Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Being an American Citizen is a special thing. As a citizen of the United States one enjoys all of the privileges and immunities that are linked with citizenship (Article IV., Section 2; U.S. Constitution). If one is not a citizen of the United States, then that person would not fall under the full jurisdiction of the United States; in other words, there are some benefits, rights and advantages one might not have access to while in the country. Non-citizens in the United States, or any country, carries the reality that as a guest certain limitations and conditions apply.
The word “citizen” in the English language comes from Middle English, meaning “inhabitant of a city or town.” The Anglo-French word, citezein, means “city-dweller.” The Latin Root comes from the word civitatem (cititas), which is defined as “citizenship,” or “community of citizens,” which itself comes from civis, meaning “township” or “citizen.”
The concept of citizenship also emerged during the era of Ancient Greece. Their term, polítēs, meaning “city” or “city-state,” served as the basis for referring to someone who belonged to a polis and had the rights and responsibilities of civic life. The term did not mean residency, but was reserved to those who belonged to the community and practiced active participation in the political, legal, and military life of the city-state. In other words, with citizenship came responsibility.
The understanding of what being a citizen means in Western Europe evolved over time, capturing some of the significance of being a citizen as seen by the Ancient Greeks. By the late 14th century the definition expanded to mean a freeman or permanent inhabitant of a country, distinguishing citizens from foreigners and aliens as well as citizens from slaves and subjects. The term “citizenship” as it is spelled today was first recorded in the 1610s, referring to the status and responsibilities of a citizen.
In the Old World the common man was a subject – bound by allegiance to a monarch with little to no political agency. The Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of such a model of government and rejected it outright. They envisioned a republic where citizens were not subjects of the government, but masters of it.
A subject was subject to the demands of a monarchy, but in the United States the government became subject to the demands of the people through consent of the governed, representation, and other direct and indirect influences by We the People.
The shift was revolutionary, and seen by European elites as doomed to fail. Citizenship in America was not merely a legal status – but in line with ancient governments. Citizenship became a moral and political identity, rooted in allegiance, responsibility, and sovereignty.
Citizenship was important, but even more important was allegiance to the country as a citizen. The Founders were deeply concerned about divided loyalties, especially when one considered that some colonists, labeled as Tories and Loyalists, took arms against the Patriots with the British during the American Revolution. Therefore, to protect against divided loyalties, the Founding Fathers established a policy of allegiance with all kinds of citizenship:
- The Naturalization Act of 1790 required immigrants to renounce allegiances and affirm loyalty to the U.S. Constitution – a policy that is still in place today when it comes to naturalization.
- The Constitution mandates that the President and the Vice President be “Natural Born Citizens,” ensuring undivided allegiance at the highest levels of power.
- Members of Congress must be citizens for a set number of years, reflecting the need for assimilation and loyalty.
The understanding that divided loyalties are dangerous, and citizenship carries with it a need for loyalty, responsibility, and attention to civic duties continued during the discussions about citizenship after the War Between the States when it come to the debates that sought ensuring the newly emancipated slaves enjoyed American Citizenship, and that the language used continued the tradition of guarding against divided loyalties. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power…are citizens.”
The language in that document was deliberate. Senator Lyman Trumbull explained that the language exempting citizenship to certain groups unless they participated in the protocols and procedures for citizenship included the children of foreigners and aliens, tribal members, and foreign diplomats, ambassadors or other foreign government consuls and ministers.
The language of the Civil Rights Act was carried into the language of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
In 1866, during congressional testimony regarding the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard clarified that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant full allegiance – not mere physical presence. This was not a blanket endorsement of birthright citizenship as some might argue, but a constitutional affirmation of allegiance-based citizenship.
To the Founding Fathers, citizenship was a covenant – a mutual bond between the individual and the republic. It required:
- Allegiance to the Constitution
- Participation in civic life
- Defense of liberty against tyranny
Benjamin Franklin famously warned: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Citizenship was not just a privilege – it was a responsibility. And that responsibility demanded undivided loyalty.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines citizen as: “One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full rights.”
The definition emphasizes two key elements:
- Allegiance: A citizen owes loyalty to the governing authority.
- Rights: A citizen is entitled to full access of their natural rights within that political community.
Citizenship is not just about residency, or where one was born – it’s about political membership and undivided allegiance. It’s a reciprocal relationship: the citizen supports the republic, and the republic secures the citizen’s rights.
I bring up Black’s Law Dictionary because in the chat room of a program I co-hosted a couple Sundays ago, For the Republic on Patriots’ Soapbox, someone put “citizen = subject/slave”. When I asked what they meant, they told me to read Black’s Law Dictionary. Those who challenge the term citizenship (typically folks that support the national sovereignty concept) has told me often that the definition in that resource says that a citizen is someone “subject to the laws” of the country they are a citizen of – which makes them a subject.
No.
In fact, that is an idiotic twisting of the context to try to fit their narrative. Being subject to the laws of a country is not the same as being a “subject” in the manner as was the case in the Old World.
Citizenship in the United States is a wonderful thing, so I don’t get the questioning of it – and I especially don’t get how there are those who want to toss the privileges and immunities of citizenship in the direction of illegal aliens, a group who not only bear no allegiance nor plan to take any responsibility toward those benefits of citizenship, but broke American law in the first place just to enter the country – a move that definitely does not respect the laws of this country, does not respect the American System, and could care less about the tradition of American citizenship.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
A 90,000 square foot ballroom is in the plans at the White House, with the capability of seating about 650 people. The current ballroom is the East Room, which seats 200 people. The plan is to begin construction of the new ballroom in September 2025 which is expected to be finished long before President Donald Trump’s second term ends.
Photographic designs of the ballroom show an ornate room with gold chandeliers and arched windows using a classical architectural design. The ballroom will be separated from the main building of the White House and will be located where the East Wing currently sits.
Several donors, including Trump himself, have donated the necessary $200 million needed to build the new room, so no public monies will be used for the project.
A new wing has not been added to the White House since the construction of the East Wing in 1942. Major renovations took place in the White House from 1948 to 1952, when former President Harry S. Truman was in office.
Reactions from the Democrats, of course, have been negative. Chuck Schumer publicly questioned the funding source asking, “Where’d this money come from? Did Congress appropriate it? I don’t think so.” Apparently, like usual, he jumped before looking, reading, or paying attention. His hatred for Trump is so deep that he immediately assumed the worst. He accused the Trump administration of planning this with public money after White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt announced that the money was coming from Donald Trump and other donors. Schumer’s concern, according to leftist press outlets, stemmed from his concern about the purpose of the Department of Government Efficiency. Schumer was suggesting that the erasure of some federal funding by DOGE was for Trump’s personal use like funding the ballroom. He argued the ballroom is unnecessary, especially when it came to the aesthetics. “I’m happy to eat my cheeseburger at my desk. I don’t need a $200 million ballroom to eat it in. Ok?”
The comment was typical socialist-style rhetoric, framing it as a symbol of capitalist exploitation – Bourgeois excess – something only the elite could afford by leeching off the labor of the working class. Communists historically have always classified lavish lifestyles a decadent, selfish, and disconnected from the collective good. His attack on the aesthetic nature of the ballroom mimicked communist attitudes which considers aesthetic beauty as vulgarity, dismissing ornate architecture, fashion, and other “luxury” items as gaudy, tasteless, and unnecessary. The irony is that like his leftist predecessors in places like the Soviet Union, Schumer is just another elite who lives in quiet opulence, using luxuries while preaching austerity, enjoying perks of his political wealth that goes far beyond the average person. While obsessed with control in the name of the people, he flies in private jets, and is estimated to be worth about $7 million according to Forbes in 2025. Quite an interesting portfolio for a guy who as Senate Majority Leader makes just under $200,000 per year.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Before you believe the Democrats and their Leftist allies that President Donald J. Trump is violating the First Amendment with his policies, in particular his immigration policies, the apprehension and deportation of illegal aliens, and his quelling of the violent protests against those policies, let’s be reminded that the First Amendment includes the right to peaceably assemble – not to violently assemble. Between the violence and the attempts to interfere with federal officers to carry out their duties, let’s recognize that if anyone is violating the Constitution, it’s not President Donald Trump. And if someone is being honest in their observations, the reality is that the radical left has officially lost its mind — and its moral compass. We now live in a country where violent mobs attacking federal immigration officers are not only tolerated by the leftists in the political realm and the lamestream media, they’re celebrated. That’s right. The mainstream leftist press, the progressive Democrats, and their activist echo chamber are defending rioters who assault ICE and Border Patrol agents. They’re calling it justice. I call it treasonous insanity.
These brave men and women — federal officers enforcing the law — are being compared to the Gestapo. The Gestapo! That’s not just historically illiterate, it’s morally bankrupt. These agents are executing federal immigration law, protecting our borders, and removing dangerous criminals from our streets. And what do they get in return? Death threats. Doxing. Attacks on their families. And now, according to Joyce Vance during a segment on MSNBC, they’re kidnapping and their radical opposition has the legal authority to physically attack them. That’s incitement.
Let’s be clear: these attacks are not isolated. They’re organized. They’re escalating. President Trump recently revealed that assaults on immigration officers have surged nearly 700% compared to last year. During Independence Day weekend — the very holiday that celebrates our Union’s founding — ICE facilities in Texas and Oregon were targeted by armed protestors wearing body armor and firing automatic weapons.
It’s clear who the domestic terrorists truly are.
And what does the left say? “They’re just undocumented immigrants.” That’s like calling a drug dealer an undocumented pharmacist. Then their attempt to pull your heartstrings kicks in. “They’re doing jobs Americans won’t do.” “They’re law-abiding.” Law-abiding? They broke the law the moment they crossed the border illegally. And the agents enforcing that law are heroes, not villains.
Let me ask you something: if someone broke into your house, would you let them stay because they washed your dishes? Of course not. You’d call the cops. You’d demand justice. But when it comes to our country’s borders, the left wants to throw the doors open and punish anyone who dares to protect it. Do you throw the door open when someone knocks? Of course not. In your own home you vet who enters. “Who is it?” we all ask when someone knocks. America is our home, and the borders are our front door. A secure border is not only common sense, it is something we all practice individually at our own homes.
Trump’s immigration policies have been wildly successful. Illegal crossings are down. Criminal deportations are up. Domestic employment is rising. And the myth that Americans won’t do the jobs that illegals do? I’ve got news for you — it’s not true. That’s why as illegal aliens are being deported and those jobs are opening up, as I write this Americans are taking those jobs. My grandfather was a sharecropper who worked in the fields of California’s Central Valley. My father-in-law worked the fields as a legal immigrant before becoming a pipe welder. Americans do those jobs – some native to this country, and some legal immigrants – but the truth is there are those other than law-breakers who jump the border willing to perform those tasks. The Democrats just hate that truth because if those folks are employed, they won’t be on Welfare – and Democrats judge the success of government benefits by the number of people they can get hooked on that addiction. Meanwhile, their policies about immigration, and a lack of border security has not made America more prosperous, it has encouraged lawlessness.
The Democrats want a servant class. They’ve traded slavery for dependency. They’ve moved the plantation from cotton fields to welfare offices. They don’t want illegal immigrants in this country because they have a big heart — they want them here to serve them. And they want you to pay for it.
Rather than compassion, the Democrats are practicing corruption and control and the reality is those policies are simply killing our country.
ICE and Border Patrol are not the enemy. They are the last line of defense against chaos. And the left? They’re not just wrong — they’re dangerous – and their blatant disregard for law and order is not only dangerous, it is as unconstitutional as it gets.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
California was once the crown jewel of the American dream. Reagan Country. A land of booming industry, unmatched beauty, and boundless opportunity. People didn’t just move there — they flocked there. From every corner of the country and every continent on Earth, they came for the weather, the freedom, and the promise of economic prosperity.
I grew up in that wonderful place, and I have watched it vanish. And it didn’t vanish by accident. It was dismantled — piece by piece, policy by policy, by the progressive left and their Democratic Party machine. What was once a beacon of liberty and economic prosperity has become a cautionary tale of Marxist rot, bureaucratic bloat, and ideological insanity.
This was not a natural decline. It was engineered. Since 1975, with the exception of George Deukmejian’s brief interlude during the Reagan and Bush years, California has been under the thumb of leftist governors who’ve treated the Constitution like a relic and the free market like a threat. Pete Wilson? Schwarzenegger? Don’t kid yourself — they were no conservatives. They were small and largely compliant speed bumps on the highway to collapse.
I was born in a California beach city and raised in the Los Angeles area and the Inland Empire tucked between LA and San Diego in California. I watched it happen. I lived it. I survived it. And, I escaped it.
As a child, I was subjected to the equity-obsessed public school system that didn’t just ignore individuality — it punished it. They yanked the pencil from my left hand and forced me to write right-handed. With confused coordination and misdirection, it scrambled my development… all in the name of uniformity. That’s not education — that’s indoctrination.
And when I asked about the Constitution — the very foundation of our Republic — I was told it was flawed. Unimportant. Outdated. But I didn’t buy it. I graduated not because of my education, but in spite of it. I voted for Ronald Reagan in my first presidential election, served proudly in the United States Navy, and raised my family in the state I once loved as I marched to the day in which I would become known as a constitutionalist.
As for me being a Californian? I was one until I couldn’t anymore.
We fled. And it was the one of the best decisions of my life.
From afar, I’ve watched the decay accelerate. Education has collapsed into ideological training camps. Law and order? A distant memory. Criminals roam free while law-abiding citizens are taxed, regulated, and silenced. The cost of living is astronomical — the highest in the country for gas, food, and energy — despite California’s abundant natural resources.
Why? Because the left doesn’t believe in production. They believe in punishment. They shut down nuclear plants, destroy dams, and replace them with solar farms that can’t power a toaster. Rolling blackouts are now a feature, not a bug. The Central Valley — once the breadbasket of the world — is drying up under water mismanagement and environmental extremism.
And don’t get me started on the infrastructure. Rotting ports. Failing dams. State Highway 1 (the famous Pacific Coast Highway) is closed in certain beautiful areas due to landslides and neglect. Wildfires rage because forests are mismanaged. Reservoirs run dry while bureaucrats run wild and refuse to operate in a manner that’s best for the State and its people.
The only thriving sector? The public sector. The government class. The ones who suck the wealth out of California and blame their failures on climate change, capitalism, and conservatives.
It’s a joke. A tragic, expensive, dangerous joke.
California has become a haven for WOKE immorality, illegal aliens, and Hollywood communists. The welfare state is bloated beyond recognition. Homelessness is rampant with California possessing the largest homeless population in the United States. Crime is rising. Domestic violence is commonplace. And businesses are fleeing in droves. Corporate exile is the new gold rush — only this time, they’re rushing out.
The Democrats don’t want to fix it. They can’t fix it. They’ve built a system that rewards failure, punishes success, and silences dissent. They’ve turned paradise into a prison — and they’re proud of it.
I escaped. My family members and many of my friends have escaped. And now, all I can do is watch the collapse from a distance and warn others before it’s too late.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
According to history books the United Nations was created to establish unity and global cooperation. To institute an arena where countries could discuss their differences rather than go to war. To create peace for the world after two world wars and the rise of the Cold War.
What we are seeing from the United Nations is anything but peace. The League of Nations failed because it was a flawed model, and the United States refused to participate despite it being Woodrow Wilson’s brain child. The United Nations, the kind of global polity that the Founding Fathers warned us about during the Virginia Ratification Convention, that rose up after World War II has become, as expected, a bloated bureaucracy that claims to promote harmony, but is really just the first step toward global governance and a socialist totalitarian empire despite the fact that the whole thing was supposed to be about stopping such madness. And now, the U.N. just handed down a ruling that could ignite more conflict than any battlefield. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s top court, has declared that countries can now sue each other over climate change.
That’s right. If your country burned fossil fuels to build roads, hospitals, and freedom — you’re now liable. Liable to pay reparations to countries that didn’t industrialize, didn’t innovate, and didn’t contribute to the very prosperity they now demand a slice of. In short, it’s just another Marxist Redistribution of Wealth scheme.
This is the global warming/climate change/radical environmentalism communist playbook in full swing: guilt the productive, reward the passive, redistribute the wealth and force equality among the nations – equality in misery and the death of innovation, liberty and prosperity that is. The ICJ’s advisory opinion — which, by the way, is non-binding but carries enormous political weight — opens the floodgates for lawsuits over historic emissions. Translation? If your country prospered in the 20th century, you’re now the villain of the 21st. And when that lawsuit over a non-binding opinion hits their tainted excuse of courts, communism will be handed out faster than Boasberg and the federal inferior court gang of judges can slam Trump for anything he does.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji went so far as to say that failing to develop “the most ambitious possible plans” to tackle climate change is a breach of international law. And here’s the kicker: even if your country isn’t part of the Paris Agreement — like the United States under sane leadership — you’re still on the hook. Because now, according to the UN, climate obligations are part of “customary international law”.
Folks, this is not about the environment or anything that they claim it to be. It’s about control. It’s about global courts dictating national policy to other countries as part of an international authoritarian regime. It’s about unelected international judges in The Hague deciding how much you owe for the weather, and telling countries that their sovereignty means nothing.
And who pays? You do. The American taxpayer. The same people who already fund the lion’s share of the U.N.’s operations. If you think USAID spending was bad, wait until you’re slapped with climate reparations that make foreign aid look like pocket change. Of course, I’d expect President Donald J. Trump to tell them to take a flying leap – but what happens after Trump?
This is why the United States must leave the United Nations. Not reform it. Not negotiate with it. Leave it. Abandon the failed globalist communist scheme and take our money with us. The longer we remain associated with that bureaucratic globalistic communist anti-liberty organization, the deeper we sink into a one-world swamp where sovereignty is sacrificed on the altar of climate guilt and Marxist schemes of a redistribution of wealth become legalized international law.
The UN was supposed to promote peace. Instead, it’s promoting division among the countries and international war through lawsuits and jealousy over prosperity and innovation. It’s weaponizing weather, and it’s turning prosperity into a crime. But, then again, that’s what hard left communism does – every time.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The WNBA has officially entered the realm of economic fantasy. At their All-Star Game, players wore shirts that read “Pay us what you owe us” — a slogan that sounds more like a protest chant than a business model. The message? They want a “fair share” of league revenue. But let me tell you something, ladies: fair doesn’t mean equal. It means earned.
Let’s look at the facts. The WNBA pulls in about $200 million a year. The NBA? Try $13 billion. That’s not a rounding error — that’s a canyon. Yet WNBA players are demanding the same revenue split as NBA players — around 50%. Currently, they get 9.3%, and they’re calling that unfair.
Unfair? No. It’s reality. You don’t get paid based on what you want — you get paid based on what you generate. The NBA has decades of history, global reach, and a fan base that fills arenas and drives billion-dollar media deals. The WNBA is growing, yes — but growth doesn’t mean you’ve arrived. It means you’re on the way. And until you get there, you don’t get to rewrite the rules of economics.
This is the same tired argument we saw in women’s soccer. “Equal pay!” they shouted. But the revenue wasn’t equal. The attendance wasn’t equal. The sponsorships weren’t equal. And guess what? The expenses were equal. Stadiums don’t offer discounts because your league is smaller. Travel costs don’t shrink because your ratings are lower. You want NBA-level pay? You need NBA-level revenue.
Otherwise, you end up with a Steven Colbert situation — more money going out than coming in. That’s not empowerment. That’s insolvency.
Now, I’m all for growth. I’m all for opportunity. But you don’t build a successful league by demanding a bigger slice of a pie you haven’t baked. You build it by earning it — by driving ticket sales, merchandise, viewership, and sponsorships. And when the numbers justify it, the pay will follow.
Until then, slogans like “Pay us what you owe us” are just noise. Because in the real world, pay isn’t owed — it’s earned.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary