A Question of Allegiance: What Do My Opponent's Own Words Tell Us?
When voters choose a state senator, they are choosing someone who will take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of South Dakota. That is a serious obligation, and voters deserve to understand what it means.
What does it mean to swear an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of South Dakota?
Today, I want to explore that question that I believe District 27 voters should consider prior to heading to the polls to vote, and I want to put that question directly to one of my opponents, Celestine Stadnick.
Article III, Section 8, of the South Dakota Constitution establishes the oath required of legislators and addresses the consequences of falsely swearing to or violating that oath.
The relevant portion of the oath states:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of South Dakota, and will faithfully discharge the duties of (senator, representative or officer) according to the best of my abilities…”
The full text of the oath can be found here: https://sdlegislature.gov/Constitution/3-8
The same section provides that a legislator convicted of having sworn falsely to or violated the oath forfeits the office and is disqualified from holding certain legislative and other offices. This is not a matter to take lightly. The constitutional provision establishes a standard of public service and accountability that every legislator must respect.
So what should voters consider when evaluating a candidate’s own public statements about the United States and its government?
Stadnick has publicly acknowledged her Swiss background. In a social media video, she stated:
“My mom is Swiss. I grew up in Switzerland. That’s why I have an accent sometimes. Uhm, It’s rez-y. I’m Swiss.”
She has also posted on August 29, 2021, about working at a bar in Switzerland and teaching seventh- and eighth-grade students there. In a September 16, 2020, post, she described teaching students about colonialism and genocide, including the Battle of the Little Bighorn and the death of General Custer. She expressed frustration that students in the United States do not learn about these events in a way that conveys what she considers the injustice of American history.
These posts document her substantial personal and professional connections to Switzerland and provide insight into her views on American history. The only question that remains that I have not been able to independently verify whether my opponent currently holds Swiss citizenship or a Swiss passport. However, it is not uncommon to have dual citizenship by descent, meaning children born abroad to a Swiss parent may acquire citizenship if registered before age 22. Stadnick admits in her social media posts that she is Swiss and was raised in Switzerland, born of a Swiss mother. Therefore, one could infer that she has dual citizenship, which calls into question her political allegiance to the United States.
What concerns me even more are her own public statements about the United States and the political system in which she now seeks to serve.
Stadnick has made a number of public statements that raise important questions about her view of the country whose Constitution she would be required to support if elected.
On July 4, 2021, Stadnick shared a "Fun Fact" on social media that:
Rez people don't care about "[I]ndependence [D]ay."
On July 3, 2026, on her campaign social media page, Stadnick reminded Americans while carrying a banner at a Fourth of July parade in Rapid City:
"You are on NATIVE LAND."
Yet again, on August 14, 2026, Stadnick's perception of America is revealed in another social media post:
"The truth is that the Native American population in so-called America is growing at a fast rate."
Then, on August 29, 2026, my opponent wrote on social media:
“We live in a made up nation and we don't owe the so-called United States of America anything.”
On that same post, she also wrote that she did not want to be involved in politics because she did not want to be part of
“that colonial construct that put us on reservations and took everything from us.”
Yet she is running for a seat in the South Dakota State Senate—an office within the very political system she describes in those terms.
In an earlier post on social media, she wrote,
"I don't like leaving the rez."
How does she reconcile these statements with her decision to seek public office? Is she prepared to go to Pierre, work within our constitutional system, uphold the oath required of every state senator, and represent all the people of District 27?
Her public statements continued on September 2, 2026, when she spoke in downtown Rapid City. According to the recording, she stated:
“Republicans have done nothing for my people. They are colonizers…and I stand here today because this is where it ends. The red revolution has begun.”
Finally, on June 8, 2026, she posted this statement:
“I will fight for you my people.”
I believe a state senator has a responsibility to serve every constituent, regardless of ancestry, political affiliation, or personal beliefs. District 27 deserves a senator who recognizes that responsibility.
These are her own words, expressed publicly, not mine. Voters can certainly disagree about the history, politics, and policies behind them. But when a candidate questions the legitimacy of the United States and says, "We don't owe the so-called United States of America anything," it is reasonable for voters to ask how those statements align with the constitutional oath required of a state senator.
Stadnick has also shared a post describing Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the “American Gestapo,” and she has publicly supported New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, highlighting claims about his policy accomplishments. Voters can evaluate those positions for themselves by reviewing Stadnick's posts below.
Stadnick continued to post on social media on July 22, 2026, revealing her true colors in support of arresting Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu for war crimes by posting a pro-Palestinian emoji behind her statement. It would not surprise me in the least if Stadnick has chanted, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
On another Facebook post, Stadnick claims Zohran is part of the 7th Generation and will restore balance on this earth. The truth is these Sharia Law-loving pro-Palestinian supporters will cannibalize the Democratic Socialists after they merge forces because the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic terrorist organizations don't care what Stadnick and other Democratic Socialists desire. The pro-Palestinian supporters are simply using the Democratic Socialist Party of America as a shell to gain power.
Ultimately, this comes back to the constitutional oath.
A state senator must swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of South Dakota and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.
How does she reconcile her public statements about America with the constitutional obligations she would assume if elected?
To be clear, public statements alone do not establish that a candidate has violated an oath she has not yet taken. Nor does the Constitution provide for automatic removal based merely on disagreement with a candidate’s political views. Article III, Section 8, specifies consequences for a legislator convicted of swearing falsely to, or violating, the oath. That distinction matters, just as the oath itself matters. However, this would not be the first time Stadnick has lied under oath.
Stadnick committed perjury when she filed her own petition to run for office when she lied about her own voter registration address. Her own attorney in the courtroom said, "The candidate lied under oath," by misrepresenting her own voter registration address on the petition she filed with the Office of the Secretary of State (See Sixth Circuit Court Case Hearing Transcript, Page 68, Line 20: Case # 32CIV26-000124, Kathol v. Johnson, et. al., May 14, 2026).
My questions for District 27 voters are straightforward: How does Stadnick reconcile her statement that we owe the United States nothing with the obligation she would assume to support the United States Constitution? What does she mean when she describes the country as a “made up nation” and says all members of the Republican Party are colonizers? And has she clearly explained how those views fit with the duties of a South Dakota state senator?
These are fair questions about constitutional responsibility, public service, accountability, and allegiance to one's country.
Her own statements about the United States and the political system raise questions that voters are entitled to consider. I encourage District 27 voters to consider the record, ask questions, and decide whether a candidate’s words and actions demonstrate the judgment and commitment required for public office.
By contrast, I believe public office is a responsibility, not a platform for rhetoric without accountability. A state senator must be prepared to uphold the Constitution, faithfully perform the duties of the office, and answer to the people who elected them. District 27 deserves leadership grounded in faith, service, accountability, and respect for the Constitution.
Vote for freedom. Vote for constitutional accountability. Vote for Anthony Kathol for District 27 State Senate.
May God bless the United States of America, and may God bless the great state of South Dakota!
Comments