Political Pistachio

Douglas v. Gibbs - Mr. Constitution

Political Pistachio

red white and blue star

Join me this weekend in Fallbrook as a part of the countrywide observance of Memorial Day. Each year Memorial Day is observed to honor the men and women who have died while serving in America’s armed forces. Memorial Day also serves as a reminder of all of those who sacrificed to ensure this country got launched in the first place. While Memorial Day finds its roots in the days following the War Between the States, the struggle to establish and preserve liberty began long before.

On Sunday morning I will have the blessed opportunity to deliver a message not only regarding our military fallen as a result of war, but also I will use the opportunity to discuss the rigorous journey of the Separatists (Pilgrims) to America, their early challenges, and the sequence of events that reveals God’s hand was on America all along, even during those early years.

I would love for you to join me Sunday Morning in Fallbrook. Service will be held outside in a beautiful vineyard setting beginning at 10 am at the Fallbrook Vineyard Church located at The Vineyard 1924, 1924 E. Mission Road., Fallbrook, California.

This is an outside service so dress warm, and the picnic tables are limited so bring your own chair so that you can have the most comfy seat in the yard. The meeting will have live music for the opening time of Worship, and I will hang out as long as everyone needs for conversation and fellowship afterwards. I will also have my lovely wife with me, all of my books with me, and of course the famous Red White & Blue Donation Bucket (even though it is barely hanging on with its old age, cracks, wrinkles and other flaws thanks to its well-worn life — I meant the bucket!).

I look forward to seeing all of you there. Arrive early if you want, I plan to arrive at about 9:30 am.

Get Involved with the Liberty Restoration of the Republic Movement by becoming a $9 per month Patron at www.douglasvgibbs.com … Click Here for the Patron Sign Up Page.

Remember, we are still working on funding our efforts, including the radio programs, so that we can continue to educate the public about history and our precious United States Constitution. Donations are needed! Go to www.douglasvgibbs.com and at the bottom of the page hit the Donate Button! Or, just follow the directions below, and if you have Venmo use the QR Code below

trumps constitutional duty
By Douglas V. Gibbs


I received a link to a video by The Epoch Times discussing a little known constitutional concept known as “impoundment.”  In short, the question on the table is, “Is the President of the United States (Executive Branch) required to spend every penny appropriated by Congress for a particular item provided by law.”  According to the video, President Donald J. Trump states that when he returns to office, should he win the 2024 Election, he plans to resurrect the Presidential Power of Impoundment.  The issue is both simple, and complex, simultaneously.  It is simple in its basic application, but the political class and judicial community have made it a very complex issue with their deceptive language and ideologically driven activities, interpretations, and rulings.  To make sure all is understood I want the full context of the issue to be comprehended by you, the reader.  So, in this article I will first lay some groundwork to make sure we fully understand each and every complexity of the issue, from its constitutional foundation, to its legislative demise.

First, let’s list the constitutional clauses related to the issue of the Presidential Power of Impoundment.

  • Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution reads, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”
  • Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
  • Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution reads, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
  • Article II, Section 1 in the clause regarding the presidential oath: “I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States.”
  • Article II, Section 3 in the second to last clause of the section the Constitution reads, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
  • Article V of the United States Constitution provides for a process to amend the Constitution.  Authorities or powers may not be altered, eliminated, nor created when it comes to the federal government unless it is proposed as an amendment either by Congress or the States, and then ratified by the States with three-quarters ratification.

In the United States, the Supreme Law of the Land is the United States Constitution.  The clauses I provided above establish the following:

  • The determination regarding where federal dollars are spent may only be established by law, which requires the full legislative process.  In other words, how money is spent must be established by law which may be achieved by:
    • Bill proposal, approved by both Houses of Congress, and signed by the President.
    • Bill proposal, approved by both Houses of Congress, and vetoed by the President, but the veto was overridden by two-thirds of each House of Congress.
  • Legislative Powers only belong to Congress, and Executive Powers only belong to the President of the United States, which in turn includes the entire Executive Branch (Departments, Agencies, and Officers who serve in the Executive Branch, of which the President serves as the chief executive).
    • Legislative Powers include the following:
      • The power to create law.
      • The power to modify law.
      • The power to repeal law.
    • The Executive Power includes the following:
      • The power to execute the law.
  • The word “vested” in Article I, Section 1, and Article II, Section 1 means the following:
    • The power in question (legislative or executive) was legally transferred from the States to the branch of government listed in the clause.  The States, as the parties of the social compact known as the U.S. Constitution, are the only entities that may transfer power, beginning with the Constitution’s first seven articles, and subsequently through the amendment process through which an amendment is not valid to all intents and purposes until it has been ratified by three-quarters of the States either by a vote by the State Legislatures, or by conventions.
    • The power in question (legislative or executive) is exclusionary to the branch indicated in the clause which is a concept we know as a Separation of Powers.  In short, only the Congress possesses the power to legislate, and only the President and his Executive Branch possesses the power to execute the laws and all of the necessary and proper actions that accompany the power to execute the laws.
    • The power in question (legislative or executive) is irrevocable, which means it cannot be given away or altered through executive order, legislation, or independent action by the branch of government in question.  Powers established by the Constitution may only be altered, created, or abolished through an amendment to the Constitution.
  • Executive Powers authorized by the Constitution call for the President to “faithfully execute the laws,” but the expenditure of the funds apportioned to executing the laws of the United States are not addressed because how the funds are spent are tied to the execution of the law by the President.  In short, how much it costs is at the discretion of the President based on the real world application of the execution of the law in question.  

The Presidential Power of Impoundment basically means that if the President believes the funds are not appropriate, or the amount of funds appropriated exceed what is necessary, the President has the authority to spend, or not spend, as he believes is necessary as long as those expenditures do not exceed the maximum amount of money appropriated.  Therefore, if the President of the United States believes the amount that needs to be spent is less than what was appropriated then he has every authority to spend the amount he needs to spend based on his discretion.  If the amount of money that needs to be spent is greater than what was appropriated, then once the maximum amount appropriated is reached, in order for more funds to be spent Congress must by law appropriate more money toward the item in question.

To give you an idea of what I am talking about, let’s use an example we can relate to.  If a mother gave her child ten dollars to spend on candy, there is no way the child can spend more than ten dollars because only ten dollars was given.  If the child wants to spend more than ten dollars, more money must be requested by the child, approved by the mother, and then appropriated by the mother in the form of handing the child the additional money.  However, if the child spends less than ten dollars it would be unreasonable to argue the child is required to spend the entire amount.  However, since the money originally belonged to the mother, and it was her decision to give the child the money in the first place, unless she tells the child otherwise, the child is expected to return the remaining money after the purchase to the mother.  Of course, if she says, “Keep it for something else,” then the child may retain the money and spend it at a later time.  If the child decides that spending the money on candy is not in his best interest after, perhaps, watching a video about the connection of candy to cavities, the child could return the entire ten dollars back to the mother.  It would be unreasonable for her to say, “No, I gave you ten dollars for candy, you are required to spend that ten dollars on the candy.”  Then again, perhaps due to various circumstances, the child decides not to spend any of the money on candy, but in the near future plans to because getting to the store will be easier on that future date, or a sale on candy is expected in the near future and the child knows he’ll be able to buy more candy with the ten dollars if he simply waits until the sale begins.  The mother, if she’s reasonable, would not demand the child spend the money the day she gave it to him.  If she earmarked the funds for candy, then he needs to spend it on the candy, but when he spends it on the candy would be entirely up to him.

In another scenario, perhaps the ten dollars given to the child by his mother was for him to pick up a dozen eggs.  The store, however, is selling the eggs for $5.99.  So, he buys the eggs and returns home with his $4.01 change because the entire ten dollars was not necessary for the eggs.  The goal of purchasing a dozen eggs was accomplished, so the change was returned to the mother.  She’s not going to say, “I gave you ten dollars for eggs, return those eggs and go find someone who will sell you a dozen eggs for ten dollars.  You have to spend all of the money.”  Or, perhaps he finds out, before he departs, that dad picked up eggs on the way home.  The expenditure is no longer necessary.  So, rather than buy eggs anyway, the child would be expected to not buy the eggs because the purchase is unnecessary, and then return the funds to the mother.

The Presidential Power of Impoundment is similar.  Congress apportions a particular amount for a particular federal issue, so the President who is tasked with executing the law takes the money and plans for its expenditure.  If the expenditure, once he attempts to apply it in a real world situation turns out to be an expenditure that is damaging, or problematic, he may choose not to spend the money on that item.  He cannot suddenly spend it on something different, of course, because it was apportioned for that original item, so it must be returned to the Treasury to be reapportioned for something different, or not spent.  A situation may present itself that the apportionment exceeds what is necessary due to cost, or the amount needed, so the President may achieve executing the law without spending the entire amount.  If that happens, fantastic, he pulled off a good deal, and the remaining funds are then returned to the United States Treasury.  It would be unreasonable for Congress to argue, “No, we gave you the amount we gave you, find a more expensive route and spend all of the money.”  That would be, for lack of a better way of putting it, fiscally irresponsible.  Sometimes, a President may choose another route.  Spending the money immediately may not be best avenue to take, but he may hold the funds and spend it on the apportioned issue in the future when he believes it would be more appropriate.  For example, Congress might allocate so many billions of dollars on war ships, but the desired size of the fleet has been reached, and increasing the size of the fleet at the moment may not be necessary.  However, in a few years there may be a few ships slated to be decommissioned, and so the expenditure may need to be delayed until a later date so that the new vessels are completed at a time that coincides with the decommissioning of the other vessels.  He is Commander in Chief, and for Congress to demand that he must spend all of the money at the earliest possible moment would interfere with his duty as the head of the military (an argument used by President Johnson as well), and through their demands, in a sense, it would allow them to violate the concept of a Separation of Powers by demanding that he spend as they demand when they told him to.  Finally, sometimes situations change.  Between the time the money is apportioned by Congress and the President spends it events may occur that renders the expenditure apportioned a moot point.  The President, recognizing that the situation has changed, would then be expected to return the funds to the Treasury.  It would not be reasonable to expect him to spend it anyway because Congress originally earmarked it in that manner before they knew about the coming change in situation.

Among the Founding Father Presidents, George Washington through James Monroe, only one found himself using what we are calling the Presidential Power of Impoundment.  Thomas Jefferson, who today would definitely be labeled as a “fiscal conservative,” and one who is recognized as understanding the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, established what we might call a “precedent” regarding the impoundment power.  Typically, one would not argue that Jefferson did not understand the Constitution, or that his interpretation of Constitutional Authorities was somehow flawed.  Of the Presidents of the History of the United States, and especially of the Founding Father Presidents, Jefferson was among the Presidents of the United States who understood the original intent of the Constitution the most, save for perhaps James Madison (Father of the Constitution) and John Tyler (who was kicked out of the Whig Party because he refused to abide by their unconstitutional demands).  

In the case of Jefferson’s use of the Presidential Power of Impoundment, the initial occasion was regarding $50,000 provided for gunboats along the Mississippi River.  At the time, the western edge of the United States was at the Mississippi River.  Disputes with France and Spain over jurisdiction regarding the river, America’s use of the river, and U.S. access to the port at the City of New Orleans, led Congress to believe that U.S. military presence on the Mississippi River to ensure that the river route was unobstructed by the actions of other countries for the purpose of the movement of supplies and products needed to be increased.  However, the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 changed the situation.  America’s western frontier moved westward, and the Mississippi River and New Orleans became fully controlled by the United States since both were now fully inside America’s borders and jurisdiction.  Therefore, using the money for the production of the gunboats called for by Congress was no longer necessary, so President Jefferson, based on the changes to the situation at large, did not spend the money based on his own discretion, and the money was returned to the Treasury.  Granted, he also used the power of impoundment regarding other issues which were not so cut and dry, but the reality is that the founding generation at the time recognized that the power existed.  While the President, based on the legislative appropriation of funds may not spend beyond a maximum amount of money provided by Congress, Congress could not require him to spend a minimum up to and including the maximum.  The President’s discretion when it came to the funding required to execute the laws of the United States belonged to the President, not Congress.

The next President to use the power was President Ulysses S. Grant.  Many Presidents during the Twentieth Century also utilized the Power of Impoundment.  The power was recognized as being legitimate, and while minor challenges emerged, the power was largely uninfluenced and unquestioned.

It was fully understood that the President of the United States may spend less than Congress allocates on certain projects if he deems the full funding amount unnecessary, and the power was recognized as existing and acceptable until Congress changed the rules unconstitutionally in 1974.

In 1974, in response to Watergate, the impending resignation of President Richard Nixon, and his unwillingness to spend federal funds in the manner Congress demanded, with the Impoundment Control Act, Congress used legislation to strip the President of the power.

Regardless of what one might think about the Presidential Power of Impoundment, the following facts surround it:

  • It was recognized as a legitimate constitutional power of the President of the United States until 1974.
  • In 1974 Congress used legislation to strip the President of the power that had been previously viewed as being constitutional.

The powers granted and retained by the executive branch, as previously stated, are “vested” in the President of the United States.  Therefore, they may not be stripped, altered, or granted by legislation.  Any change of powers granted to any branch of government requires a constitutional amendment.  Therefore, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was unconstitutional.  Congress had no power to “strip” the President of the power.  While it is Congress’s job to use legislation to determine where money may be spent, Congressional control over how much of it is spent is not constitutionally granted, and in real world applications is unreasonable and could be disastrous.

In short, it is Congress’s job to legislate, and the President’s job to execute the laws of the United States.  Due to the concept of the Separation of Powers, for Congress to dictate to the President how he may carry out his duties, and to restrict his authorities established by the Constitution with a piece of legislation is unconstitutional (which is another way of saying the 1974 law was illegal).

Which brings us back to President Trump, and his promise to use the Presidential Power of Impoundment when he returns to the Office of the President of the United States.  

On the surface, he has every constitutional authority to do so.  But, the question is, how will the establishment respond?  From their point of view any reversal of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 would need to either occur because Congress recognized their error so they repeal it with another piece of legislation, or the issue works its way to the courts.  In order for the courts to look at it, the law would need to be defied, and a lawsuit would then need to be brought.  Then, ultimately it would be up to the United States Supreme Court to determine if the law is unconstitutional or not.  Yes, I realize what I am talking about is the unconstitutional practice of judicial review, and I am not suggesting that is what should happen; I am telling you that is probably what will happen.  

With the current make up of the Supreme Court, I believe it would be a 5-4 decision, with the high court determining that the 1974 law was unconstitutional in the first place, therefore, invalidating the law and returning to the President of the United States the Power of Impoundment.

Just another reason why the leftwing Democrats are foaming at the mouth to stop Trump.  He is intent upon unraveling their tyranny, and he’s willing to do it in ways that few people even realize exists.  

My final tally?  The Presidential Power of Impoundment is Constitutional, the 1974 Impoundment Control Act was unconstitutional, and the tyrants embedded inside our federal government will fight tooth and nail to stop the power of impoundment from ever becoming a thing again, unless of course a Democrat President wants to use it and a Republican Congress is shaking its finger saying, “No, you don’t.”  Then, their argument will change, and they’ll pretend to be fans of the Constitution as long as they think it suits their tyrannical narrative.

By the way, Trump has used the power before.  When he was President he limited how much of the COVID spending he used.  This is not an issue he just suddenly came upon.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

mothers day flower
By Douglas V. Gibbs


I was fortunate in life.  My mom was mother from day one, and still is.  I know that there are those who lost their mothers earlier in life, and some who were raised without a mother, or perhaps without their birth mother, in their lives.  And then, there are others who had a mom (or perhaps didn’t), but were unable to be moms, or chose not to be a mother, for various reasons.  Motherhood may not have been accomplished in the orthodox manner, but every woman I know has had the opportunity to be a precious and dear mom, or have someone fill that role for them when they needed it most.  Women are motherly instinctively.  If a child falls, it’s usually a woman that runs over to help them up.  When someone has pain inside and needs to talk to someone, more often than not that motherly instinct kicks in and a woman becomes the shoulder to cry on.  Most women naturally desire to nurture, care, and defend.  So, first off, everyone has had a mom in their life, though not necessarily in the orthodox manner, and every woman has been a mom at least once in their life when they scooped up the fallen child, lent a caring ear, or sought to do something right for another because her motherly heart told her to.  So, for all of you, no matter how you’ve had a mom, or been a mom, Happy Mothers’ Day.

— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

toxic masculinity keeping snowflakes safe since 1775
By Douglas V. Gibbs


After a two day trip to Catalina my wife and I, on the way home, stopped at a popular seafood restaurant in Oceanside to enjoy some lobster, crab, mussels, and shrimp in the restaurant’s famous bucket-style presentation.  The waitress (or should I say, “Food Service Person”) like most of the employees of this particular restaurant wore a tie-dye t-shirt with some spiffy slogan and a red crab pic tucked in somewhere on the shirt.  I’ve never expected any restaurant I visit to cater to my conservative beliefs, but I expect them not to be overly progressive-lefty either.  Some chains come across as one or the other, but usually none of them are too overtly in your face about certain beliefs or attitudes.

The experience at the place we chose on the way home from Catalina, however, was not only politically charged, it was downright rude, and a dark sign of the times.

Most restaurants, when you sit, they first ask you if you wish for a drink.  Then, appetizers are ordered, the meal is ordered, refills are provided for the drinks, and then the final check is provided either on a piece of paper, or one of those devices where you can do-it-yourself-pay for the meal.  Sometimes, my wife and I sit next to each other, but usually at a booth or a table we sit across from each other.  When the server addresses us they normally either look at me first, or primarily address me, or they will look back and forth as if trying to give both my wife, and I, equal time.  This time, we experienced a very different approach that I had heard was happening, but until that point had not experienced for myself.

After we sat down the waitress walked up and asked my wife if she wanted something to drink.  My wife gave a reply, and then the waitress began to walk away as if I was not sitting there.  I shouted, “and I will take a Dr. Pepper.”  She continued to walk away without even skipping a step.  When she returned with only my wife’s drink, my wife said, “my husband would like a Dr. Pepper.”

The woman vanished, and eventually she returned with a Dr. Pepper.  She also furnished us with paper straws, at which time I fetched a plastic straw from my pocket and dropped it into my glass.

When she returned later my wife asked if they still had mussels, and the woman said, “yes.”  Then I said, “We would like mussels then, in garlic sauce, as an appetizer.”  Without giving me a single glance the lady said to my wife, “Would you like to order mussels?”  She responded yes, and then the waitress asked, “steamed only, or with flavoring.”  My wife hesitated for a moment, confused.  “Garlic,” she finally said, and the waitress walked away, once again without sending me even a single glance.

I am cut from a very traditional cloth, so I order for my wife, and she has told me how much she appreciates that I order for her, hold doors open for her, and try to do for her with the best of my ability.  So, when the waitress returned for our order, once again looking toward my wife, I began ordering for her.  “My wife would like,” I began, and then I provided my wife’s order, and mine.  The woman wrote down the order (at least she was finally willing to acknowledge I was speaking) but never looked at me.  Then, after she was finished writing down the order, she looked at my wife and asked, “Anything else?”  My wife responded, “No,” and the waitress vanished to submit our order.  During the course of the meal my wife got two refills for her tea, but my Dr. Pepper was never refilled. 

At the end of the meal when the waitress brought our check, she addressed my wife, and laid it on the table in front of her and walked away.  I grabbed it, and placed my card on the small plastic tray with the receipt.  When the waitress took it and came back for the signature, she again laid it in front of my wife, and continued to go out of her way to act as if I was not there.

“No tip,” I said to my wife.  “If I don’t exist, neither did any good service.”  I then signed the receipt and we departed.  I asked my wife if she saw what I saw as we walked out of the restaurant, and she replied, “Yes, she never looked at you once.”

I was not wearing a MAGA hat, nor did I have any other political paraphernalia on my body, to I am assuming I was treated that way simply because I am a man.  What else could it have been?

Our culture, especially when it comes to the youngsters, has been fed with the Marxist-inspired “toxic masculinity” crap so bad that the emotions of some women have deteriorated to the point that they can’t even stand to look at a man, much less acknowledge his presence.  I am willing to bet, however, the same women who scream bloody murder about “toxic masculinity” applauds men in makeup and pantyhose.

My wife experienced a similar attitude not long ago at work.  She was looking at buying some dresses from the retail outlet she has worked for during the last decade and a half, and she snapped pictures of them and sent them to me via text to get my opinion of which one I liked most.  Her friends chided her for sending me the pics.  “Why would you do that?” they asked.

“I would like my husband’s opinion,” she responded.

“Why?” came the responses.

One of the ladies said, “Who cares what he thinks, you have your own mind, pick what you want.”

Feminism and other leftist ideas have placed women not only in a place where they compete against men, but now they loathe men and seek a world without them.  They no longer wish for “equality,” but for dominance.  And the men, stupidly, not only are willing to acquiesce, they are bending over backwards to give up their masculinity.

Fox News recently reported that on social media the discussion is trending towards believing that men being a provider is a scam.  Hey, women, pay your fair share!  Men not only don’t wish to provide for their mate, or family, anymore, they don’t even want to work!  Women have demanded over the years that men should be more sensitive, more responsive to women wishing to hit the world running, shed their toxic masculinity, and soften their attitudes and activities, and men have largely responded by agreeing to follow the demands fully.

I had a left-leaning woman once ask me, “Where did all of the good men go?”  I responded, “You turned them all into women.”

Men, by instinct, wish to be men.  We naturally yearn to provide, take care of our families, and treat our wives like queens.  We instinctively want to open their doors, throw our jackets over water puddles, and pay for their dinner.  That is not a social construct, nor is it sexist.  That attitude of caring for women and taking care of women is a natural phenomenon.  We live to take care of our wives, and children (until they can be independent and move on in the case of the kids).  But, today, we have men leaving their families, children being brought up in a single-parent household that is usually run by mom, men leaving the workforce, men dropping out of college, and an increase of suicide among men.

The anti-man culture has stripped men of what they live for, and now society is beginning to pay the price.

Men, real men, are vanishing from society, and instead we have girly-boys who seek to be more feminine, or soft males who are too afraid to be more like a man because his woman might disapprove, or homosexuals because being with a woman no longer makes sense to them.

According to Owen Strachan, author of The War on Men, “for every one woman who drops out of college, seven men drop out. Men have left the workforce in almost unprecedented numbers; the current employment rate of men in prime working years mirrors that of the Great Depression. Men are also dropping out of church. For decades, women have filled roughly 60 percent of the pews…Men have disappeared from many families…80 percent of single-parent homes are headed by mothers…men kill themselves far more than women do, representing 80 percent of suicides today per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”


Without manhood, men lose their purpose, and their reason to live.

“The modern feminist movement has attacked manhood relentlessly. Cultural Marxism renders male leadership patriarchal, oppressive, and unjust. Our safety-obsessed society has trained men to fear the world, not enter it wholeheartedly.”

Without men being men, without masculinity, society dies.  The tyrants will have no men to war against them and stop their authoritarianism.  The toughest jobs will not be performed, therefore certain products will diminish in availability.  Leadership, the health of the family unit, and spiritual leadership which is afforded to men by God will all disappear and what will remain will be women, and men who have been told that if they chase after their natural masculine selves they are nothing more than broken girls.

Men, real men, stand firm and take charge.  Men are naturally not emotional for good reason.  The rigors of life, if one allows their emotions to make the decisions, will destroy humanity.  Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.”  We must use our common sense, our logic, and our pragmaticism.  Men are designed to be tough, practical, logical and pragmatic in ways that women are not for a reason.  Feeling bad about killing the animal that needs to be hunted does not feed the family.  Avoiding the difficulty of lifting the needed materials to construct a home does not shelter the family.  Cowering when danger emerges does not protect the family.  Men instinctively desire to build a family, work hard, provide, stand up to danger when necessary, cultivate their lives, and lead their family in life and spirituality.  Life is bigger than us, and we need to be big enough to stand against a world of difficulties.  That is what a man was designed to do.  

When my wife quit battling against me with competitive feministic ideas and instead became a more feminine woman and proclaimed, “I trust you, please take the lead,” the man inside me celebrated the moment, and I began to seek how I could be a better man for her.  When she proclaimed that she recognized I am her man, and she appreciates my masculinity, I began to strive all the more to treat her like royalty.  I live to do for her.  I live to be her man when she lives to be my woman.

That is how God set it up, for a reason.

That is not to say men should be tyrants.  My wife’s opinion means a lot to me.  We communicate.  We work together as a couple.  We flourish.  We flourish not because I am some tyrannical king, but because she respects my position as head of the household, and I wish to please her as best I can in that role, well knowing that if necessary, my say is the final say, but I also communicate with her constantly to make sure I fully understand her position and her thinking about all of those decisions.  In the end, we make better decisions and she receives the man she wants by simply being the woman I desire.

According to studies, my wife is not the only one seeking a man who acts like a man.

According to the New York Post, progressive women largely want to date men who act conservative, because her instincts and natural God-given desires want exactly that.  A man.  A masculine man.  A man that treats her well while seeking to provide for her and protect her.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

California Republic Flag bear bones
By Douglas V. Gibbs


California leads the country in insane leftist policies.  The one that has the food industry shutting its doors and fleeing from the State, and sending the cost of grabbing a bite to eat rising through the roof, is the policy regarding minimum wage for certain restaurants.  AB 1228, which went into effect April 1, 2024, targets fast food restaurants and coffee shops that bears the name of a national chain and has at least 60 restaurants nationwide.  The minimum wage in California is $16 per hour (which also went into effect this year), as opposed to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.  But, if you are an employee of the aforementioned restaurants targeted by AB 1228, the minimum wage is $20 per hour.  

First of all, the minimum wage laws in California violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which calls for equal protection under the law.  In other words, a State may not make laws that favor one group over another.  All laws must be uniform, applying to each person or business equally, without singling out any individuals, groups, organizations, or industries.  AB 1228 targets only restaurants, and to make matters worse, only targets certain kinds of restaurants, an egregious violation of the Fourteenth Amendment that sought to ensure that all citizens receive equal protection under the law, and uniform treatment when it comes to privileges and immunities.

Second, the economic impact on the overall cost of living, as well as the consequences of the law on many individuals, is staggering.  Companies, in order to handle the increased cost of wages, are reducing hours, reducing their number of employees, and in many cases are working towards automating many of the tasks that would be otherwise carried out by employees.  One restaurant I visited, exempt from the law in question, is reducing its work force at each of its locations, and will be installing kiosks to handle orders by visiting patrons.  The manager of the location I visited explained that the writing is on the wall that other businesses will be targeted with the outrageous minimum wage requirement in the near future, and rather than be forced out of business they would rather prepare now so that they can mitigate their rising costs of doing business immediately.

McDonalds has announced they will be closing more than a thousand locations, leaving barely more than a couple hundred restaurants in the Golden State.  A number of persons I have spoken to have advised me that their Golden Arches restaurants are cutting the hours of employees, and that’s if you don’t get let go.  

As a result of Gavin Newsom’s minimum wage law in California that targets certain restaurants, businesses are fleeing the State, leaving droves of people who had hoped for a “living wage” in the unemployment line with a dwindling list of potential employers remaining in the State as companies flee.  Meanwhile, the prices of products are skyrocketing, not just at the restaurants in question, but across the board.  Other California laws have also sent gasoline prices, grocery prices, utility costs, and the price of a living space (be it a home to buy, or renting) into the stratosphere.  Meanwhile, folks like my wife who has worked in the retail industry for over a dozen years working her tail off to finally get north of $17 per hour now trains new employees who make only a little more than a dollar an hour less than she does, and purchases food from restaurant employees who have no work experience who make three dollars more than her, per hour.  The cost of living is increasing for many employees like her who are not being given a higher wage.  Meanwhile, the very point of increasing the wages of these restaurant workers is a moot point, since as their wage rose (and their hours diminished), the cost of living as a consequence is also going up.  In most cases, the people who celebrated the new law with the sky-high minimum wage will be worse off in the long run due to the economic forces put in motion by the idiotic law.

Unconstitutional laws, and laws which are damaging to the lives of those who the Democrats swear they are there to protect, are making it more difficult to survive in the State of California.  And that is why the exodus from California is rampant.  However, the problem is, many of those idiot California migrants heading to a red state near you will continue to vote leftist, which in the long run, if not stopped, will spread the California virus of progressivism to the rest of the country, from sea to shining sea.

Be involved.  Don’t let what is happening in California happen in your state.  California voters are coming to a community near you.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

flags of israel taiwan and ukraine
By Douglas V. Gibbs


While the House of Representatives is currently in Recess, one of the upcoming battles is a package for foreign aid that is supposed to include funds for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel.  While constitutionally the legislative branch has the power to determine how the monies of the United States are spent, and the federal government was designed to handle foreign affairs, we must ask if the money being sent is for the benefit of the United States, and if in some cases we might very well be funding the coffers of potential enemies.

The war between Russia and Ukraine, thanks to the “Russia Russia Russia” pandemonium created by the Democrats in their pursuit to destroying Donald J. Trump, sent Americans scurrying to support Ukraine.  Blue and yellow flags have been flying, and the media has slobbered over their support for Ukraine.  If one is not fully on board with their “support Ukraine” campaign, the suggestion is that you are then a supporter of Russia, and Vladimir Putin.

While I mourn for the people of the two countries, I have not been quick to support either side.  Ukraine’s government has a history of corruption, and the Democrats have had their hand in that corruption for a very long time.  Putin, however, is a communist holdover from a past era that, while sometimes he seems to make decisions that seems to be in the best interest of Russia, one wonders if he is hoping to resurrect the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  The invasion of Ukraine makes one think that the military action may be exactly that…a move of hungry expansion, or a move to rebuild what was once the Soviet Union.

In recent news, Russia’s primary target has been the city of Kiev.  The City of Kiev is the capital, and largest city, of Ukraine.  In March of 2024, Russia began launching missile attacks at the Ukrainian city, claiming the war was to protect people from the genocide and humiliation perpetrated against the people by the oligarch regime of the Ukraine.

The war against Ukraine by Russia is in its third year, but now it seems Russia is finally in a position to gain enough ground to exercise control over territory that calls for the United States to step in more with needed military funding to defend Ukraine.  

A new military funding package for foreign countries is now in the process of moving through Congress, a set of three separate bills that would provide a combined $95 billion dollars for Ukraine, Israel, and resources in southeast Asia with the intent of protecting Taiwan should China launch an attack.  $60.84 billion of that money is earmarked for Ukraine.

Republicans have largely agreed to funding for Ukraine, arguing that it is far better to send money and resources than boots on the ground.

Biden, referring to the international aid bills, commented, “I will sign this bill into law immediately to send a message to the world: We stand with our friends, and we won’t let Iran or Russia succeed.”

In the House of Representatives a number of Republicans are not fully on board with sending so much funding overseas, especially when one considers the need for funding domestically, especially when it comes to border security.  Some members of the GOP have also voiced concern that some of the money may be going towards funding terrorism.  A vote on the bills is expected this weekend.

Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary