Political Pistachio
A reader asked: I would like to have information on where to find in the constitution that dual citizenship is not accepted or illegal.
How I responded:
The place in the constitution that disallows the United States recognizing dual citizenship is the 14th Amendment, Citizenship Clause. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is language the authors, Senators Trumbull and Howard used meaning “full jurisdiction,” or “full allegiance,” as they testified before Congress while the clause was being debated on the floor. The influence of that language, they explained, was the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which indicated to be a citizen one must not be subject to any foreign power.
Both senators consistently connected jurisdiction with allegiance. Senator Trumbull used the phrase “subject to our jurisdiction” as meaning “owing allegiance solely to the United States” during the Citizenship Clause debate
Four Citations:
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, page 2891 (1866).
https://restorefirstprinciples.substack.com/p/before-the-supremes-rule-on-birthright
Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/judge-ho-original-intent-and-the-citizenship-clause
Added Note:
As the Birthright Citizenship Case works its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, we need to keep in mind what I just provided. A child is unable to decide their own allegiance, so an illegal alien’s child’s allegiance will be based on that of their parents’ allegiance. If they are illegal aliens, they have rejected having any respect for our laws. Because they did not participate in the immigration process to establish legal residency or citizenship in the United States, they remain connected to the country they came from. Therefore, they are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and neither are their children even if born on American soil. If the Supreme Court of the United States were to rule in line with the Constitution, they will rule in favor of President Trump’s Executive Order (January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”). The purpose of executive orders are to execute federal law, and the federal law Trump’s EO is executing is the Civil Rights Act of 1866, of which is supported by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the United States Constitution which was later ratified in 1868.
| ALERT:Be a sponsor or advertiser (contact me at constitutionspeaker@yahoo.com to discuss terms) Donate (https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/douglasvgibbs) Become a $9 per month Patron Member at my website (https://www.douglasvgibbs.com/membership-account/membership-levels/) Purchase my books! Scroll down to the list and all of the links at www.navigation2liberty.com Saturday Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs”Mr. Constitution” Constitution Radio: With Doug, Alan and Dennis – KMET 1490 AM, Saturday 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm Pacific http://www.kmet1490am.com |
![]() ![]() |
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Democrat Eric Swallwell first landed on my radar back in 2018 when during his campaign he explicitly called for the confiscation of certain firearms. Then, May 23, 2019, he formally introduced the “Freedom from Assault Weapons Act.” His politics appalled me.
On May 3, 2018, he not only called for banning assault weapons in an op-ed he authored in USA Today, but he called for government to target and arrest resisters.
Then, in April of 2019 during his presidential bid, Swalwell told reporters he wanted an “assault weapon” buy back to take 15 million guns, demanding that it should be a mandatory policy.
Meanwhile, he was also doing something else very appalling. According to testimony by Lonna Drewes (and a long list of other women), Congressman Swalwell was committing violent sexual assaults on women which became public knowledge in April of 2026. He has lectured the world about morality, the best example being when he called for us to “believe women” when Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearing was being attacked with accusations of sexual misconduct, yet Swalwell himself is an egregious violator who preyed on women while they were too intoxicated to consent.
Swalwell has denied all of it, claiming the accusations against them are politically motivated attacks. Nonetheless, the accusations have chased away his endorsements and Swalwell has not only resigned from Congress, but has dropped out of the California gubernatorial race as a result.
Swalwell emerged from obscurity from being a city council member in California’s bay area to a top guy in the California Democratic Party. They created him. They launched him up the ladder. And they did so well knowing that he was a creep.
Longtime East Bay journalist Steven Tavares stated on April 12: “I’ve covered Eric Swalwell since he was a member of the Dublin City Council. Shortly after being elected to Congress in 2013, his behavior towards women was known by all levels of our local government and the Alameda County Democratic Party.”
The Political Washington Establishment was well aware of Swalwell’s behavior, but pushed him onto a pedestal anyway, even though Sacramento insiders were whispering about his behavior. Power was more important than his bad behavior. So, Swalwell was showered with endorsements and soft coverage. Nancy Pelosi tucked him under her wing. Then, Swalwell decided he wanted to be Governor of California, but didn’t get the green light from the party elite, so he became a target.
The problem is that in California’s jungle primary, especially considering that two Republicans lead the polls at the moment, Swalwell’s presence in the race would split the Democratic Party’s vote. California’s supermajority could be in danger if a member of the GOP somehow found their way into the governor’s mansion.
The hive-mind of the Democratic Party adjusted. The donors, after departing from Swalwell, simply moved on to the next target. They are there for the machine, not Swalwell. It’s a political version of The Borg – each politician is a disposable part, and the scandal disappears when they disappear. Next body up – no matter who it is. Adjustments will be made.
How many others are ready to be targeted? How many names are inside the blackmail files? Is this only the beginning? Will the fall of Swalwell launch the fall of other dominoes? Or will the Democrats do what they always do… sweep it under the rug, blame their opposition, and somehow induce amnesia among the voters?
They think they are untouchable, but they’ve never come across someone like Donald Trump before. He knows what they are doing, what they are up to, and what they plan to commit in the future. He sees the trail of dominoes, and President Donald Trump is prepared to get the chain reaction going. If he has his way, they are all falling down. Each and every domino. They are lined up perfectly, and he knows how to get it all going.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
If you listen to the leftist Democrats, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are armed militias out to cause insurrection with violence and destruction – and the Biden administration aggressively prosecuted these groups for their alleged roles in the rally at Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021 that has been called an insurrection by the raging leftists. Donald J. Trump’s administration, however, has been revealing Biden’s Justice Department’s bias against supporters of President Donald Trump. So, Trump’s people are taking strides to reverse the impact of Biden’s attacks against organizations the Democrats claim were subversives behind the “January 6 Insurrection.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit listened to Trump’s DOJ ask for a clearing of the convictions of former Proud Boys leaders Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola. The filing comes after President Trump commuted their sentences on January 20, 2025, reducing their punishment to time served, stopping just short of issuing full pardons.
Trump’s DOJ is seeking to eliminate the convictions, themselves. The whole January 6 thing was an entrapment operation, designed to create the illusion of a violent insurrection by the Left’s opposition because a real one was not forming. The court has not yet finalized action on the request. The motions are pending.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
When Minnesota’s fraud came to light, and the “Quality Learing Center” became a symbol of that fraud, America was watching and it proved to be very damaging to the Democrats. Then, independent journalist Nick Shirley turned his attention to California – and what is being discovered makes Minnesota’s fraud look like small potatoes.
Dr. Mehmet Oz sounded the alarm regarding rampant Medicare fraud in California’s hospice system last January, and while the mainstream media ignored it, Nick Shirley made a trip to California to start asking questions. In California, billions of dollars have been scammed from U.S. taxpayers, with a report showing that $200 million was lost due to fraud in 2023 alone. Nearly 500 hospice company offices claim to be registered within a three-mile stretch of Los Angeles according to one analysis, As we dig deeper into California’s fraud, the Democrats have been pushing back.
Democratic legislators in California blames citizen journalists like Nick Shirley, so rather than own up to the waste and corruption, California has decided to target those trying to expose the fraud. The new state law could see individuals like Nick Shirley subject to a $10,000 fine and imprisonment for trying to uncover the truth. AB-2624 claims to protect immigrants, but it criminalizes investigative journalism with fines, imprisonment, and a takedown of the content in question.
The law is a violation of our natural rights of Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech, and shields taxpayer funded organizations from public scrutiny. It uses intimidation to protect waste and fraud committed by far-left allies. Republican Carl DeMaio calls AB-2624 the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” DeMaio said of the bill, “the message is clear to every journalist in California: expose corruption and you will be punished.”
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary




Religious Freedom versus those who Manufacture Crisis and Intolerance
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Our current culture, or at least the TDS segment, reminds me of a few Bible Verses.
Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
2 Timothy 3:1-9 – “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith. But they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.”
Deception is the tool of the opposition. They likely view what I am writing here as a threat. This article represents an acknowledgement of how far in the wrong direction our world – and America – has gone. A meme I saw recently I think spelled out how I feel quite clearly.
Secular Person: I want to do X.
Christian: You’re free to do it.
Secular Person: But you think X is wrong.
Christian: Yes.
Secular Person: Because you want to control me.
Christian: No. You’re free to do whatever you wish.
Secular Person: But you think X is wrong.
Christian: Yes, but only because I want what’s best for you.
Secular Person: But I want to do X.
Christian: You are free to do it.
Secular Person: But I want you to say that X is good and celebrate it.
Christian: I can’t say that or do that.
Secular Person: Why are you such a hateful, intolerant bigot?
We live in a polarized political and cultural landscape, and as we journey through this modern obstacle course of moral plurality, a striking pattern has emerged. Those who claim they are seeking freedom from what a Christian would call a moral life are tossing around accusations of Christian intolerance and even false accusations that Christians seek a theocracy (Christian Nationalism). However, the accusations often outpace actual evidence of such behavior or political ambitions.
The progressive left and purveyors of what has become known as WOKE politics follows a fascinating dynamic. Mere disagreement has been recast as oppression, and the refusal to celebrate certain behaviors becomes evidence of “hate.” This phenomenon represents not a genuine concern for justice as the social justice warriors claim, but rather a strategic narrative designed to marginalize traditional religious voices.
The core of this false narrative rests on a fundamental mischaracterization of Christian belief. Traditional Christian teaching on sexuality doesn’t stem from a desire to control others’ behaviors, but from deeply held theological convictions about human flourishing and moral order. When Christians express that certain behaviors are contrary to their faith, they’re exercising religious freedom – not imposing their will on others.
The meme illustrates this perfectly: the Christian consistently affirms the secular person’s freedom to act according to their conscience while maintaining their own moral position. Yet this principled stance is twisted into accusations of bigotry. The demand isn’t for tolerance but for validation – a requirement that Christians abandon their convictions to affirm behaviors they believe contrary to their faith.
Despite the false narrative of widespread Christian oppression of LGBTQ people, actual documented cases remain relatively rare in Western societies. What we do see are:
These actions represent the free exercise of religion, not persecution of others. The conflation of disagreement with oppression represents a dangerous erosion of genuine tolerance.
The real persecution is that Christians are under attack globally. While secular Western discourse focuses on creating manufactured grievances about Christian “intolerance,” actual persecution of Christians continues worldwide at alarming rates. According to recent reports:
The contrast is stark: while Western progressives manufacture narratives about Christian oppression, actual Christians face violence, imprisonment, and death simply for their faith in many parts of the world.
This selective outrage reveals a profound double standard. When Christians express traditional views, they’re labeled as hateful bigots. When Christians face actual violence and persecution, the silence is often deafening. The public discourse disproportionately focuses on manufactured controversies about Christian “intolerance” rather than addressing actual religious persecution worldwide.
Why this focus on manufactured grievances? The answer stems from fear of disapproval, and it is an attempt to be strategic. By framing traditional religious beliefs as inherently oppressive, progressive activists can:
The strategy proves particularly effective in an era of social media outrage cycles, where nuance dies and accusations spread faster than truth.
So what is the path forward? Can this be turned around?
I tell my listeners and readers all the time that politics is downstream from the culture (a phrase I learned from Andrew Breitbart). How can we get our political and cultural house in order if we can’t get our churches’ house in order? The solution is not for Christians to compromise and abandon their convictions, but for society to reclaim a proper understanding of true liberty. The Constitution and our Natural Rights are about freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to lodge complaints about the government, and – yes – freedom of religion. True tolerance means allowing people to hold and express different beliefs without coercion. It means accepting disagreement without labeling it hate.
Christians can maintain their convictions while respecting others’ freedom to differ. The problem arises when one side demands not just tolerance but validation – when disagreement itself becomes unacceptable.
As we navigate these cultural debates, we must distinguish between actual persecution and manufactured grievances. We must challenge narratives that mischaracterize religious conviction as oppression. And we must maintain space for genuine disagreement, and utilize civil discourse in a reasonable manner, in our modern society.
The alternative is a world where only one set of beliefs is permissible – not because it has won the argument, but because it has successfully silenced all opposition through false accusations of intolerance… and that represents the very kind of tyranny the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to defeat and disallow in America.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary