Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
At the Munich Security Conference, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked a direct, uncomplicated question by Bloomberg Television’s Francine Lacqua: “Should the U.S. commit troops to defend Taiwan if China were to move?”
AOC could not answer it. Instead, she offered a meandering string of platitudes before retreating to the vague claim that U.S. policy is “longstanding” without explaining what that policy is.
Meanwhile, the facts are straightforward. Taiwan is a self-governing island with its own military, currency, and independent government. China insists it owns Taiwan and regularly conducts military drills near the island, prompting concerns about a potential invasion. Beijing has also loudly objected to the Trump administration’s approval of an $11 billion arms package for Taiwan.
On the surface, AOC’s evasiveness looked like simple unpreparedness; an awkward moment for someone rumored to be testing the waters for a 2028 presidential run. But her inability to answer revealed something deeper than a lack of foreign-policy fluency.
AOC is a product of an ideological movement that views America as the problem and global collectivism as the solution. Her political formation is rooted in a worldview that seeks to fundamentally transform the United States into something the Founders never intended. That worldview does not allow her to articulate a clear defense of American interests abroad, because doing so would contradict the ideological framework she embraces.
She wasn’t the only one struggling. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer also stumbled when asked about Ukraine, offering a similarly vague and uncertain response.
What ties these moments together is not mere inexperience. It is the hollowness of the progressive foreign-policy worldview. Its advocates speak in abstractions: “social justice,” “multiculturalism,” “equity” – but they avoid acknowledging the ideological engine behind those terms. They will not admit that these concepts are rooted in cultural Marxism, so they rename and repackage them.
When pressed on real-world geopolitical threats, the façade cracks. Why did AOC and Whitmer sound lost? Because their true answers would be unacceptable to most Americans. Their worldview does not operate in the realm of strategic reality or common sense. It operates in the realm of oppressor-versus-oppressed narratives, where any nation aligned with Marxist ideology must be handled gently and any assertion of American strength is suspect.
Had AOC spoken plainly, her answer would likely have been: “No, the U.S. should not intervene. Taiwan belongs to China.” But saying that openly would expose the ideological commitments she works hard to obscure. So she stalled, hedged, and searched for language that would neither sound like Donald Trump nor reveal her own radical leanings.
Contrast that with the clarity of a more traditional American approach: apply economic pressure first, pursue diplomacy second, and reserve consequences as a final step. That is a coherent strategy rooted in national interest. It is also something AOC and Whitmer could not articulate, because it does not fit within their ideological frame.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Today, the inaugural meeting of the Board of Peace marked a seismic shift in international diplomacy, a bold declaration by a coalition of nations led by President Donald Trump to forge a new path forward. This ambitious initiative is a brilliant strategic maneuver, designed to counteract a paralyzed United Nations, compromised by Chinese influence and a moral relativism that coddles terrorist groups like Hamas under the guise of championing the Palestinian cause.
The Board of Peace was established with a clear mission: to project a united, firm hand against aggressor nations and marshal the financial resources to rebuild war-torn regions, beginning with Gaza. The foundational principle, as articulated by its architects, is a stark departure from the globalist status quo. It is a direct challenge to nations that seek war and an unambiguous signal of unwavering support for Israel, a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy legacy.
The coalition’s composition is telling. It is not a random assortment of nations but a strategic alliance of countries united by shared threats and a common desire for a more assertive global posture. The membership includes Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, and Egypt, all of whom stand in firm opposition to Iran’s regional belligerence and have grown weary of international inaction. They are joined by Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia and others who are increasingly alarmed by China’s relentless expansion and economic coercion.
Further solidifying the anti-authoritarian bloc are nations aligned with Trump’s hardline stance against the Maduro regime in Venezuela. The presence of countries like Argentina and El Salvador underscores a broader coalition in the Western Hemisphere committed to resisting socialist dictatorships. This diverse group is bound by a common thread: a refusal to be passive subjects in a world order they view as skewed against their interests and security.
The mechanics of the Board are as decisive as its mission. To secure permanent membership, a nation must pledge a substantial $1 billion contribution, a commitment that has already seen over $5 billion pledged specifically for the reconstruction of Gaza. This financial firepower is designed to bypass the bureaucratic quagmire of traditional international aid, ensuring that funds are deployed effectively to rebuild, not to be siphoned off by corruption or diverted to fuel further conflict.
Today’s first meeting was more than a ceremonial gathering; it was the operational launch of this new power bloc. Under the charter, the Board is structured to be nimble and decisive, with the chairman holding significant authority to shape its direction. This stands in stark contrast to the consensus-driven gridlock that often paralyzes the UN Security Council, where China and Russia routinely wield their veto power to protect their own interests and those of their proxies.
Critics may decry the Board of Peace as a challenge to the established international order, but proponents see it as a necessary correction. For decades, global institutions have allowed a narrative to take root that equates Israel’s self-defense with oppression, while providing cover for terrorist organizations committed to its destruction. This new alliance, backed by significant financial and political capital, aims to rewrite that narrative by demonstrating that peace and prosperity can be achieved through strength, clear-eyed moral judgment, and a willingness to stand with allies, not with terrorists.
As the Board of Peace moves from its inaugural session to concrete action, the world is watching. It represents a clear fork in the road: one leading down the familiar path of endless debate and moral equivalence, the other toward a new paradigm of decisive action and financial commitment to rebuilding what war has destroyed. For the member states, the choice is clear. They are betting that a firm hand, backed by a united front and real money, is the only way to secure a lasting peace in a world increasingly threatened by tyrants and terrorists.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The sewage spill in the Potomac River should have been a straightforward matter of both state and federal authority. While the states of Virginia and Maryland border the river where the spill occurred north of Washington D.C., navigable waterways fall squarely under federal jurisdiction. The executive branch may, based on that fact, take responsibility and respond quickly when an environmental emergency threatens public health and interstate resources. Under normal circumstances, the states should seek to clean up the situation first, but if needed the federal government may step in, coordinate with state agencies, and get the job done.
President Trump’s response to the spill has triggered a political firestorm, not because of what he is doing, but because of how he is choosing to do it. After criticism from Democrats accusing him of overreach in unrelated immigration enforcement actions, Trump told the governors of Maryland and Virginia that he would take over the cleanup effort “if they ask nicely.”
Maryland’s governor fired back that he was already “asking nicely” for Trump to “do your job.”
The exchange may seem petty on the surface, but it reveals a deeper tension that has been simmering for years: the selective outrage over federal involvement in states.
For months, critics have accused the administration of deploying federal personnel for immigration enforcement without first seeking permission from state officials. The irony, of course, is that the federal government does not need state permission to enforce federal law, such as immigration. The narrative of “federal intrusion” has been politically useful for those who oppose the administration’s policies.
Now, with the Potomac spill, the script has flipped. The same voices who insisted that federal agents must not act without state approval are suddenly demanding immediate federal intervention. And when the President responds by taking their argument at face value, requiring a formal request before stepping in, they accuse him of dereliction.
It is a classic case of being damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
If the administration acts decisively without waiting for state approval, it is accused of authoritarian overreach. If it waits for the states to request assistance, it is accused of negligence. Either way, the outrage machine keeps running.
What this moment exposes is not a constitutional crisis, but a political one. The debate is no longer about the proper balance of federal and state authority. It is about who gets to control the narrative. When federal action is conducted by a Democrat President, it is welcomed. When it does not, it is condemned as illegitimate. If Trump is behind it, no matter the truth, his opposition goes on the attack.
By insisting that Maryland and Virginia “ask nicely,” the President is highlighting the inconsistency. If the Democrats are going to demand that permission is the new standard for any federal involvement while Trump is in office, then it must apply across the board. If it is not, then critics must admit that their earlier objections were political, not constitutional.
The Potomac spill will be cleaned up. The federal government will grab the issue by the reins and get it done. But the episode leaves behind a revealing snapshot of the current political climate: a landscape where principles are invoked selectively, outrage is deployed strategically, and the rules change depending on who occupies the Oval Office.
In that sense, the spill is more than an environmental incident. It is a mirror held up to the nation’s political class, and the reflection is not flattering.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Here is a much younger Chuck Schumer, not only arguing for Voter ID, but to stop illegal aliens from voting:
PASS THE SAVE ACT.!!! pic.twitter.com/XaBfwCJvZ9— Sami Nathaniel (@NathanielSami) February 17, 2026
That was when Democrats were trying to protect their Labor Union voting block. Now, they are trying to protect their non-citizen illegal voting block. Back then he would have been pushing the SAVE Act. Now, he’s doing everything he can to stop it.
By Douglas V. Gibbs
For more than a century, the Federal Reserve has operated as America’s central bank, an institution whose very existence challenges constitutional limits. Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 grants Congress the authority “to coin Money [and] regulate the Value thereof,” and Article I, Section 1 makes clear that legislative powers “vested” in Congress cannot be delegated away. By that reading, the Fed stands as an unconstitutional institution.
Yet the reality remains: the Federal Reserve exists, wields enormous influence, and shapes the economic landscape every American must live in. If the Fed cannot be abolished in the near term, then the next best option is to minimize the damage it can do. That is the context in which President Trump’s choice of Kevin Warsh should be understood.
Warsh’s pedigree is impressive, but what makes him compelling is not the résumé as much as his worldview behind it.
• Stanford bachelor’s degree
• Harvard Law School graduate, with additional coursework at Harvard Business School and MIT Sloan
• Morgan Stanley executive before entering government
• White House economic adviser under President George W. Bush
• Youngest Federal Reserve governor in history, appointed at age 35
• Fed governor from 2006–2011, navigating the global financial crisis
• Hoover Institution fellow and Stanford Graduate School of Business lecturer
During his Fed tenure, Warsh represented the United States at the G‑20, oversaw internal operations, and served as administrative governor. He understands the institution from the inside; its strengths, its blind spots, and its political temptations.
What sets Warsh apart is not his establishment credentials but his willingness to criticize the establishment.
Warsh has repeatedly argued that the Fed has:
• Kept monetary policy too loose for too long, especially during the Biden years
• Expanded its balance sheet beyond any reasonable mandate
• Wandered into political and social activism, far outside its statutory role
• Relied too heavily on “forward guidance,” a practice he argues distorts markets and substitutes messaging for sound policy
In an April 2025 speech at the International Monetary Fund, Warsh warned: “Moving markets with rolling Fed incantations is tempting, but unhelpful to the Fed’s deliberations, and ultimately, to its mission.”
His prescription is simple: Push less money into the economy. Shrink the balance sheet. Restore discipline.
This is not the first time Warsh has been in the running for the top job. In 2017, he was a leading contender to replace Janet Yellen until Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin recommended Jerome Powell instead. Warsh’s name resurfaced again as a potential Treasury secretary during Trump’s second-term transition.
Now, with Powell’s term ending in May 2026, Warsh is once again the nominee, but this time with a clearer philosophical alignment.
President Trump has pursued a strategy of:
• Supply-side growth
• Innovation and manufacturing revival
• Lower interest rates to fuel expansion
Warsh is not a doctrinaire dove, but he understands Trump’s economic aims and has spent decades preparing for a moment when the Fed might be steered back toward discipline, transparency, and statutory restraint.
The Biden administration’s monetary and fiscal policies pumped unprecedented amounts of fiat currency into the economy, driving inflation to 9%. Trump’s policies have brought inflation down significantly, but it remains above the Fed’s 2% target. Warsh’s approach, tightening the balance sheet while coordinating with a pro-growth White House, may be the combination needed to finish the job.
Warsh’s nomination is not guaranteed. Senate Democrats oppose nearly every Trump initiative, and some Republicans have signaled procedural resistance tied to unrelated investigations. Confirmation will be a battle.
But if Warsh is confirmed, the implications are enormous.
Warsh would enter the chairmanship with:
• Deep institutional knowledge
• A reformer’s mindset
• A willingness to challenge the Fed’s culture
• Alignment with Trump’s economic vision
If he succeeds, the Federal Reserve could shift away from the activist, interventionist posture of recent decades and toward a more restrained, constitutional, and economically grounded role.
Whether that happens depends on the Senate. But the stakes are clear: A Warsh-led Fed could mark the most significant philosophical shift in American monetary policy in a generation.
In the end, Kevin Warsh’s confirmation is not merely about who occupies the chair at the Federal Reserve. It is about whether the central bank will continue drifting into political activism and monetary excess, or whether it will be forced back toward discipline, restraint, and its narrow statutory purpose. Warsh is one of the few figures in modern monetary policy who both understands the Fed’s internal machinery and openly challenges its excesses. At a moment when inflation remains stubbornly above target, when the balance sheet is bloated from years of intervention, and when the American economy is poised for a supply‑side resurgence, the nation cannot afford another era of drift. Warsh represents the possibility of a course correction. That is why his confirmation matters; not just to President Trump’s economic agenda, but to the long‑term stability of the dollar, limitations on the interference of the American economy by the central bank, and the constitutional principle that institutions must remain within the boundaries of their delegated authority.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| Tuesday Online Constitution Class |
  3:30 PM Pacific Online Constitution Class |
| Online Mr. Constitution Class www.mr-constitution.com Let’s get deeper into the influence of American Liberty with a discussion about the Saxons. Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |