Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Constitution clearly lays out that foreign relations belongs only to the federal government. In Article I, Section 10 it reads: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with… a foreign Power.” This is a foundational principle of our federal system. Yet last week, we witnessed New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration attempt to do precisely what the Framers forbade, only to be stopped by the State Department.
Commissioner Ana María Archila, who leads Mamdani’s Office for International Affairs, scheduled a meeting with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Amir-Saeid Iravani. The timing could not have been more egregious, coming after the Iranian leadership fired missiles at commercial ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz in direct defiance of an interim peace agreement. Mamdani’s office, however, didn’t simply make a diplomatic misstep; it was a constitutional affront during active military operations.
Let’s be clear about who Iran is: a designated state sponsor of terrorism whose leaders have American blood on their hands and whose regime chants “Death to America” as a national mantra. This is not a country with whom we exchange pleasantries while they target our citizens and allies.
The Logan Act explicitly prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign powers that have disputes with the United States. While prosecutions under this law are rare, its purpose is clear: to prevent exactly what Archila attempted; a freelance foreign policy that undermines the federal government’s exclusive constitutional authority to conduct international relations.
What makes this incident particularly alarming is the ideological alignment between Mayor Mamdani’s Democratic Socialist agenda and Iran’s anti-American posture. Mamdani has condemned President Trump’s “illegal war of aggression” against Iran, positioning himself not as an American mayor but as a global citizen critical of U.S. foreign policy. This ideological sympathy with our adversaries creates a dangerous precedent when combined with official actions like the planned meeting with Iran.
Archila’s background is not in diplomacy but in activism as co-director of New York’s progressive Working Families Party, whose official position is that the war in Iran “can and must be stopped.” Her appointment to lead international affairs was controversial from the start, with insiders noting she was “woefully unqualified for the job.” Yet here she was, prepared to meet with representatives of a regime that actively works against American interests.
The State Department correctly intervened, calling it “unconscionable” that a New York City official would even consider such a meeting. This marks the second known instance in recent weeks where the Trump administration has stepped in over the Mamdani administration’s contacts with foreign leaders, highlighting a pattern of behavior that threatens to undermine national security.
Mayor Mamdani claims he was unaware of the meeting until receiving a press inquiry, calling it “made in error.” This excuse strains credulity. Either he is incompetent, unable to control his own administration, or he is complicit in these dangerous overtures to our enemies. Neither possibility inspires confidence in his leadership of America’s largest city.
The Office for International Affairs was designed to foster trade and exchange best practices, not conduct foreign policy. Yet under Mamdani’s leadership, it appears to have become a vehicle for advancing a specific political agenda that aligns more with our adversaries than with American interests.
This incident reveals a dangerous mindset among some on the radical left who view America not as a force for good in the world but as an imperialist power that must be checked. When this ideology infects local governance, we see officials like Archila attempting to normalize relations with regimes that seek our destruction.
The constitutional principle at stake is not trivial. Our federal system assigns foreign relations exclusively to the federal government precisely to prevent states and cities from pursuing independent foreign policies that might conflict with national interests or create confusion on the international stage. This principle becomes even more critical when dealing with hostile powers like Iran.
What happened in New York last week wasn’t just a diplomatic faux pas; it was a constitutional crisis narrowly averted. It serves as a warning about the dangers of electing officials who prioritize ideology over constitutional principles and national security.
As we face increasing threats from adversaries around the world, we cannot afford to have local officials playing at diplomacy with our enemies. The Constitution provides clear guidance on this matter, and the State Department’s intervention reinforces what should be obvious: America speaks with one voice to the world, and that voice belongs to the federal government, not to ideologically driven municipal officials in New York City.
The American people deserve better than leaders who sympathize with our enemies and attempt to undermine our foreign policy. They deserve leaders who understand and respect the constitutional framework that has kept our Union secure for over two centuries.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Once again, with a new slate of rulings, the United States Supreme Court has revealed to Americans how far it has strayed from the United States Constitution. I am not necessarily referring to their rulings in particular, but that fact that they are operating in the manner that they are. The judicial branch was designed by the Constitution to be the weakest of the three branches (which flies in the face of the “three co-equal branches” lie you were taught in school). Judicial Review is unconstitutional, interpreting the Constitution and federal law in the manner that the federal courts do is unconstitutional, and striking down laws and executive orders with their rulings are unconstitutional. And I know that this constitutional perspective I am tossing at you regarding Judicial Review and the current state of the Supreme Court must seem confusing to some of you. What it should do is raise for you fundamental questions about the proper role of the judiciary in American governance.
