Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If Trump was a King he would:
Not have allowed the “No Kings” rally to occur in the first place.
Increase regulations against the business sector rather than reduce them as he has been doing. By the way, the Democrats believe in increasing regulations against the business sector, while also using progressive taxation to tax them into extinction. You know, like communism did in the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, Cuba and the list goes on and on and on.
Suspend the First Amendment’s principle of Free Speech. You know, like the Democrats and their allies have done on College Campuses, Social Media, and pretty much everywhere else they could cancel speech that disagrees with their narrative by calling it misinformation and disinformation.
Suspend the First Amendment’s principle of Free Press by shutting down all of the leftwing media with a wave of his scepter. You know, forcing the media to report the way he wants like the Democrats and their allies have done by infiltrating and taking over most of the mainstream media with their hard left journalists and opinion pundits who report their ideology like it isn’t fake news.
Weaponize the IRS to target his political enemies. You know, like the Obama administration did when conservative groups applying for non-profit status were flagged and delayed.
Force schools to teach ideologically-tilted lessons. You know, like Biden did when he threatened to cut off school lunch funding if school districts did not adopt a gender dysphoria indoctrination curriculum.
Mandate vaccinations. You know, like Biden and his accomplices tried to do during the COVID scamdemic – where Americans were forced to decide to obey or lose their jobs in many cases, some of those as members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were forced out of service and cadets expelled for refusing the shot. According to Military News, the Army ended the military pay and benefits for more than 60,000 National Guard and Reserve Soldiers who refused the COVID-19 shot, an authoritarian action that affected more than the servicemember – it affected their families.
Use intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents. You know, like the Democrats did when the FBI surveilled Trump’s campaign under questionable pretenses during the 2016 election.
Pack the Supreme Court with loyal ideologues. You know, like the Democrats have threatened to do every time a ruling doesn’t go their way, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to do during his presidency, and like the leftist Hamiltonian Federalist Party actually did during the Midnight Judges scandal.
Use drones to kill Americans who don’t agree with him – without trial, without due process. You know, like Obama did in 2011 when his administration authorized a drone strike that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, in Yemen. Weeks later, another strike killed his 16-year-old son. Citizens. No charges. No courtroom. Just executive power and a missile.
Use the government to buy out companies. You know, like Obama did with General Motors.
Use the government to control banking, regulate lenders, and dictate financial behiavior in the name of protecting consumers. You know, like Obama did with the Dodd-Frank Act, which gave federal agencies sweeping power over banks and mortgage to combat so-called “predatory lending.”
Use law to dictate private industries and force your participation. You know, like Obama ddi with the Affordable Care Act, which compelled individuals to buy insurance and pressured businesses to comply or face harsh penalties.
House detained illegal aliens tightly in cages (including children). You know, like Obama did.
Raise taxes to give the government more power to spend and redistribute wealth in a communist manner. You know, like the Democrats have.
Declare climate emergencies to bypass Congress. You know, like the Democrats and their internationalist leftist allies have to push through radical authoritarian environmental policies without legislative approval.
Ban gas-powered cars and stoves. You know, like progressive states and cities have started doing in the name of climate justice – regardless of cost or practicality (and we can throw incandescent light bulbs and a whole list of other products on that list, too).
Use executive orders to erase borders to win elections and create chaos so that more federal government involvement in local communities is required to control the situation – and then proclaim that police need to be defunded which creates even more need for federal influence. You know, like Biden did when he reversed Trump-era immigration policies and created a humanitarian crisis at the southern border and in each of our cities.
Force banks to report your transactions over $600. You know, like the Biden administration proposed to monitor Americans’ financial activity under the guise of catching tax cheats.
Redefine words to fit his agenda. You know, like the left did when they changed the definition of “recession” during economic downturns to avoid bad press.
Use the DOJ to prosecute political rivals over things that are not even a crime. You know, like the Democrats did with their lawfare campaign against Trump and his allies where investigations were more about the accusation than any actual criminal activity – and then make sure they had their judges in place to hammer home the verdicts.
Push for digital IDs and centralized currency for more authoritarian control over people’s lives. You know, like globalist Democrats have floated to increase surveillance and control over personal finances.
Use the FBI and civilian agitators to infiltrate opposition rallies, provoke chaos, and fabricate an image of insurrection – then unleash federal officers to hunt down anyone nearby, even passive onlookers. You know, like the Democrats did on January 6, 2021 when they deployed 274 FBI assets, Antifa operatives, and the Capitol Police to ignite a staged riot at the Capitol, even before those who watched Trump speak at The Ellipse even arrived.
… I’m sure you can think of more, if you tried.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Adelita Grijalva won a special election on September 23, 2025 for Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, succeeding her late father Raul Grijalva. She, like her father, is a hard-core leftist Democrat, and so far Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has refused to swear her in. The battle has drawn attention, and has led to Arizona suing Speaker Mike Johnson over it. The lawsuit is no surprise since the Arizona attorney general has been threatening legal action all along. The optics for Republicans look very partisan, and their reasons for not seating Grijalva politically motivated. House Speaker Mike Johnson states that the oath will be administered when the House resumes full legislative business and at the moment their efforts are centered around resolving the current government shutdown. The lawsuit, Grivalva v. Johnson, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and is more of a scare tactic than anything, with the hopes that a lower federal court will force Congress to act.
For me, the issue in play here is that if the courts were to remain consistent with past cases, they will dismiss the case using the “political question” argument which disallows courts from intervening in matters involving Congress due to the separation of powers concept. Cases in which the “political question” angle has been used by the federal courts in conjunction with the separation of powers doctrine to both limit and justify congressional actions leading to a dismissal of the case includes:
- Seila v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
- Constitution Association v. Kamala Devi Harris (2020)
- Zubik v. Burwell (2016)
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
- Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
If the federal courts do not use the political question argument to dismiss this case, and instead rule that Speaker Johnson is in violation of the Constitution or some law on the books the courts would be in violation of past precedent set by the federal court system and would also violate the fact that in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution each House of Congress is tasked with being its own judge of election, returns, and qualifications of its own members and may determine its own rules of its proceedings. In short, regardless of what the courts want to say, Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority in the House of Representatives is fully constitutionally authorized to hold off Grijalva being seated. Granted, I don’t see the reasoning behind it, and I don’t fully agree with Speaker Johnson’s action, but he is constitutionally permitted to take that action, or should I say “inaction.”
When it comes to the legal case, while I believe it should be dismissed on the grounds of “political question,” the Democrats believe they also have past Supreme Court decisions supporting their case which would disallow the House from excluding a duly elected and qualified member; one case being Powell v. McCormack (1969), which held that the House cannot use internal rules to deny or delay seating of a qualified member.
Johnson’s team could argue that the House, not the executive, the member-elect, nor the courts may decide when it is “in-session” for formal acts, a position known as the procedural sovereignty argument. It’s not a case of denying credentials; it’s a case of waiting until things are back in action once the government shutdown is over.
Having not been sworn in, yet, Grijalva cannot officially perform many of the functions of a sitting U.S. Representative: staffing, constituent services, voting, or moving into her congressional office. Granted, since the House of Representatives is in a pro-forma session (in session, but without enough members present to fulfill the quorum requirement, a condition allowed by the first paragraph of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, she would not be able to vote anyway. However, as she has stated in interviews, by not being seated she is more like a tourist in Washington D.C. at the moment.
As a constitutional originalist (of which I am before I am a Republican) and a lifelong Republican, I normally stand shoulder to shoulder with my GOP brethren, especially since the establishment RINOs have been on the run thanks to the appearance of President Donald Trump on the scene. But, I am not so sure in this case. I fully agree that Speaker Johnson’s delay in swearing in Adelita Grijalva has nothing to do with the Epstein files controversy as the Democrats have been arguing. However, agreement on motive or the fact that he can constitutionally does not translate to historical justification or my opinion that in the end it accomplishes nothing.
The reality is that in the past, including newly elected Republicans, the swearing in has been quick, even during pro-forma sessions. I get it, at the moment the Republican majority is slim. Currently there are 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats with four vacancies and the minimum needed to pass many pieces of legislation is 218 seats which means the GOP needs all hands on deck and no more than one defection if they are to pass legislation when no Democrat is willing to cross the aisle on a vote. With such a narrow margin and the need for near-unanimous support from its members, even one more Democratic vote can shift what procedural maneuvers are possible, such as collecting signatures for discharge petitions or forcing certain floor actions.
Johnson has argued that in past situations members were sworn in on scheduled days when the House was called into session, characterizing Grijalva’s case as being different because the House is “out of session” due to the government shutdown. Except, the House is not out of session, it is in pro-forma session. Johnson argues that until they are in full session they don’t have to seat Grijalva and he states that historical precedent is on his side… even though it’s not.
To research the history that Johnson claims is on his side, I first went to the first six presidencies, known as the Founding Father Presidencies.
- George Washington (1789-1797): The First Congress in 1789 seated members as soon as they arrived with proper credentials. Some arrived late due to travel delays, and the Clerk administered the oath individually upon arrival, not waiting for a future “full session.” There were no cases of a qualified member being kept from being sworn in.
- John Adams (1797-1801): The Fifth Congress in 1797 swore in replacements from special elections as soon as their credentials reached the House, according to the Annals of Congress, 5th Congress. Records show that members were sworn on the same day credentials were presented.
- Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809): the Seventh Congress in 1801 also followed the immediate-swearing in precedent. Matthew Lyons of Vermont was reelected while in jail, a victim of the Sedition Act for speaking out against John Adams, but once released from jail, even though the election hung in the balance on the floor of the House of Representatives, he was sworn in at once despite his imprisonment controversy; demonstrating the House prioritized representation of constituents over politics. No delays based on recesses or political disputes approaching or during Jefferson’s presidency appears in the records.
- James Madison (1809-1817): During the War of 1812 the reality of travel delays saw that members often arrived days or weeks after the start of session. Each time, the Clerk administered the oath upon their arrival; even when the House was not in “regular session.” No instance of postponing a qualified member’s swearing-in until full session exists in any of the records.
- James Monroe (1817-1825): During Monroe’s presidency there were several special elections and with each new member the swearing-in was given immediately upon arrival according to the Annals of Congress.
- John Quincy Adams (1825-1829): The pattern continued. Once the member arrived and credentials were presented, the Clerk administered the oath. The only delays occurred when an election was contested, not when the seat was vacant for administrative or political reasons.
The conclusion is that with every Founding Father presidency there were no delays for political reasons, giving no historical precedent for Johnson’s action.
What about since the Founding Era?
In 1794, Albert Gallatin of Pennsylvania was excluded because he had not met the requirement in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution regarding citizenship duration. In 1807, John Smith of Ohio was refused to be seated due to allegations of aiding Aaron Burr in his alleged treasonous activities – of which were later dismissed. During the late 1800s there were dozens of disputed elections which led to delays, but none of them for purely political reasons or the argument that the House was not in full session.
A part of the problem is refusing to seat Grijalva actually accomplishes nothing. She can’t vote until they are in full session, anyway. But it does keep her from being able to get her congressional things in order, i.e. staffing, getting into her office, and so forth.
Yes, technically the House controls its own proceedings, and yes the courts have no business dictating to either House of Congress how to handle their own proceedings (which gets us back to that “political question” argument). But, the truth is that, as much as I respect Speaker Johnson and the difficult position he faces during a government shutdown, as stated earlier I can find no historical defense for withholding the oath from a duly elected, certified member of the United States House of Representatives. From the Founding era through the early Republic, every historical precedent shows that once credentials are verified and the election uncontested, the House has a duty to seat the member immediately. The Founders did not design a Congress where political timing or convenience could override the people’s right to representation in the House of Representatives. Yes, technically from a constitutional point of view Johnson “can” refuse to administer the oath to Grijalva at this junction, but that doesn’t mean he “should.”
Even if Johnson’s intention is procedural, the result is that the voters of Arizona’s 7th District are, for now, voiceless in the people’s chamber. That should trouble all of us who believe in constitutional fidelity over party expedience. In the end, while the lawsuit against Johnson should be dismissed, and he should have seated Adelita Grijalva in the first place, I have a feeling this situation won’t be over until the Democrats give in on the government shutdown.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The leftist judges in the Federal Court System have forgotten that Lady Justice wears a blind-fold. Ideology, personal opinion and outside influences are not allowed when it comes to our legal system – only the law matters. But, when it comes to the progressive far-left Deep State, the law and the truth doesn’t matter. Only their hard-left narrative, and pretty much acting in any manner they can that is against President Trump. Therefore, when it came to the indictment of John Bolton, of course the deep state’s judicial arm flexed its muscles. The judge tapped to oversee Bolton’s criminal case is none other than Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee with a track record of torpedoing Trump-era policies and rubber-stamping the radical left’s agenda.
You know Judge Chuang… perhaps not by name… but by action. He’s the judge from the first four years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House who unconstitutionally blocked the travel ban executive order that was based on existing law; McCarron-Walter Act, a statutory authority from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 and is now a part of 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a). The Executive Order banned travel from countries that sponsored terrorism, which was not only legal based on the law, but a commonsense national security measure. Then, after that, Judge Chuang turned around and struck down protections against chemical abortions during the scamdemic. He called it “protecting women’s rights.” The blood of dead babies is on his hands because of his judicial activism on steroids.
Now he’s been handed the Bolton case, where the former National Security Adviser faces 18 counts tied to classified information and a compromised email account. And MAGA Republicans and Conservative Commentators are rightly sounding the alarm.
Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee didn’t mince words. He called Chuang a “judicial hack.” Ogles is the legislator who filed Articles of Impeachment against the rogue judge months ago, pointing out Chuang’s rulings against Elon Musk, DOGE, and of course President Trump. This judge doesn’t just lean left. He leans so far left he’s practically horizontal. He is the poster child for judges operating against the Constitution, which is hardly “good behavior,” and ought to be relieved of his duties as a federal judge.
Chuang didn’t just wander and stumble into this case. He was placed there by the anti-American, anti-Trump Deep State maniacs. And if you haven’t seen his résumé, understand that it reads like a DNC donor roll… party leadership, fundraising, and a judicial philosophy that treats the Constitution like a suggestion rather than the supreme law of the land.
This case goes way beyond Bolton and the appearance of Deep State manipulation confirms it. The disturbing pattern is becoming way too consistent. We are continuously seeing a disturbing trend of unelected judges hijacking executive authority, trying to unconstitutionally micromanage Congress and the President, and rewriting national policy from the bench.
Remember, in the beginning the Found Fathers intended the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three branches. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, turned down a return to the position in 1801 because he believed it to be too weak of a position. He wrote to President John Adams that the court “lacked the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its affording due support to the national government.” John Marshall, however, unconstitutionally transformed the court into the powerful monstrosity Jay had thought it lacked the potential of becoming and now today we see the dangerous leviathan that it has become. The left back then, and today, can’t win at the ballot box, so they have infiltrated the courts and are using those courts to punish anyone who dares come against the progressive left-wing agenda; especially anyone who supports President Trump.
Will there be justice? Not under Judge Chuang. This is political theater dressed up in a robe. And the American people see right through it, as does the Trump Team. The question is will the Trump Department of Justice be able to pull off any moves to correct the situation?
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
This weekend, California Governor Gavin Newsom shut down a major artery of Southern California, Interstate 5 between San Clemente and Oceanside, for several hours during a Marine Corps event at Camp Pendleton. The reason? Live fire exercises. The same kind of exercises the Marines have conducted for decades without incident. The same kind of exercises that never required a freeway closure before.
Gavin Newsom is a hard-left progressive who hates Trump and hates American show of military strength. Knowing that, understand that the whole “shut down the freeway” idea was never about safety. It was about optics. And the optics are ugly.
The Marine Corps had already stated publicly that no highways would be closed. They didn’t request it. They didn’t need it. But Newsom’s office, citing “extreme life safety risk” and “distraction to drivers,” overrode that. Apparently, the sound of Marines doing their job is now considered a public hazard.
This is the same Camp Pendleton that has trained warriors for every major conflict of the last century. Established in 1942 the Marine Corps Base in Southern California has been on the front lines in training U.S. Marines from the Pacific Theater in World War II to Vietnam, and Kuwait to the present. During the last eighty-plus years United States Marines have deployed from Camp Pendleton’s California shores to defend liberty. But on the 250th anniversary of the Corps, the message from Sacramento was: “We don’t trust you.”
Vice President JD Vance, himself a Marine veteran, attended the event. He didn’t comment on the closure because he was busy honoring the men and women who serve. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was there too. But the real fireworks weren’t on Red Beach. They were in Newsom’s press release.
Calling the celebration an “absurd show of force,” Newsom accused President Trump of using the military to “intimidate people” he disagrees with. That’s rich, coming from a governor whose own party has spent years undermining law enforcement, defying federal immigration law, and tolerating violent protests in the name of “social justice.”
Saturday’s event coincided with the second wave of “No Kings” protests, an erroneously named anti-Trump movement that conveniently paints any display of strength as tyranny. So when Marines fire live rounds in a controlled exercise, it’s “chaos.” But when masked agitators block freeways and torch businesses, it’s somehow an American thing to do.
Let’s talk Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections and execute federal law. Article II gives the President the authority to execute those laws. The National Guard (and our U.S. Military) is not a rogue force. It’s a constitutional tool. And when cities burn, it’s not “intimidation” to restore order. It’s duty.
Newsom’s decision to shut down I-5 wasn’t about protecting drivers. It was about protecting a narrative: that the military (he includes the National Guard in his assessment) is dangerous, untrustworthy, and that it is being politically weaponized by Donald Trump. That’s the story the left needs people to believe if they’re going to sell the idea that Trump is some kind of dictator for using the Guard to constitutionally execute the law.
I truth, the military isn’t the threat. The threat is the erosion of trust in the very institutions that defend us. When governors treat Marines like liabilities, and freeway closures like political statements, we’ve crossed a line.
The Marine Corps didn’t ask for this drama. They asked for respect. And on their 250th birthday, they deserved better.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
As the Supreme Court’s upcoming redistricting decision may reshape the electoral map if the justices rule that maps based on race violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, there are other reasons that the 2026 Midterm Elections may create a political earthquake in the United States.
Historically, the opposition party tends to win midterm elections. It’s a pattern that reaches back a couple centuries. But, I believe it is very possible that 2026 will break that mold. Why? Because Donald Trump isn’t just holding the line, his presidency has been flipping the script.
The economy is roaring back. Prices are dropping. He just convinced the Middle East to reduce their oil prices. American industry is rising from the ashes. We’re seeing the early stages of a manufacturing renaissance that is poised to create real jobs, real wages, and real investment in the American worker. And then there’s the unthinkable: a peace deal between Israel and Hamas. Even Democrats who can’t stand Trump are admitting that what President Trump pulled off was nothing short of a diplomatic miracle.
But it doesn’t stop there.
Dominion Voting Systems has been purchased by a conservative Republican in a deal by founder and chairman of Liberty Vote, Scott Leiendecker. The lawsuits against conservatives are fading; a condition of the deal. Remember, this is the same company that went after Fox News and scored a huge settlement in a case that also led to the firing of Tucker Carlson. Dominion also launched a $1.3 billion case against Mike Lindell, accusing him of spreading false claims about the company’s role during that 2020 presidential election. The company also filed a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit against Sidney Powell, and another against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. All of those lawsuits are being dropped by Dominion Voting Systems as a part of the acquisition agreement. Under the new leadership the plan is to move all operations entirely into the United States, and implementing third-party auditing standards. In a press release Leiendecker stated, “Liberty Vote is committed to delivering election technology that prioritizes paper-based transparency, security, and simplicity so that voters can be assured that every ballot is filled-in accurately and fairly counted.” The hand-marked paper ballots initiative the company plans to establish aligns with President Trump’s executive order, “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.” That means the cloud of suspicion that’s hung over our elections since 2020 is beginning to lift. And with it, the alleged shenanigans that many believed compromised the integrity of the vote in 2020.
Now add to that the Trump administration’s push for voter ID, the cleanup of bloated voter rolls, and a renewed focus on election security. For the first time in decades, we may actually see elections that are truly safe and secure: not just in name, but in practice.
But there’s one more piece of the puzzle: vote by mail.
I’m not talking about absentee ballots for valid reasons. I’m talking about the mass mail-in voting systems we’ve seen in blue states, and in Oregon since 1998. These mail-in ballot systems open the door to fraud, ballot harvesting, and manipulation. Trump is working to rein that in too.
And let’s not forget the border. As Rush Limbaugh used to say, the “undocumented Democrats” (a.k.a. illegal aliens) are being deported. That means fewer non-citizens on the rolls, fewer loopholes, and more confidence in the system.
So what does all this mean?
It means the red wave in 2026 won’t just be a reaction, it’ll be a realignment. If the Supreme Court rules as expected regarding how district lines are drawn, if voter ID becomes the norm, if vote by mail is curtailed, and if the Trump agenda continues to deliver results, Republicans may not just win, they may win big. Big enough to finish the job. Big enough to govern without Democrat interference.
This isn’t just about politics. It’s about restoring the republic.
This all is tied into the future of federalism, and how the states and We the People are reclaiming our rightful place under the Constitution.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Shutdown, Medicaid and Cost of Illegal Aliens
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The government shutdown continues. Despite the media spin, it is crystal clear that the Democrats are holding out to protect healthcare benefits for illegal aliens. ABC tried to muddy the waters with a so-called “study” claiming that Medicaid spending on illegal aliens is insignificant. Once we take a closer look, it turns out that the study itself admits that data from eleven states wasn’t even available. That’s nearly a quarter of the country. And opposition researchers have pointed to more complete data from 2023 and 2024 showing that Medicaid spending on illegal immigrants has doubled since 2022.
Even if we accept ABC’s number, 0.4% of Medicaid spending, that still amounts to $3.3 billion. That’s Billion, with a “B.” And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
County hospitals across America are absorbing massive costs when illegals walk in for treatment, whether it’s for childbirth, a cold, or an earache. These aren’t insured patients. Illegal aliens don’t walk into the country and first shoot straight to the closest insurance agent to get medical insurance. We know for a fact that people not willing to follow the rules regarding how to enter this country are not going to follow any other rules, especially when it comes to health. My wife, originally born in Mexico, legally entered the country with her family as a child, and now is a naturalized citizen, tells me that the forces against America have set up billboards in Mexico telling people to come to America for free health care. They have been encouraged to take advantage of the American taxpayer. They are not paying into the system. That’s a fact. And if we then apply just a little bit of critical thinking and logic, it becomes apparent that for all of the illegal aliens walking into hospitals the taxpayers are footing 100% of the bill for their healthcare.
Let’s be honest. Most Americans are fed up. We the People are tired of watching our hard-earned dollars go to people who aren’t supposed to be here, who haven’t paid a cent in taxes, and who receive services that many citizens struggle to afford.
As for the argument the Democrats and their allies use about being against immigration if you don’t hold their water regarding illegals? My wife is an immigrant. I love immigrants. I agree that immigration is an important part of this country’s history, and a part of what makes the United States a wonderful place in the world. But as a business owner you wouldn’t just throw the door open and hire as an employee anyone who walks through the door. We know that if any business is going to be successful, one of the key components is a group of solid employees. Business owners take hiring new people very seriously. They interview people, reject people, accept people, train people, and even have a probation period to protect themselves if they screwed up and it turned out the employee was a bad choice. Should not our country be the same? We want the best and the brightest. We used to be very particular regarding who we let into the country. You had to have a sponsor, or you had to show that you are skilled in something. Upon naturalization as a citizen we still required constitutionally that the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” part of the Citizenship Clause was met by requiring new citizens to renounce their previous citizenship. From a historical perspective, we made it clear that if you were going to become a part of this country you must have no other allegiance. You were required to show that you were subject to no foreign power.
The Democratic Party has shifted on this issue. Thirty years ago the same idiots screaming for open borders were criticizing loose policies regarding the illegal alien population and with Republicans were willing to take steps to get them out of this country. Then, they realized that as conservatism was growing. The needed more loyal voters. And, as America was prospering under Donald Trump’s first term as President, their utopian dream of a bunch of equitable automatons serving the government like a bunch of mindless oxen in the field was slipping through their fingers. They came to the conclusion that they needed to find a way to create chaos, and create a system full of government-dependent cheap laborers. Obama had begun the process, but during Biden they needed to double-down on it. Slavery had vanished, and the government plantation that replaced it wasn’t being embraced by Americans like it used to. So, increased their change regarding illegal immigration, happy to throw open the border as wide as they could and tossing taxpayer money around like it was candy for children.
This shutdown isn’t just a budget standoff. It’s a moral reckoning. And it’s not a good look for the Democrats. They’re prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens. They’re holding the government hostage to protect a system that’s bleeding taxpayers dry because it is among their last ditch efforts to hold on to their power.
And come 2026, this will be remembered.
It’s yet another factor that could fuel a red wave in the midterms. Voters want accountability. They want integrity. They want a government that puts Americans first. And if the shutdown drags on, it may become the Democrats’ undoing.
And in the end, they want nothing to do with constitutional limits of federal spending or common sense limits on who walks into this country as an immigrant. The Founders never intended for Washington to become a welfare state for the world, and thanks to this latest term of President Donald J. Trump, more and more Americans are realizing the truth.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary