Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
December 7, 1941 changed America forever. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared it “a date which will live in infamy.” The nation was stunned that an enemy had dared strike America’s shores. The horror of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, propelled the United States into World War II and united Americans behind a single cause: to defeat those who had attacked them.
The Japanese Empire killed more than 2,400 Americans in and around Pearl Harbor. Of those, 1,177 perished aboard the battleship USS Arizona. Though many decades have passed, and many today cannot recall the significance of December 7th, the memory endures for those who lived through that dark morning.
For countless military warriors of that time, every day of World War II carried the spirit of December 8th…the day after the attack; when resolve hardened. Many have told me that it was Pearl Harbor that drove them to the recruiting offices, determined to fight for their country.
On the home front, women filled factories, building aircraft and war machines. Families planted “Victory Gardens” to ease shortages, while the country, still scarred by the Great Depression, rallied to support the war effort. Pearl Harbor became the moment that transformed hardship into unity, binding a wounded America together.
Today, Pearl Harbor survivors and World War II veterans are nearly gone. Only a handful of those who fought remain. Yet, their sacrifice demands remembrance. As with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, no one should forget the stunning assault on American soil at Pearl Harbor. Though memories fade, the meaning of that day must not. It remains, as Roosevelt said, a date which will live in infamy.
To forget history is to invite it to repeat itself.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
 |
For the Republic
Sunday 5:00 – 7:00 PM
Host: Douglas V. Gibbs
The Conference Championship Saturday games were a lot of fun. Virginia, who was ranked #17 going in, if they beat five-loss Duke, was a shoe-in for one of the slots of the 12-team football playoff. They lost, so they’re out. Alabama lost to Georgia. But, they are not necessarily out because they are high enough ranked that they may still slip in. When talking about the bracket and the possibility of Alabama slipping into one of the final slots, one of the sportscasters said that Alabama should still get in, for “they should not be penalized for losing their conference championship.” You know, because we want “fairness.”
And that is the flaw in the system. If you want the college football conference to operate true and fair, the solution is simple, but they would never buy into it because the money would be as great; they believe.
As it stands now, the five conference winners ranked the highest get an automatic bid, and the remaining bids go to at large teams. Virginia is out because they are not a conference winner with a high enough rank to surpass the next seven highest non-conference champs. Duke, now as ACC Conference Champ by beating Virginia is not ranked high enough to be a conference champ automatic bid, and with five losses they aren’t ranked at all so getting in as an at large is pretty much impossible for them. But the loser of the SEC Championship Game, Alabama, to be “fair,” should still be let in?
There are ten conferences in the FBS (Division 1A College Football). The solution to make it a true playoff is simple. Regardless of ranking, place all of the Conference Champions into the playoffs. You win your conference, you’re in. You lose that final game as one of the final two teams of your conference you are out…unless you are ranked high enough after it is all over to secure one of the final two slots available (of which an independent team like Notre Dame could also slip into). This will make the Conference Championship Games matter (because if Alabama is in, did the SEC Championship Game really matter like it did to Virginia?) And, it eliminates the chatter among not-so-big-conference champs saying they deserved to be picked but didn’t because a bunch of opinions by committees decided their strength of schedule, or some other thing, kept them out. Let them prove it on the field, regardless of their situation. If they win their conference, they deserve a chance. If they get slaughtered by an Ohio State or Georgia in the first round, so be it. You got your chance. In the end, the top teams will still wind up in the final, and along the way teams who should have gotten a shot were given the opportunity. And you never know, maybe one year a James Madison or North Texas might make the run and win it all. Would that be so bad? Frankly, I think that’s the reason they have it the way they do. They are afraid of that ever happening, and they are doing whatever they can to maintain the tyranny of the largest schools and the largest conferences.
See, politics even exists in sports.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
CBS News has a new boss. Bari Weiss. While she is not necessarily a conservative, she’s a straight shooter. She’s the mind behind The Free Press, which Paramount/CBS purchased for $150 million, and as a part of the deal she was brought in as the new editor in chief that seems to be Paramount’s attempt to steer CBS away from its entrenched progressive slants in mainstream reporting.
David Ellison, the new top dog at Paramount, has also made it clear he plans to move the movie-maker away from its progressive/WOKE direction, a shady path it has been taking along with the rest of the industry over the last fifty or so years. Ellison, when announcing the deal with Weiss, said he wants “news that reflects reality,” and journalism that “doesn’t seek to demonize, but seeks to understand.” Perhaps, he also wants news that people are willing to watch, and movies folks are willing to go to the theater for. In short, he wants to make making money great again.
In her new position, Weiss wasted no time enacting sweeping reforms, revamping CBS News to streamline operations which has been operating like The Swamp: bloated, out of touch, and bleeding money. Once in front of her new staff, Weiss was clear. “I wanna blow this up.” She emailed her employees with a clear roadmap, beginning with describing each of their roles and sharing ideas on “how we can make CBS News the most trusted news organization in America and the world.”
Unlike media executives perched in ivory towers, her hands-on approach is a clear departure from where CBS has been wallowing for a very long time. Weiss seeks to, and has, personally connected with her staff, and has leapt into the trenches with them individually discussing her plans with each of them one-on-one. She is also like a focused-on-recruiting college football coach, personally contacting high-profile anchors to recruit them into her CBS team. Never mind traditional agent negotiations; she has personally contacted the likes of Bret Baier of Fox News and CNN’s Anderson Cooper – a clear indication that many members of the current news anchor team are likely to get pink slips.
Weiss is not just shaking up the evening news broadcast, but is targeting the entire realm of CBS News. CBS Mornings host Gayle King’s contract is near its end, and word has it that the talks include more cost-effective options rather than her usual run-of-the-mill pillaging of the Paramount/CBS check book. 60 Minutes is facing a major revamp, with a plan to bring in new talent and to show high-level, long-time contributors the door. A big goodbye to heads of standards and talent strategy has already occurred. Other shake-ups and layoffs are on the horizon.
Bari Weiss’s pro-Israel stance led her to intervene in the near-dismissal of correspondent Chris Livesay after he raised concerns about being isolated for his pro-Israel stance. The one-sided narrative against Israel, and anything not totally progressive, has Weiss inserting a major counterbalance, which has already birthed a resistance to her leadership with established media figures seeking to maintain narratives that favor certain global agendas.
As has become the habit of anyone who dares to oppose the hard-left here in America, Weiss is surrounded by tight security, with bodyguards accompanying her to offices amid reported threats. No surprise there. Challenging the progressive status quo tends to stir the pot of progressive violence. From the violence in the streets against ICE, to violence and violent rhetoric against Republican politicians, not limited to the assassination attempts against President Trump, going against progressives, or even questioning their hard-left agenda, can be a difficult row to hoe. Weiss has shrugged it off, stating in a recent interview, “If I were distracted by” negative press, “I would’ve had to throw in the towel a very, very long time ago.”
Her full strategy is yet to be unveiled, and while I don’t believe CBS News is on its way to become a new conservative bastion for truth, what Bari Weiss is doing at CBS will definitely reshape the network away from the steep leftist political spin it has been a part of and into something that might be closer to a network that prioritizes facts over spin in an industry so deep into the scheme of Cultural Marxism they can’t otherwise see the light of day.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Our government operates under a constitutional concept not seen anywhere else in the world: A Separation of Powers. The United States Constitution established three branches of government through Articles I, II, and III. Each branch is “vested” with its own powers, a word that signals the principle of separation of powers. This design ensures that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches operate independently, except where the Constitution explicitly authorizes overlap.
A few examples of this limited overlap include:
• Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 (Exceptions Clause): Congress may influence the judiciary’s docket and negate rulings or judicial opinion it deems unconstitutional.
• Impeachment and confirmation powers: Congress can impeach judges and executive officials, and are tasked with approving presidential nominations.
• Article II, Section 3: The President may convene or adjourn Congress on extraordinary occasions.
• Article I, Section 8 and Article III, Section 1: Congress controls the creation, modification, and abolition of inferior courts, as well as the size of the Supreme Court.
• Article I, Section 3, Clause 4: The Vice President, though part of the executive branch, presides over the Senate and casts tie-breaking votes as President of the Senate.
Beyond these exceptions (and perhaps a couple others), the branches are designed to remain separate. Similarly, the federal government and the states operate independently, except where the Constitution provides otherwise.
While independence exists, it is not absolute. At the state level, for example, States oversee counties and cities, and state constitutions guide local governance.
Within the federal government, independence is between the branches, not within them.
• Legislative staff answers only to Congress.
• The Supreme Court supervises the lower courts.
• The President, vested with executive power, is the head of the executive branch.
Which brings us to the fallacy of agency independence. There is no constitutional clause granting executive departments or agencies pure independence. The President is their boss. Claims that a president is “authoritarian” for exercising control over agencies are therefore misguided.
Yes, Congress creates agencies, but once established, they become part of the executive branch. Their purpose is to assist the President in executing the laws. While agencies may have structural differences and practical independence based on their missions, they remain under presidential authority.
The idea of the existence of division between “executive agencies” and “independent agencies” is a false dichotomy. The Constitution does not recognize such a distinction. Agencies may communicate directly with Congress for efficiency, but this does not diminish the President’s ultimate authority.
No president can fully control the vast bureaucracy, simply because it is not humanly possible. Priorities and styles differ: some presidents take a hands-off approach, while others, like President Trump, have sought to rein in agency independence to combat corruption, waste, and unconstitutional practices.
Critics argue this is interference, but in reality, it is the President fulfilling his constitutional duty. Agencies are tools for executing the law, and the President may direct them as long as actions remain constitutional and lawful.
The “independent agency” label misleads the public. Agencies are not separate branches of government; they are part of the executive branch. Laws that attempt to insulate agencies from presidential oversight conflict with the Constitution. Congress cannot legislate away the President’s authority over his own branch.
The growth of the administrative state, which we know also as “The Swamp” or “Deep State,” has created panic whenever a president asserts control. Beneficiaries of this bloated system resist reform, but their opposition lacks constitutional grounding.
The Constitution does not empower Congress or the judiciary to micromanage the President’s execution of the law. If Congress disagrees with presidential actions, its remedies are limited to defunding agencies or agency operations or initiating impeachment. Ultimately, the people decide through elections whether a president’s approach should continue.
The executive branch belongs to the President of the United States. Agencies, regardless of their design, are not independent in the constitutional sense. They exist to serve the President in his duty to faithfully execute the laws. Any argument to the contrary is a false one, unsupported by the Constitution.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Laissez Faire, as defined in today’s dictionaries, means “a policy or attitude of letting things take their own course, without interfering.”
Thomas Jefferson believed that Laissez Faire was a policy that must be applied to the federal government regarding all issues, aside from those that were necessary for the preservation of the Union. The “hands off” attitude of Jefferson’s political philosophies included economics. He believed the role of government was to be absent from interfering in the workings of the free market.
“[A] rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and unoppressive.” – Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson’s mentality towards government interference in people’s lives, including economically, stood in opposition with the views of Alexander Hamilton. As the first Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton believed government was tasked with keeping an eye on everything, including regarding the way things were bought and sold, and the access people had to their rights. Jefferson argued that people, and the business sector, should be left to do what they needed to do without government getting in the way. While the federal government could be involved with trade with other countries, when it came to internal trade between the States, and all other domestic economic policies, the federal government’s role was largely supposed to be a “hands off” way of doing things. According to Jefferson the only time the federal government had any authority to involve itself in commerce between the States was when there was a dispute between the States. Then, and only then, the federal government could get involved, acting as a mediator between the States until an agreement was reached.
Hamilton’s desire that the federal government be a strong central government with a consolidation of all power stood in direct opposition to Jefferson’s laissez faire attitude. Jefferson supported agrarian self-sufficiency, and he believed that the less government was involved in the economy, the better off the economy, and society, would be as a whole. He believed that economic competition was a part of the Laws of Nature, a natural order of things that led to natural self-regulation which historically had proven to be the best type of regulation. Otherwise, business and industrial affairs might be complicated by government intervention, a type of interference that had been proven to be detrimental to the proper workings of a free market economy.
This is not to say that Jefferson believed that absolutely no regulations should be applied to economic matters. The States, if they felt it was necessary, may apply laws constitutionally. Jefferson’s views were a combination of laissez faire, and localism. While the federal government must not interfere with the economy in any way, shape, or form, unless it was concerning external aspects of the issue (such as trade with other countries), or to act as a mediator in disputes between the States, the States retained all authorities regarding laws or regulations related to their internal prosperity.
Jefferson argued that if individuals were incentivized to serve their own personal interests, society as a whole would ultimately benefit. Laissez Faire economics encourages self-responsibility, innovation, competition, and a natural self-correcting series of economic cycles that provides increased opportunities for stability in the system, as opposed to the boom-bust cycles that exist in a centrally planned economy.
“Determine never to be idle. No person will have occasion to complain of the want of time, who never loses any. It is wonderful how much may be done, if we are always doing.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Martha Jefferson, 1787
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
* Excerpt from A Promise of Truth Self-Evident: Part I – Early American History (A Promise of Truth Self-Evident, A History of the United States) by Douglas V. Gibbs