First, Judicial Review is unconstitutional. I don’t care how long the legal system has claimed otherwise. The very idea that Judicial Review is unconstitutional has substantial historical support. The Constitutional Convention rejected proposals for judicial review of legislative acts. James Madison’s notes indicate that the framers explicitly considered and rejected granting courts this power. Marbury v. Madison (1803), however, has been used as the mechanism that codified Judicial Review into law, with supporters of the concept arguing that Judicial Review was created through judicial assertion. But, all legislative powers belongs to Congress. All amendments must be ratified by the States. In the case of Judicial Review, neither legislation, nor the amendment process, was used to breathe life into it. Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion simply established what he called the “essential dignity” of the judicial branch, which was nothing more than an innovative unconstitutional interpretation rather than a clearly enumerated power.
Once the courts believed they could wield this power without retribution, the launch of a self-expanding federal government boomed into action. If the federal judiciary can determine the scope of federal power, then the federal government that is supposed to be limited in its authorities may also operate as the same entity determining those limits; a clear conflict with the principle of limited government that animated the Constitutional Convention.
As a result, ideology has naturally emerged on the Court. And when adherence to original intent is labeled as “conservative” or “partisan,” it reveals how far we’ve strayed from the original constitutional design. The constitutional job of the justices from an original viewpoint is to apply the law. Not interpret it. Not review it. Not strike it down. Their jobs is simply applying the law as written, not creating policy preferences. The very fact that we can predict how justices will rule based on their supposed ideological leanings demonstrates that constitutional interpretation has become the norm, and in modern politics it has evolved into policy-making.
The current situation where we classify justices as “leftist” or “conservative” would have horrified the framers of the Constitution. Article III judges were intended to be insulated from politics precisely so they could apply law impartially. Life tenure was meant to free them from political pressure, not to entrench ideological factions.
The distinction between applying versus interpreting the law is crucial. The modern view that the Constitution is a “living document” that requires creative interpretation has effectively transformed justices into legislators. This judicial activism has accelerated as both political parties have recognized the Court as a policy-making body rather than a legal one.
The problem compounds itself: once Judicial Review was established, it became inevitable that presidents would nominate justices based on their expected policy outcomes rather than their judicial temperament. This has created the polarization we see in today’s courts, and it is very problematic.
From a constitutionalist perspective, the solution would be a return to the framers’ vision: justices who apply the law as written rather than according to their policy preferences. This would mean recognizing that the Constitution doesn’t contain many policy prescriptions; it establishes a structure of government and leaves policy decisions to the political process.
The existence of Judicial Review, and the tension between limited government and Judicial Review is perhaps the central constitutional paradox of our time. If the federal judiciary can determine the scope of federal power, then limited government becomes whatever the courts say it is, which is no limitation at all.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Among the fundamental aspects of communist ideology is a distinction between what communists consider “personal property” versus “private property.” The communist critique of private property targets the means of production, and any assets that generate wealth or are symbols of wealth. According to Marxist theory, when these means of production, means of wealth generation, or signs of wealth are privately owned they create a class system where owners (bourgeoisie) profit from the labor of workers (proletariat). Communism teaches that private property ownership allows the wealthy to create value through the labor of workers while the laborers only receive a portion of that value in wages. This, according to Marx, alienates workers from their labor dividing them from their humanity. Thus, the “inequality” gap widens, leading to class divisions and social conflict. Karl Marx viewed private property as a historical development that served a purpose would eventually be superseded by collective ownership as the communist society advances.
As with any system, the envelope is pushed and the dynamics become more extreme. A friend of mine visited Moscow in 1972 and observed no curtains on any windows of apartments, or other living spaces. When he asked about it, he was told that the rule was necessary so that nobody could hide any illegal excess.
Soviet Russia argued that any visible displays of any wealth must be discouraged because they represented the capitalist values that communism sought to replace. The absence of curtains also symbolized a rejection of privacy in favor of communal transparency – remember, in socialist systems, the community’s interests outweigh individual desires or concerns. In the end, the “no curtains” policy made it difficult for individuals to accumulate goods beyond what was considered appropriate for everyone.
It is worth noting that party elites enjoyed privileges and possessions unavailable to ordinary citizens. While the communist vision of property relations aims to create a society where the means of production are collectively owned and controlled, eliminating class divisions and allowing for equitable distribution of goods and services based on need rather than purchasing power, that same dynamic never applies to those in charge.
Communism’s anti-possession principles are fundamentally flawed for several key reasons.
The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of our Natural Rights, and the fact that they are among our private and personal possessions. The Declaration of Independence establishes that all men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The right to own property is deeply intertwined with these natural rights. When individuals cannot possess the fruits of their labors, their liberty is compromised and their ability to pursue happiness is severely constrained.
If one may not possess property, not only is their “pursuit of happiness” obstructed, but then that means they can’t own their own God-given Rights, either. If one does not own one’s own rights, that means they are possessed by government, defined by government, and provided by government as government determines. In short, while property rights begins with the ownership of physical property and is considered a natural right, if government may confiscate and possess tangible property, then government will ultimately take possession of all property, including one’s personal Blessings of Liberty.
Communist anti-property principles have led to severe historical consequences every time these principles have been applied. Every nation that has implemented anti-property principles has experienced economic disaster. The Soviet Union, Eastern Bloc countries, China (though the impact has been reduced since its market reforms that infused limited capitalistic principles into its system), Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela have all suffered from massive shortages, declining productivity, and technological stagnation (lack of innovation) once private property was abolished. As the Founding Fathers realized, the ownership of private property is a key foundational necessity for a system to flourish and become prosperous.
Ultimately, the elimination of private property leads to massive state power. When the state controls all means of production, distribution, and ownership of property it gains total control over the lives of its citizens. My friend’s observation of mo curtains in Moscow illustrates this. Without property rights, there is no meaningful barrier between the individual and state power.
The consequences of it all includes the deaths of over 100 million people through starvation, purges, labor camps, and direct execution. The Holodomor in Ukraine (man-made famine created by Stalin), the Great Leap Forward in China (1958-1962 Mao led rapid transformation of China from an agrarian society to industrialization that resulted in catastrophic economic mismanagement and the Great Chinese Famine), and the Killing Fields in Cambodia all were direct consequences of implementing these anti-property principles. While communists claim they aim to protect the environment, communist states have the worst environmental records in human history.
Without property rights, the incentive to innovate and improve disappears. Communist countries historically lag behind capitalist countries in technological advancement, scientific discovery, and quality of life improvements. Communist thinking misunderstands human nature, and are convinced that the “goodness” of people can support their ideology, and that human nature can be reshaped by ideology. People are motivated by self-interest, family concern, following a moral path as laid out by their Creator, and a desire to leave a better world for their children. All of these things are directly or indirectly related to and expressed through acquiring and protecting property. When these natural motivations are suppressed, society doesn’t become more egalitarian; society becomes more brutal, as history has repeatedly demonstrated.
The American constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to secure property rights precisely because the Founding Fathers understood that ownership creates a natural check on government power and provides the foundation for a free and prosperous society.
This is a large part of why the policies being advanced by Democratic Socialist candidates are so concerning. And it isn’t only festering in New York City around Zohran Mamdani. Los Angeles County is working to seize private property on the West Coast. These policies and socialist concepts are a dangerous departure from constitutional principles. We are witnessing a modern iteration of the same flawed ideology that has produced catastrophic consequences throughout history.
The L.A. County proposal for a “Community Opportunity to Purchase Act” is particularly alarming because it represents a sophisticated form of property seizure that circumvents constitutional protections. The program effectively seeks to place a lien on private property by granting “community groups” (which are often politically allied with the officials implementing these policies) the right of first refusal on property sales. This creates a heads-they-win, tails-you-lose scenario where property owners either pay off these groups to allow a sale or face their property devalued and eventually seized. It violates the Takings Clause (Imminent Domain) of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (and similar clause in the state constitution) which requires that private property may only be taken for public use if accompanied by “just compensation.” By creating regulatory obstacles that effectively devalue property, the government is engaging in “regulatory taking” without compensation.
The move in Los Angeles County also undermines the Contract Clause of the Constitution by interfering with private parties’ ability to freely enter into contracts for the sale of the property, while also representing an unequal application of the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment that favors politically connected groups over ordinary citizens.
The recent deadly earthquakes in Venezuela also revealed a stark reality regarding the flaws of anti-property principles of communist systems. Buildings constructed under Hugo Chavez’s “Grand Housing Mission” were “little more than facades held together by Styrofoam and thin concrete shells.” When the earthquakes struck, these shoddy constructions collapsed, killing over 1,400 people with tens of thousands still missing. This disaster wasn’t merely an accident. It was the predictable result of a system that values political loyalty over competence, central planning over expertise, and propaganda over safety. The Venezuelan government rushed construction projects to meet political quotas while ignoring seismic codes and basic engineering standards. This is what happens when the state eliminates private enterprise, which provides accountability through market mechanisms and property rights.
What we are seeing in America is the early stage of the same ideological path that led to the collapse of every communist society. These policies are championed as fair, equitable, and reasonable policies for helping the poor and the homeless, but ultimately leads to the erosion of property rights, a concentration of power, the degradation of quality and safety, the creation of a permanent underclass dependent upon government, and the eventual collapse of the economic system.
The Founding Fathers understood that property rights are not merely about protecting wealth. They are about securing liberty. When the state is able to seize property, it can control your behavior. When the state controls the means of production, it controls your life. This is why the Constitution contains explicit language regarding property rights and why any attempt to undermine these principles should be viewed as an attack on the very foundations of our republic. Even if used in the name of the “common good,” history demonstrates that whether it’s through outright seizure, or through regulatory schemes that effectively transfers property to political allies, the result is the same: the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the erosion of freedom for everyone else.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
President Trump, after the ludicrous defiance of the Constitution and Civil Rights Act of 1866 by the United States Supreme Court in the Trump v. Barbara case, which rejected President Trump’s executive order 6-3, is calling for the court to do something rare – revisit the case. Trump was infuriated by the ruling, as were dissenting justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The president took to TruthSocial to post about birth tourism facilities and how the SCOTUS decision will allow our country to become a greater victim to the giant scam. He went on to indicate that “the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision.”
Asking for reconsideration doesn’t guarantee the High Court will actually grant the request, and Supreme Court rehearings are a very rare occurrence in United States History. But, under the court’s Rule 44 a rehearing request may be filed within 25 days of the judgment. The rule is intended to address exceptional circumstances, including significant legal and factual issues the court might have overlooked. The court grants few such petitions, and a rehearing cannot be ordered unless a justice who joined the majority supports it.
President Trump’s response is fair considering the unknown number of foreigners from places like Russia and China who are known to make elaborate plans to be in this country when their kids are born. Birthright citizenship is not only not protected by the Constitution, but it opens the door for legalized invasion of our country.
It’s a long-shot to get the court to revisit the case, but President Trump is right to make the request.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Graham Platner has finally dropped out of his Senate race in Maine, but not before exposing the Democratic Party’s stunning hypocrisy. The original choice to challenge Republican Susan Collins in what Democrats deem a “must-win” race for Senate control has been hit with a rolling catastrophe of scandals that would have disqualified any non-Democrat in mere moments. Platner has predictably called the accusations against him “categorically false,” waving them off as “coached and coordinated” attacks by “out of state establishment operatives.”
A pastor once told me that anyone seeking ministry must be blameless. The same standard, in our modern world, seems to apply to politicians. Yes, we’re human, we make mistakes, and we want to believe people can change. And Democrats initially said as much about Platner. While watching this unfold on television, I saw a clip from MS NOW of a woman saying she fell for his message of redemption. They wanted to believe, despite all the character problems emerging during this campaign, that he wasn’t what the evidence suggested.
They looked the other way from the Nazi tattoo. They ignored the sexually explicit texts. They called his physical abuse accusation from ex-girlfriend Lyndsey Fifield merely “unsettling” behavior. They perhaps even internally cheered when Platner called police officers “opportunistic cowards” and advocated for hard-left communist policies. As a result, Platner believed himself untouchable and soldiered on.
Despite mounting controversies, he still won the Democratic Primary, and they claimed to still believe in him…for one reason and one reason only. Because their lust for power is more important than character. The whole episode reveals that the Democratic Party has become a party without principles. The only reason Platner began losing donors, endorsements, and basic support from his own party was because they finally realized his baggage would lead to Democratic defeat.
This is the same Democratic Party that once argued misconduct allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh warranted investigation and public scrutiny because we must “always believe all women.” During the 2018 election season, sexual assault allegations plagued Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama. Once the Washington Post released a report of allegations against Moore from many decades before, the entire Democratic machine came down hard, despite the flimsy nature of those claims. No consideration of redemption emerged then. But, Platner’s denials were believed without hesitation… at least until the rape charge emerged.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying we should take such allegations lightly. But how is it that when these allegations are leveled against Republicans, there’s no wiggle room, yet when a far-left Democrat faces round after round of devastating accusations, it takes a rape allegation and an impending ballot deadline (July 13) to finally get Democrats to acknowledge perhaps the guy has character issues?
The answer, as stated before, is because their lust for power is more important than what is “right.” Their principles revolve around power, not what is moral or acceptable in a culture that demands our political officeholders maintain higher standards because of the higher offices they occupy.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Commies of the Democratic Party are no Tea Party
By Douglas V. Gibbs
CNN and the rest of the leftist media are not sure what to do. They championed Platner, until he finally stepped down, and then they turned on him fast. They claim they have a big tent, and they welcome Platner’s buddies from the Democratic Socialists who now infests the party, but they act like they are not radical. They are cautious and absolutely giddy at the same time. And some of them, on both sides of the Democratic Party’s quivering establishment, are calling this new wave of communists in their party the left’s version of the Tea Party.
Let me be crystal clear. This is one of the most ludicrous, historically ignorant, and deliberately misleading comparisons I have ever heard. It’s not just wrong; it’s a calculated lie designed to normalize the radicalization of one of our two major political parties.
The Tea Party, as you’ll recall, was a grassroots movement of patriotic Americans – taxpayers, small business owners, families – who saw their government abandoning its constitutional principles. We were about fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a return to the foundational principles that made this country great. We wanted the Republican Party to live up to its stated platform, not abandon it. We were trying to save the party from itself, to remind it of its conservative roots. We were builders, not destroyers.
What we’re seeing with these Democratic Socialists – let’s call them what they really are: communists – is the exact opposite. This isn’t a movement to improve the Democratic Party; it’s a hostile takeover designed to burn it to the ground. They don’t want to reform the party’s platform; they want to replace it with something entirely foreign to American values. They’re not trying to make the Democratic Party better; they’re trying to make it, and our entire country, worse.
The Tea Party revered the Constitution. These socialist communists despise it. The Tea Party wanted to shrink government; these radicals want to expand it into every aspect of your lives. The Tea Party celebrated American exceptionalism; these people apologize for it. The Tea Party wanted to unleash the power of the free market; these communists want to suffocate it with government control.
And the media knows this. That’s why they’re trying to draw this false parallel. I think they want to legitimize what is fundamentally an illegitimate movement that seeks to dismantle everything that has made America the greatest country in human history. They want you to believe that this is just “politics as usual,” just another ideological shift within a party.
But it’s not. This is a cancer. It’s an ideological poison that seeks to fundamentally transform, not improve, not reform, but transform this country into something our founding fathers wouldn’t even recognize, and never intended. It’s a movement rooted in resentment, envy, and a hatred for the very system that has produced more prosperity and liberty than any other in human history.
So no, CNN and the rest of the leftist media, this is not the Democratic Party’s version of the Tea Party. This is a modern American version of the Bolsheviks. This is the Democratic Party’s version of every radical movement that has risen throughout history with the promise of utopia but has delivered nothing but misery, oppression, and failure.
The Tea Party wanted to make America more like America. These socialist communists want to make America more like Venezuela, China, the Soviet Union, and every other communist failure that has poisoned the Earth. And that’s the difference. That’s the truth. Are we going to move closer to liberty, or farther away from it. In the end, that is what is at stake.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary