Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When we hear “boots on the ground,” our minds immediately flash back to Iraq and Afghanistan. The door-kicking, house-to-house searches, and the grinding counterinsurgency operations cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Americans have a right to fear repeating that scenario. But what we’re witnessing in Iran under President Trump’s Operation Epic Fury represents something fundamentally different. The key is understanding that not all “boots on the ground” scenarios are created equal. The targeted approach we’re seeing, potentially including securing strategic locations like Kharg Island, is a far cry from the nation-building quagmires of the past.
The current operation has already demonstrated remarkable success and precision. U.S. forces have conducted extensive bombing campaigns, including a large raid on Kharg Island that “totally obliterated” military forces while deliberately sparing economic infrastructure “for reasons of decency.” This surgical approach ofdestroying naval mine storage facilities, missile storage bunkers, and military sites without crippling Iran’s economic lifeline shows a level of restraint we rarely saw in previous conflicts. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has emphasized that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb, and under Operation Epic Fury, they won’t. The mission is clear and focused, not an open-ended commitment to remake Iranian society.
The potential deployment of ground troops to secure specific locations like Kharg Island represents a tactical necessity, not a strategic shift toward occupation. Military experts have identified Kharg Island, a hub handling roughly 90% of Iran’s crude exports, as a critical strategic target. Unlike in Iraq, where American forces found themselves conducting counterinsurgency operations across entire cities for years, securing Kharg Island would be a limited, objective-focused mission. As one intelligence official told CNN, the attack on Kharg Island was a signal, but the question is what it will take to make Iranians realize keeping the Strait of Hormuz closed is no longer in their interest. A limited ground presence to secure this vital chokepoint could achieve that objective without the massive footprint of previous wars.
President Trump has consistently signaled that this operation is nearing completion, with the goal of reaching an end to hostilities as soon as possible. He recently warned that if Iran doesn’t reach a deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. would conclude its “stay” in Iran by obliterating remaining infrastructure, suggesting a clear exit strategy rather than indefinite occupation. The administration has even deployed “several warships and 5,000 Marines and sailors” to the region, but this appears to be for securing specific objectives rather than widespread combat operations. This targeted deployment aligns with Trump’s dislike of war while acknowledging its necessity as a diplomatic tool when conversations fail with an Iranian leadership that embraces an apocalyptic ideology welcoming chaos.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump appears to understand that true regime change must come from within. While Israel may handle certain direct action scenarios, the president seems to believe that the Iranian people will eventually rise up against their oppressors, essentially serving as the “boots on the ground” for their own liberation. This approach recognizes that American forces cannot and should not be the primary agents of societal transformation in Iran. Instead, by applying targeted military pressure and creating conditions where the Iranian regime’s failures become undeniable, the U.S. can support organic internal movements for change without the pitfalls of externally imposed nation-building.
The distinction between the kind of “boots on the ground” we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan and what we’re potentially seeing in Iran couldn’t be clearer. One was about occupation, nation-building, and counterinsurgency. The other is about securing specific strategic objectives to create leverage for diplomatic resolution. As Americans, we should support this more restrained, mission-focused approach that protects American interests while avoiding the traps of previous conflicts. The mission is almost complete if Iran’s leadership would simply make an acceptable deal. Until then, limited, targeted operations to secure critical locations like Kharg Island represent not a step toward another endless war, but a smarter application of military power to achieve specific, achievable objectives.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
America has been drifting away from its founding constitutional principles, a decay made possible by the patient, incremental strategy of “shifting baselines.” The enemies of limited government understand that the gradual erosion of liberty is far more effective than a sudden assault. What the Founding Fathers designed as a government of limited, enumerated powers has morphed into a sprawling administrative state with virtually unlimited authority, precisely because each generation accepts the overreach of the previous one as the new normal.
This concept of gradualism is a well-understood tool of those who seek to expand state power. As A. Ralph Epperson noted in The Unseen Hand, the strategy is to “promise one thing and deliver another… socialism must be brought about step by step [in gradual doses] in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law and mutual confidence.” It’s the classic scenario of the frog in a pot of water, slowly brought to a boil. The initial warmth is comforting, the heat increases so gradually it’s hardly noticed, and by the time the frog realizes the danger, it’s too late.
The founding baseline was crystal clear: the federal government’s authority was strictly limited to powers explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment was the ultimate safeguard, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. The Necessary and Proper Clause was a narrow tool to execute those enumerated powers, not a blank check. The Commerce Clause was designed to limit federal control while also preventing states from imposing tariffs on one another, not to regulate every human activity that might indirectly affect commerce. The General Welfare Clause was a condition to be met (as both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison later noted) and a limitation on Congress’s spending power, not an independent and unlimited source of legislative authority somehow tied to the “common good.”
The first major baseline shift came from Alexander Hamilton’s push for a national bank and his doctrine of “implied powers” which opened the door for the federal government to claim authority beyond what was expressly written. By broadly interpreting the Necessary and Proper Clause, Hamilton injected mercantilist ideas into what was meant to be a free-market system, setting a precedent for constitutional circumvention.
The next shift came from the judiciary. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, granting the federal courts a power that had been rejected during the Constitutional Convention. This judicial tyranny was applied in small doses, taking two centuries to reach the astronomical level of power we see today. We accept it only because it was built gradually, with each generation acclimating to the court’s expanding role.
After the War Between the States, a catastrophic shift occurred. The federal government, having (allegedly) preserved the Union, began asserting itself with new force. The Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th), while intended to protect individual rights, established a precedent for federal intervention in areas traditionally reserved to the states. The baseline shifted from “federal action is unconstitutional unless explicitly authorized” to “federal action is permissible if it can be tied to a broadly interpreted constitutional purpose,” however loosely defined.
The most dramatic collapse, however, came during the New Deal. Faced with the Great Depression, FDR’s administration enacted sweeping economic regulations unthinkable to the Founders. The Supreme Court initially resisted, striking down programs for exceeding the Commerce Clause and violating the non-delegation doctrine. But under immense political pressure, including FDR’s court-packing threat, the Court capitulated in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937). This “switch in time that saved nine” marked the death of strict constitutional limits.
The new baseline was devastating. The Commerce Clause was twisted to allow Congress to regulate virtually any activity crossing state lines, or with a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce. The non-delegation doctrine was neutered, permitting Congress to create vast administrative agencies like the EPA, OSHA, and the SEC, endowed with the power to make, enforce, and adjudicate their own rules. The Administrative State was born.
With this New Deal baseline cemented, federal expansion accelerated. The Great Society’s “War on Poverty” entrenched federal control over education and healthcare. The “War on Drugs” federalized state-level criminal matters. The post-9/11 Patriot Act justified warrantless surveillance in the name of national security. The COVID-19 response saw federal agencies issue sweeping mandates with minimal congressional oversight.
Why was this obvious overreach so easily accepted? Because of shifting baselines. Each generation grows up with the previous generation’s overreach as its starting point. Someone born in 1990 doesn’t remember a time before the Department of Education or the EPA; to them, these agencies are normal. The baseline has shifted so dramatically that what the Founders would have considered tyrannical is now seen as “responsible governance.”
This creates a vicious cycle: government expands its power, citizens resist but the expansion persists, the next generation grows up with it as normal, and the cycle repeats. The result is a federal government operating in ways that are fundamentally unconstitutional according to the document’s original meaning, yet accepted because we have collectively forgotten what true constitutional government looks like. The baseline has shifted so far that restoring the original is now seen as radical, not restorative.
The great tragedy is not that the government has seized power, but that we have willingly handed it over, one generation at a time. The Constitution is not a “living document” that evolves with the times; it is a cage, designed to contain the beast of government power. We have not only unlocked the door; we have forgotten the cage ever existed. The question is no longer whether we can restore the original baseline, but whether anyone even remembers what it looked like.
In our relentless pursuit of progress, we have regressed to the very state of centralized authority the Founders risked everything to escape. We have traded the chains of a distant king for the shackles of a sprawling bureaucracy, celebrating our freedom while ignoring the tightening grip. The baselines have shifted so dramatically that the radicalism of 1776 is now considered extremism, and the quiet tyranny of the administrative state is hailed as responsible governance. The experiment in self-government, it seems, has succeeded in convincing the subjects they are still in charge.
If we are to take it back, it begins with education. We must rediscover what the Constitution truly says and what the founding generation meant by its words. Only when we can answer those questions can we begin to slow-step the system back in the right direction. But be aware: just as it was a long game of shifting baselines that brought us here, it will take a similar generational game, bit by bit, to restore what was lost.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
| Tuesday Online Constitution (and history) Class |
  3:30 PM PacificOnline Constitution & History Class |
| Online Mr. Constitution Class www.mr-constitution.com A new opportunity across a vast ocean expands the reach of Saxon Liberty. Untold History Channel – (locate the shows labeled “Learn the Constitution”): https://rumble.com/c/UntoldHistoryChannel |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
In the cold, silent dark beyond the reach of our Sun, a little spacecraft from the 1970s is doing something no human-made object has ever done. NASA’s Voyager 1, built in the age of rotary phones, disco and classic science fiction novels has now reached a distance once reserved for dreamers… one full light‑day from Earth. And somehow, unbelievably, it’s still working.
Voyager 1 launched in 1977 as a quick scout of the outer planets. Engineers expected a few years of service; just long enough to snap some photos, gather some data, and pave the way for more advanced missions. Nobody imagined it would survive the brutal vacuum of space for nearly half a century.
Yet here it is, almost 50 years later, still moving, still measuring, still teaching us.
Today, Voyager 1 is 15.9 billion miles (25.6 billion km) from Earth, farther than any human creation has ever traveled. It has left the Sun’s protective bubble entirely. Behind it lies the solar system; ahead of it lies nothing but raw, untouched interstellar space.
Distance makes communication more challenging. Radio waves can travel no faster than the speed of light, so communicating with Voyager 1 has become an exercise in patience and precision. The current delay from Earth is 23 hours and 32 minutes to reach the spacecraft. By November 2026: That delay will stretch to a full 24 hours.
That means every command sent to Voyager 1 takes nearly two days to confirm: one day to get there, one day for the “message received” to come back. In an age of instant everything, Voyager forces us to slow down and marvel.
But, despite its age and limited technology, Voyager 1 is still discovering. Voyager 1 is not drifting aimlessly. It is humanity’s only active scout in the space between the stars, and it’s sending home data we’ve never had before.
Here’s what it’s measuring out there:
1. The Galaxy’s “Weather”: Inside the solar system, the Sun shields us from much of the galaxy’s harsh environment. Voyager 1 is now outside that shield, sampling interstellar plasma – a cold, dense, charged gas unlike anything near Earth.
2. Pure Cosmic Rays: These high‑energy particles come from distant exploding stars. Without the Sun’s protection, Voyager can measure them in their raw, unfiltered form.
3. The Milky Way’s Magnetic Skeleton: Using a magnetometer, Voyager 1 “feels” the galaxy’s magnetic fields, helping scientists map the invisible structure that shapes our cosmic neighborhood.
4. The True Shape of the Sun’s Bubble: By looking back toward the solar system, Voyager is helping us understand the real boundaries of the Sun’s influence; something we could never see from the inside.
The Golden Record is also a part of the traveling craft, serving in a sense as humanity’s handshake to the cosmos. Bolted to its side, the Golden Record, a 12‑inch gold‑plated copper disc contains:
- Greetings in dozens of languages
- Music from around the world
- Natural sounds of Earth
- A curated snapshot of human life
It is, in a sense, our cosmic message in a bottle drifting into eternity, waiting for someone, somewhere, to find it.
The spacecraft when it comes to its operations and communication with Earth was never meant to last decades, yet it continues to function thanks to remarkable engineering and careful power management. Voyager 1 runs on plutonium-based generators that now produce only about 4 watts of electricity, which is less than an LED night‑light. To keep the mission alive, engineers have shut down every nonessential system, preserving just enough power to maintain contact.
It’s a fragile connection, but it’s still there.
Voyager 1 will continue traveling indefinitely, but its ability to talk to us is limited by power. Most experts believe that by the early 2030s, it won’t have enough energy left to run even a single instrument or send a radio signal home.
When that day comes, Voyager 1 will fall silent.
But it will not stop.
It will keep moving through the galaxy… a quiet ambassador, carrying humanity’s story across the stars long after we can no longer hear its voice.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Long ago I met S.E. Cupp at an event in 2008, and was rewarded with an autographed copy of one of her works (for the amazing price of twenty bucks). I offered, and she accepted, to have her as a guest on my online radio program (I didn’t move to terrestrial radio until 2010). Back then, she had a shred of brainwaves pulsing through her brain. During the interview I learned that she was a New York City girl who thought herself to be an undercover conservative. What she had learned about what lefties think and conservatives actually are led her to write the book with Brett Joshpe: “Why You’re Wrong About the Right: Behind the Myths – The Surprising Truth About Conservatives.” The book proved to be a little tongue in cheek, and while interviewing her I picked up on the fact that she was a person in turmoil, wanting to believe what she was saying but not so sure about a few things. As a constitutionalist I picked up on a few moments of confused thoughts and tried to correct her in the most reasonable manner I could.
For a short spell, Cupp appeared on Fox News and commented on various issues. She wasn’t the most conservative person on the tube at the time, but she didn’t come across as a raving lefty. Then, she departed from the conservative landscape, only to reappear later in places like MSNBC and CNN. I wondered about that. Had she become a missionary attempting to take truth to the land of the lawless and deceived? Or, had she succumbed to the lures and bait put out by the left?
It didn’t take long to realize she had gone to the dark side. I don’t know what did it, but she was there. Did they reignite ancient indoctrinal blatherings hammered into her from her NYC youth? Did they tempt her with promises of power and might? Did they simply have better cookies and ice cream in the break room?
Facts about history and the U.S. Constitution seems to be a strength of mine, and I learned quickly not to take anything she had to say seriously, anymore, because on those fronts, she was all over the map – not that I took her words for gospel in the first place. So, as far as I was concerned, it was time to move on to other voices, and let her fall into whatever dark CNN pit she had jumped into.
As a fairly regular reader of the Daily Caller, this morning S.E. Cupp suddenly appeared on the main screen of my computer as I sat to work on my daily writing ritual. It turns out that Cupp’s journey to the dark side has nearly completed its course, with her barely landing short of putting on a black mask, breathing through scuba gear, and speaking like James Earl Jones. Apparently, the arrival of Donald J. Trump completed her training and she’s gone from leftwing apprentice to a fully indoctrinated member of the progressive TDS Myth Lords.
On CNN’s “Table for Five” discussion on “CNN Saturday Morning,” S.E. Cupp suggested that “the United States was becoming more like North Korea under President Trump’s leadership.” Quite a claim considering that the Asian communist country ranks among the most repressive and reclusive nations of the world. Republican New York City Councilman Joe Borelli told her she was being a bit “extreme,” so Cupp doubled down.
Cupp called the country “militarized,” laying out examples. “With our streets militarized, our voting militarized, our airports militarized, I am so concerned about the North Korea coded stuff that is going on right now…from Pam Bondi unfurling a banner with Trump’s face on it on the DOJ building to Trump putting his signature on our currency and his name on the Kennedy Center, to inviting only friendly media outlets who are going to say exactly what you want in Pentagon briefings. I mean, it goes on and on and on.”
“When did we want to become North Korea? This should be unnerving, disturbing to everyone. This is not partisan. This is scary stuff,” she added. “So it can feel like a slow creep, and MAGA will justify it using Trump’s lie about the election. But look around. Look around at your country, people. Is this what you want? You want to walk down the street and see, you know, rifles, guys with guns patrolling because for no reason at all, just to intimidate you? Is that what you want? You want to walk around and see the president’s face on the Department of Justice, which is a separate but co-equal branch of government? It’s bananas.”
And stop…
The militarization claim is a targeted blast regarding Trump’s use of armed immigration personnel from ICE and Border Patrol to round up and deport criminal aliens (and, yes, sometimes the not-so-violent illegal aliens get caught up in that whole deal, too, since they’re hanging out with the dangerous violent criminals). Armed personnel is kind of necessary. Do rapists, child molesters, burglars, murderers, violent gang members, human traffickers, drug traffickers, and terrorists come along quietly when social workers softly try to talk them into giving up their evil ways? Does S.E. Cupp and her fellow lost ones on CNN and elsewhere in the leftist bubble-sphere think that they all hang out at bad-guy central rather than trying to blend into the population and use innocent neighborhoods as shields? Despite the ridiculous and deceitful rhetoric, the streets are not militarized, but federal police officers with guns are involved in rounding up the worst of the worst as President Trump promised and the reality is that sometimes it happens when everyone is watching, and idiot protesters getting in the way may get hurt because they are, well, in the way. The whole Pretti/Good argument is like claiming the driver is at fault because someone suddenly leaped in front of a moving vehicle on the freeway. The idiots shouldn’t have gotten in the way in the first place, and sometimes when things are going at a fast pace injuries and deaths can happen. The best way to avoid injury is not to walk on the freeway, not to walk in front of moving vehicles, and not interfere with police work when bad guys are on the loose.
But Cupp’s ignorance reached farther than the common sense obvious. She’s supposed to be a political commentator, technically a Republican (but she voted for Biden in 2020), and educated (BA from Cornell, MA from NYU), yet she said, “Department of Justice, which is a separate but co-equal branch of government.”
She apparently thinks the DOJ is a part of the judicial branch – which it is not. It’s an executive branch department, of which Donald J. Trump currently serves as chief executive over. Besides, the whole three co-equal branches thing is inaccurate, anyway. It’s a ruse in place to convince you that the judges are somehow on the same level (or higher, in the minds of some knuckleheads) than the legislators or President. The fact is, we do not have three “co-equal” branches. They are not equal, with very different responsibilities that make them far from equal when it comes to certain things. Their duties give them a strong arena to operate in as long as they stay in their lane, but they have no power in the realms of the other branches. The President and Judges have no legislative power. Congress cannot execute the laws they write, and it takes a strong majority to put law into effect if the President is not willing to sign the law. The President’s power over foreign affairs and war are much stronger than any of the other branches, and it takes law passed by a super-majority to check the President if they don’t decide to impeach him in the attempt to change his behavior should he work in a manner they are offended by. And let’s not forget John Jay’s decision not to return as Chief Justice in 1801 – because the judicial branch was too weak in his opinion. The judicial branch was designed to be the weakest of the three branches of government, with only the power to apply the law belonging to them. Judicial Review was shot down during the Constitutional Convention, and Thomas Jefferson screamed about how unconstitutional it was for the judges to grant themselves the power through John Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison (but we’ve come to accept that lie in today’s political game, just like we’ve adopted the lie of three co-equal branches).
I don’t know what happened to the former Red Eye with Gutfeld regular over the years, but ever since hanging out with MSNBC people on The Cycle, and now her bed-fellows over at CNN, it seems to me that Cupp has gone over the deep end, turned to the dark side, and has drank more political kool-aid than most folks… yet still tries to claim she’s a conservative and Republican.
She may claim to be for limited government, self-reliance, and self-empowerment, but her Trump Derangement Syndrome and willingness to vote for people like Biden tells me she’s either full of that stuff grandma calls manure, or she has indeed turned to the dark side but hasn’t realized it yet. Perhaps the fact that she’s hanging out with some extremely politically misguided folks might serve as a clue.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
 |
For the Republic
Sunday 5:00 – 7:00 PM Pacific
Hosts: Alan Myers & Douglas V. Gibbs
Alan is back…