court, arguing that immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal responsibility, and that states could not interfere in immigration enforcement in any way, citing the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court struck down three key provisions of SB 1070 but upheld the “reasonable suspicion” clause, though its implementation has been limited by subsequent court challenges and injunctions.
The irony is thick in today’s political landscape. Democrats who once argued against state enforcement of immigration laws are now facing a situation where the federal government under the current administration has dramatically increased immigration enforcement through the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, which provided unprecedented funding for federal immigration agencies. In a complete reversal of their position during the Obama administration, Democrats are demanding reforms to “rein in ICE” and limit federal enforcement powers. This creates a situation where the same party that once fought to keep immigration enforcement exclusively at the federal level is now trying to limit that very federal authority they previously defended.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When anti-ICE protesters busted into a church in Minneapolis and called the attendees false Christians because they weren’t supportive of the anti-ICE movement, I was quick to recognize how little these people understand the Christian faith, Scripture, and anything close to having common sense. Immigration is a wonderful thing when guided and exercised in a responsible manner, a biblical idea that goes all the way back to the Old Testament.
I believe that legal immigration has been a great strength for the United States, much less any other thriving nation. I say this not as an abstract principle, but from personal experience. My wife is an immigrant, and I have a deep appreciation for the courage, resilience, and hope that immigrants bring with them. Handled wisely, immigration enriches a country culturally, economically, and socially.
As with any issue, immigration requires responsibility and discernment. A country, much like a business, must be thoughtful about who joins its team. A business owner looks for employees who will strengthen the company, contribute to its mission, and uphold its values. In the same way, a country has an obligation to welcome those who are ready to contribute, participate, and become a part of the shared civic culture.
Historically, systems like Ellis Island reflected this understanding. Immigrants were welcomed with open arms, but they were also vetted to ensure they were healthy, self-supporting, and prepared to assimilate into American life. That balance – compassion paired with prudence – helped create generations of successful newcomers who strengthened the country.
The modern era of migration without meaningful limits or vetting is a recent development, and it carries great risk. When a nation fails to evaluate who is entering, the likelihood increases that the incoming population may struggle to assimilate or may even become disruptive to the society they are joining. Responsible immigration policy is not about rejecting people; it is about ensuring that those who come are ready to add to the nation’s story.
A healthy immigration system welcomes with generosity, but also with wisdom. It honors the dignity of immigrants while protecting the stability and cohesion of the society they seek to join. That balance is not only possible, but it is essential for a nation that wants to remain strong, compassionate, and united.
So what happens when a country is not responsible with their immigration?
On New Year’s Eve, both Paris and London shut down their usual fireworks viewing for security reasons. What did the public need to be protected from? People who are in the country due to mass Islamic migration.
In Minnesota, there has been $9 billion in alleged welfare fraud. Why? It’s the result of an irresponsible flood of Somalis who, after decades in the country, still have 85% of them on some kind of welfare benefit. While the citizen leftists of the state have also screwed the state up in their own way, having created a high-tax, high-spending state government, at least before the onslaught of migrants who hate America and aim to take advantage of everything they can (legally, and illegally), the population didn’t cheat at this level on their benefits claims. The Somali population invasion of migrants who do not care about assimilating has gotten so bad in Minneapolis that Minnesota state senator Omar Fateh has declared that the Somali Cedar Riverside neighborhood is a “no-go zone for whites.” He used the term “white supremacists,” but to them, pretty much anyone who isn’t a part of their clans or tribes are white supremacists.
In Denmark, the political progressive left forced 125 young students to share a hostel with 125 Muslim migrants, arguing that once they got to know each other, they would “learn from each other.” Instead, the reality of the Islamic Culture prevailed. The students were raped, and
subjected to years of sex assaults and violence.
As for the fake Christian comments heard at the church attacked by anti-ICE protesters in Minnesota, let’s address some of that from a biblical point of view.
The verses thrown at me, trying to argue that my opinion regarding illegal aliens is somehow not Christian, are:
- Matthew 25:43 – I was a stranger (foreigner) and you invited me in.
- Hebrews 13:2 – Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing so some people have entertained angels without knowing it.
There are also a number of Old Testament verses thrown at me as well.
- Leviticus 19:33-34
- Deuteronomy 10:18-19
- Deuteronomy 24:19-22
- Exodus 22:21
In the Old Testament the Hebrew term Ger (גֵּר) is the one used in those passages. Ger refers to a “resident alien” or “sojourner” who had obtained legal permission to reside in the land. This was a person “who has lawfully entered a nation (or empire) and has met all the legal criteria to remain, including contributing to it.” This person was under the protection of the law and had certain rights and responsibilities.
Nekhar (נָכְרִי) or Zar (זָר) also appears in the Old Testament at times, referring to foreigners or strangers who were simply passing through or temporarily in the land without legal residency status. They had fewer rights and protections compared to the ger.
In the New Testament, the Greek term xenos (ξένος) is used in Matthew 25:35, 38, 43, and 44 in the parable of the sheep and the goats, where Jesus says, “I was a stranger (foreigner) and you invited me in.” Xenos was also the term used for “strangers” in Hebrews 13:2. In both cases, xenos, like ger, was used meaning “legal resident” or “approved traveler.” The linguistic distinction recognizes that the biblical commands to care for foreigners were specifically directed to those who had obtained some form of legal residency or legal travel status, not necessarily to all migrants regardless of their legal standing.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| After missing last week’s show due to some neck issues, I am ready to roll not only for the 25th Amendment, but we may finish the Constitution today… |
| Tuesday Online Constitution Class |
  3:30 PM Pacific Online Constitution Class |
| Online Mr. Constitution Class www.mr-constitution.com Ratified in 1967 in the wake of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes clear procedures for presidential succession, vice-presidential vacancies, and presidential disability. It was designed to ensure there is always a functioning president and to resolve perceived ambiguities regarding incapacitated leaders. Get the handout regarding the Final Amendments which includes the 25th Amendment at the following link: https://douglasvgibbs.com/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/21-Lesson-Final-Amendments.pdf Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Ukraine was once, and perhaps still is, among the most corrupt governments on the planet. Its entanglements with Burisma and the Bidens, Clintons, Obamas, and practically every other figure on the American political Game of Thrones roster are well‑documented. Ukraine also played a role in the Russia‑gate spying scandal against Trump. Yet during the Obama years, Washington and the media insisted on a simplistic narrative: Russia is the villain, Ukraine is the hero. After all, Russia was the dominant “republic” of the old Soviet Union, and Democrats and the mainstream press were determined to paint Donald J. Trump as a man with some mysterious affection for Moscow.
This is not to claim Russia is the good guy and Ukraine the bad guy. Ukraine is clearly the smaller kid on the block being shoved around by a much larger, heavily armed bully. But the conflict is far more complicated than a cartoonish good‑versus‑evil script. Both governments have acted as bad actors in various ways. The real tragedy lies with the ordinary people caught in a twisted war that global power brokers have found ways to profit from. Regardless of who fired the first shot or who should stand down, the war has been an “opportunity” for the global cabal and hard‑left operatives eager to expand their power, enrich themselves, and weaponize the conflict against Trump.
Under Obama and Biden, Democrats and the Deep State were either too weak to stop Russia or too willing to let Moscow advance. Whether through incompetence or corruption, they failed to recognize, or refused to confront, what was happening because the chaos benefited them. The American Left and globalist class played the war for their own advantage while remaining unsure how to handle Putin, who had no interest in joining their New World Order project.
Donald Trump understood that ending the war that erupted under Biden required one decisive move: unleash American energy. By ramping up domestic oil production and flooding the global market, the U.S. could have sold cheap fuel to Europe, undercutting Russia’s oil revenue and starving Moscow’s war machine. A fully energized American oil sector would have also squeezed Middle Eastern producers and likely crippled Iran’s ability to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, possibly preventing the October 7 attacks on Israel. Lower energy costs would have eased inflation, reduced transportation expenses, lowered the cost of doing business, and brought down prices across the board. But such prosperity would have made America great again, and Democrats wanted no part of that.
Although the full‑scale war began with Russia’s invasion in 2022, the groundwork was laid during the Obama presidency, and even in the final stretch of George W. Bush’s administration. In 2008, Russia seized South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. Early moves toward Crimea began in Bush’s final months, but Russia formally occupied the region in February 2014. That summer, pro‑Russia separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, killing all 49 aboard, while Russia funneled tanks and heavy weapons into eastern Ukraine. Moscow launched its assault on Crimea, and Obama effectively handed the region over without resistance. In January 2016, Russian hackers took down Ukraine’s power grid. Obama projected weakness, refused to unleash America’s energy potential, and signaled to Russia that it could act with impunity.
As Donald Trump, still only a potential candidate, said in 2014, “If Russia respected the United States, they would not have mobilized forces into Ukraine after indicating they would not.”
Meanwhile, the Bidens were cashing in on Ukraine’s corruption. Reports, now conveniently scrubbed from the internet, suggested the FBI hid evidence that the Bidens took $10 million from Ukrainian sources. Democrats, far from seeking a Ukrainian victory, seemed content to let the bloodshed mount, using the chaos to bury their own dealings in the region. After tens of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian bodies piled up, they could claim they had “weakened Russia,” much like Rocky wearing down the Soviet boxer by absorbing punch after punch.
Jack Posobiec recently argued that the situation may be even more sinister than what I’ve described. In his view, it wasn’t merely weakness, corruption, or a willingness to let Russia run wild in Ukraine. Instead, he contends the real objective was to engineer a U.S.-backed color revolution to illegally remove Ukraine’s democratically elected president and place the country under direct Western control.
Posobiec described it as “a George Floyd–style U.S. government–backed color revolution,” involving elements of John McCain, Democratic operatives, and George Soros. He emphasized that regardless of anyone’s opinion of Viktor Yanukovich, “He was a democratically elected president… elected by the people of Ukraine, and there was no legal process to remove him from power.”
According to Posobiec, Yanukovich wasn’t removed through constitutional means but was forced out through U.S. intervention.
“He was ousted… forced to step down and flee the country by elements of the U.S. government, all in the name of democracy,” he said.
Posobiec tied this to broader U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, pointing to what he described as open hostility toward Russia from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, no doubt to support their “Trump is a Russian asset” narrative.
“…the U.S. government under Obama, working with Hillary, was openly hostile toward Russia…[was] Russia’s response was truly unprovoked, or whether something triggered it,” he argued.
Mike Benz then expanded the discussion, referencing a New York Times report on the reconstruction of Ukraine’s intelligence services after the government was overthrown. According to Benz, Western intelligence agencies moved immediately to seize control of Ukraine’s security apparatus. The newly appointed head of Ukrainian intelligence entered the agency’s headquarters the day after the coup to find the building dark, documents scattered, and operations in disarray.
“And the first thing he did,” Benz said, “was place two phone calls; one to the CIA chief of station, and one to the MI6 chief of station in Ukraine.”
Benz concluded that a three‑way intelligence partnership was formed on the spot.
“A partnership was struck the very day after the coup to rebuild Ukraine’s intelligence state from the ground up between Ukraine, the CIA, and MI6,” he said.
“Not only did the Obama administration and the British government overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine, but they immediately took control of Ukraine’s intelligence services through the CIA and MI6.”
And after securing control, they allowed Russia to tear through the country.
With Ukraine’s government and intelligence infrastructure under Western management, they had the opportunity to bury secrets, destroy evidence, and reshape the narrative. Russia’s invasion then provided the perfect smokescreen, obliterating whatever remained and allowing Western actors to blame Moscow for the chaos while concealing their own role in orchestrating the takeover.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary