Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud

In the linked Michael Knowles video, he plays a clip of Elissa Slotkin (D-Commiesville) saying this about the SAVE Act: "[It will] literally allow this administration to rig Our Democracy [TM} so that it would be hard for any Democrat in any State to win any election."

Of course, this assertion is both absurd and a lie. The goal of the SAVE Act is to reduce, with an ultimate goal of eliminating, the casting of illegal ballots/votes in federal elections. But, consider the "fear" she is voicing: if illegal votes are eliminated from federal elections, then all Democrats in all States will be hard-pressed to win any elections.  Really?  Democrats in California, Washington, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, all the New  England States, Illinois, Minnesota, and down the line will be hard-pressed to win any elections if the SAVE Act is enacted.  Look, one doesn't need to be a rocket surgeon to understand what she's really saying, what her fear really is: Democrats "winning margin" may well come from illegally cast and/or illegally counted ballots.

She goes on the repeat the Dem talking-point (i.e. lie) that the SAVE Act would "disenfranchise all married women in the meantime, by the way."

Here is how you can tell that the Dems themselves don't believe that particular "talking-point" -- According to Pew Research, linked below, 50% of married women vote or "lean" Republican, but only 45% of married women vote or "lean" Democrat.  According to the internet, there are approximately 68.45 million married women living in the US. Here's the math:50% of 68.45 million is 34.225 married woman who "lean:" Republican, and 45% of 68.45 million is 30.8025 million married women who "lean" Democrat.  So, that's 3.4225 million more married women who "lean" Republican than "lean" Democrat.  

So, if the Democrats *really* believed that the SAVE Act will disenfranchise all married women, they would be supporting it. After all, from their point of view, what's not to love about the delicious irony of a Republican initiative which results a net loss of 3.4225 million Republican votes?

Michael Knowles: Democrat ADMITS Election Fraud Is How They Win

Pew Research: Partisanship by gender, sexual orientation, marital and parental status

On a recent misrepresentation of a century-old "miscegenation" case

When asked about Italians and Spaniards, Pipoly claimed they were not considered white over a century ago which caused Alito to quip, “You have a really broad definition of who’s white and who’s not white.”

Pipoly's intellectually dishonest response is rooted in a leftist misrepresentation of [and also grievance-mongering by some persons of Italian descent about] the 1922 Rollins v. Alabama "miscegenation" case from a century ago, which overturned a trial court's conviction of an interracial couple of violating Alabama's then-law against interracial marriages on the grounds that while the State had established that the woman of the couple had been born in Sicily, it had not established that she was "white". The practical effect of this decision was to make Alabama's "miscegenation" law moot, without explicitly over-turning it.

Gateway Pundit: Justice Samuel Alito Humiliates Leftist Lawyer With One Brilliant Question After He Asserts That Trump Ended TPS For Migrants For Racial Reasons

On "You Can't Legislate Morality"

Douglas Wilson: "Few statements are as vapid as 'You can't legislate morality.' As a matter of unvarnished fact, it is actually impossible to legislate anything else."

Amen.

My father was an intelligent man; I would say, a very intelligent man. But, even very intelligent people are products of their times, and tend to absorb and echo the perceived "elite consensus", same as everyone else does. My father was born in 1927, so his "time" was the last few years of the era of Prohibition and the aftermath of the repeal of Prohibition; and in that time, the "elite consensus" was very explicitly that "You can't legislate morality." (*)

Once, when I was quite young, in trying to explain to me why Prohibition turned out to be such an abject social and legal disaster, my father even said to me, "You can't legislate morality." As I recall, I was still at that young age wherein one tends to not seriously dispute one's parents pronouncements about how the world is. At the same time, even then the claim didn't sit well with me. I don't mean to imply that as a child I rejected the claim and could offer a logical and philosophical rationale for that rejection. Rather, my attitude was more, "I'll think about this when I'm older."

And, thinking about it when I was older, yet still in my teens, I came to the conclusion that, "As a matter of unvarnished fact, it is impossible to legislate anything else." That is, all prescriptive and proscriptive law is, in fact, the legislation of some morality or other. The question is never, "Shall we legislate morality?" but rather, "Which morality, how grounded, shall we legislate?"

(*) That "elite consensus", coupled with the fact that nearly everyone in our society accepted it as Gospel, is *why* all the immoral ills currently destroying our civilization were able to be inflicted upon us by our "elites".

Douglas Wilson: How to Bonk Heads With Yourself

Epstein Could Not Have Hanged Himself

This is how we can know -- without possibility of error -- that Epstein did not, and could not have, killed himself:

They -- the government officials -- reported to us that he was found hanging by the neck from the railing of the upper bunk, with his heals on the floor before him and his buttocks suspended in the air.

Allow me to repeat the key point: "with his heals on the floor before him".

THAT IS: regardless of his hypothetical dedication to murdering himself by suffocation, when the suffocation-panic set in, his BODY would have overridden his WILL, and he would have stood up and loosened the noose around his neck.

It is physiologically impossible to hang yourself to the point of suffocation and death so long as you can get your feet under yourself and your hands are free to remove the constriction to your breathing. Why do you think that suicides have to jump off a chair?

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government", with Stephen Miller

Please understand what Stephen Miller is saying in the linked video.

Well, the Constitution is clear. And, that [i.e. the Constitution] is. of course, the supreme law of the land. ... Look, a lot of it [i.e. suspending habeas corpus with respect to illegal aliens] depends on whether the courts do the right thing, or not. At the end of the day, Congress passed a body of law, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which stripped Article III courts -- that's the Judicial branch -- of jurisdiction over immigration cases.  So, Congress actually passed -- it's called 'jurisdiction stripping legislation'.  They passed a number of laws that say that the Article III courts aren't even allowed to be involved in immigration cases.  Many of you probably don't know this.  I'll give you a good example: Are you familiar with the term 'temporary protected status', or TPS, right?  So, by statute, the courts are stripped of jurisdiction from over-ruling a presidential determination, or a secretarial determination, on TPS when the Secretary of Homeland Security makes that determination. So, when Secretary Noem terminated TPS for the illegals that Biden flew into the country, when courts stepped in, they were violating explicit language that Congress had enacted saying they [i.e. Article III courts] have no jurisdiction. So, it's not just that the courts are at war with the Executive branch, the courts are at war -- these radical rogue judges -- with the Legislative branch as well, too. ...

Understand -- Article III courts are the normal courts of the federal Judiciary branch: the single superior court [i.e. so-called "THE Supreme Court" (*) ] and the various inferior courts that Congress has, from time to time, established pursuant to Article III.

Understand, what Stephen Miller is discussing here is Congress' power, under Article III, Section 2, to limit, or even strip, the jurisdiction of the federal courts (**) over all but a few specific sorts of cases as explicitly enumerated in Article III, Section 2.

Understand -- the "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government" dogma that we all were taught in high school civics class is not only a myth, but a lie, and a pernicious lie at that. The lie was invented by lawyers/judges (***) to disguise their imperialistic power-grab over the other branches, and indeed, over our very lives.

So, since the three branches of the federal government are not "co-equal", where does that leave us? It leaves us where we always were: the three branches each have explicitly enumerated powers -- and no powers not explicitly enumerated -- and the Congress is the "supreme" branch.  That the congresscritters do not want to do their jobs is another matter ... and, in the end, the fault lies with the electorate for allowing them to shirk their duty.

(*) As I have pointed out repeatedly, Article III of the US Constitution does not create "THE Supreme Court". Rather, it establishes "one supreme Court" -- one highest-level or superior court -- and as many inferior courts as Congress may decide to create.

This is the text of Article III, Section 1 (emphasis added ):

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

(**) This is the relevant text of Article III, Section 2"

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

(***) Understand -- No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system *always* eventually seek to corrupt the law to make it serve their own interests. Also remember -- judges are just lawyers who dress funny.

Tim Pool: Stephen Miller Says Trump SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING Suspending Habeas Corpus

When is a "Refugee" not a Refugee?

Isn't this odd --

1) Illegal aliens from Central and South America (and from all across the world, actually) -- from countries which are poor, certainly, but in which people are not being murdered for political reasons -- who, were they actually "refugee", have traversed any number of "safe" countries, in which they were required by "International Law" (such as it is), flood into America ... and the leftists insist that they are "refugees" who *cannot* be sent home.

2) The Trump administration is attempting to allow Afrikaners -- white South Africans who *are* being murdered for racist political reasons, and with the connivance of the South African government -- to *legally* come to America as refugees ... and those same leftists mock their designation as "refugees".

Why, one might get the impression that leftists hate white people as much as they hate America. 

It's an odd world

What an odd world we find yourselves in.

According to many judges (*), including those on the highest court, we mere US citizens do not "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. said judges) to order that the laws be faithfully enforced by the persons whose sworn duty it is to faithfully enforce the laws. BUT, according to that some gaggle sort of judges, lawyers and NGOs (often, or even exclusively, funded by monies forcefully extracted from us citizens), DO "have standing" to petition the courts (i.e. other lawyers, the ones who dress funny) to FORBID the faithful enforcement of the law.

(*) And remember, judges are just lawyers (**) who dress funny.

(**) Further remember: No matter the legal system, the lawyers of that system will *always* attempt to corrupt it to serve their own interests.

The Absurdity of "Judicial Review"

The point, THE WHOLE POINT, of the US Constitution is to delineate the powers of the federal government and to limit its ability to interfere in our lives. But, of course, since governments are just men, and since all men are sinners, all governments seek continually to increase the monies they extract from their subjects and to increase their ability to interfere in the lives of their subjects. That is, all government is forever and always the enemy of the liberty of the people. Government is necessary, but it it nonetheless an evil; and that must never be forgotten.

This is why the very concept of "the federal courts interpret the Constitution" is absurd; doubly so: It's absurd because to "interpret" the Constitution JUST IS to change its meaning; and it's absurd because the courts are themselves agents of "the government."

The US Constitution is a compact, an agreement, between the States and The People; the US federal government is created by the Constitution and is the CREATURE of the States and of The People. Consider how absurd it would be if a number of persons agreed amongst themselves to create a corporation, and drew up its charter, its rules of operation ... and then the *agents* of that corporation asserted that *they* have the power to "interpret" that charter over and against the principals of the corporation.

This is the text of the linked item:

"The year was 1942, and an Ohio farmer named Roscoe Filburn was growing wheat on his own property and feeding it to his own animals. This wasn’t some big commercial operation—Roscoe was just trying to make a living, keep his farm running, and feed his livestock. But the federal government had other ideas.

See, back then, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 set quotas on how much wheat farmers could grow, all in the name of stabilizing prices during the Great Depression and World War II. Roscoe, though, grew more than his allotted amount—not to sell, mind you, but just for his own use.

The feds caught wind of this and fined him. Roscoe fought back, arguing that what he did on his own land, for his own consumption, wasn’t their business.

The case climbed all the way up to the Supreme Court: Wickard v. Filburn. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled against him. They said that even though Roscoe’s wheat never left his farm, it still affected interstate commerce. How? Because by growing his own, he wasn’t buying wheat on the market, which impacted supply and demand nationwide.

It was a stretch, but the Court bought it, expanding the Commerce Clause to give the government power over pretty much anything that might touch the economy, even indirectly.

Roscoe paid the fine, and life went on, but that ruling stuck. It’s been a cornerstone for federal overreach ever since—everything from regulating backyard gardens to mandating health insurance.

So when you’re mad about the Supreme Court, just remember: they’ve been finding ways to justify big government for over 80 years. Roscoe’s wheat didn’t stand a chance, and neither do most of us when they set their minds to it."

https://gab.com/americaneducationfm/posts/114206273415144633

What Is Your Citizenship Worth?

Will American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party is the sworn enemy of the American People and of our Republic? Or are too many Americans content to vote against the interests of their children and grandchildren, so long as they are told that "the rich" are being made to suffer?

Will black American citizens *ever* get it into their heads that the Democratic Party *despises* them and is *using* them as a cats paw? Or are too many black Americans content to cut off their noses to spite their faces, so long as "the white man" is made to suffer?

EDIT (2025/06/06):

The Democrats are now openly/explicitly calling illegal aliens "undocumented citizens". No one who has been paying attention can be surprised at this, as making your citizenship worthless has been their over-riding goal for many decades now.

So, again: "What Is Your Citizenship Worth?"

"It's Un-American" - 19 Democratic State AGs Sue To Stop Trump Blocking Non-Citizen Voting

Further Doom

This is why America is doomed -- men don't have the balls to say "No" to the lies, intellectual dishonesty, and ever-escalating demands for special treatment -- disguised as "equality" -- of women.

This isn't about "rights for parents in Congress" -- whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean. These bitches and bastards were not elected to Congress to "be parents", they were elected to SHOW UP TO WORK, to represent the people of their district in Congress. And they don't want to do that; rather, they want to *expand* Nancy Pelosi's corrupt "proxy voting" scheme.

As one person said -- "$150,000 a year and you can't afford a babysitter? Figure it out or resign."

Speaker Johnson suffers defeat in his push to block new parents in U.S. House from proxy voting

Here is a Democratic Party congresscritter @16:00 mark whinging about her desire to subvert-and-evade her duties as a US Representative, but still get paid --

Serious people -- adults -- don't even *use* the words 'mom' and 'dad' in a serious public setting, much less apply those words to themselves. Those words are for the familial setting, and especially when speaking to children.

GOP Reps DEFECT, Joins Democrats To BLOCK TRUMP, Want SPECIAL Rules For Women, GO FULL WOKE

Congresscritters ... and Public Accusations, While Shielded From Liability

Back in February (of 2025), Congresscritter Nancy Mace (R-Feminism) used -- misused -- her congressional immunity from legal liability to accuse four men of some terrible crimes -- 

Nancy Mace Makes EXPLOSIVE Sexual Assault, Voyeurism Allegations On House Floor

Apparently, she has a habit of accusing people (which is to say, men) of various foul deeds. She accused a fifth man of assaulting her during an event at the Capitol last year. On Tuesday (2025/04/01), federal prosecutors moved to drop charges against this man: Charges dropped against Illinois man accused of assault by Rep. Nancy Mace

Note this quote from the linked article:

Several eyewitnesses disputed Mace’s characterization of the Dec. 10 incident, suggesting it looked like a “normal handshake.”

A few days ago, I had seen a YouTube video which purported to show the video of the encounter.  IF that video was indeed a record of the full encounter, then I have to agree with the above quote.

Apparently, this most recently accused man is a "trans-rights activist" -- which means that he is as despicable as she is. But, this intellectually dishonest game of "Won't You Strong Brave Men Protect Poor Little Me No Matter What Accusation I Make?" played by feminists, in general, and she, in particular, must be called out, and it must stop.

Why America Is Doomed

These sorts of abominations (as see the linked 'X' post) sprout from the anti-Constitutional Civil Rights Act of 1964, and they are rooted in the 17th (Popular Election of Senators) and 19th (Female Suffrage) Amendments. That the federal government is killing the nation via taxation and reckless deficit spending is rooted in the 16th (Income Tax / Direct Taxation of the People) Amendment.

And this is why America is doomed:

1) Almost no American man is willing to acknowledge that Female Suffrage was a civilization-ending mistake, lest women whine at him;

2) Almost no "conservatives" are willing to acknowledge that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is fatally flawed, and that it is the basis by which the commies are undermining our liberties (and very much including the liberties of black Americans), lest the communists call them racist.

=====

LAWFARE: An Obama-appointed judge has blocked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's mandate, which required all U.S. soldiers to meet uniform physical fitness standards, ruling that it discriminates against those who are not physically fit.

=====

Post on 'X'

Exploding the Myth of "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government"

We all were taught in high school civic class that the US Constitution establishes "three co-equal branches of government".  This is a myth - it is both a lie and a pernicious lie.  It is a lie, because it is not true. It is a pernicious lie, because it is actually and intentionally a cover for the unconstitutional imperial over-reach of the judicial supremacists.

I have long argued that Article III (Section 2) of the US Constitution makes it clear that the Congress has the general power to limit the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the highest-level court (you know, the one that judicial supremacists have trained us to think of as "THE Supreme Court")

I have long known that there are federal statues in which the Congress explicitly states that the courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate certain maters.  But, as I knew no way that I could find an example of such a statute, I have not previously made reference to Congress exercising that power.  However, seeming by chance, in reference to a recent example of judicial imperial over-reach by a "activist judge", the YouTuber Tim Pool real aloud a section of such a statue (see the last link, to the YouTube video). And so, having an example of the Congress exercising this power, I bring it to Gentle Reader's attention.

Below, I have quoted actual existing federal law: Section 221 (sub-sections  h and i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Notice that sub-section (h) explicitly establishes that no alien has a right to enter the US, even if a visa has been issued him.  

Notice that sub-section (i) gives the Executive branch discretionary authority to revoke and invalidate any alien's visa or other such documents and explicitly states that "There shall be no means of judicial review ... of a revocation under this subsection, except ..."

Understand this:

1) The "three co-equal branches of government" myth we were taught is a lie;

1a) In fact, the Legislative branch is supreme, notwithstanding that all three branches have powers into which the other two may not intrude;

2) The mere lower-court judge who has decreed that the Executive may not immediately deport a certain foreign agitator is violating the explicit language of this statute and is attempting, as "activist judges" always do, to set himself above both the Legislative and the Executive branches, and ultimately above the Constitution itself.

Section 221(H,I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(h) Nonadmission upon arrival

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to entitle any alien, to whom a visa or other documentation has been issued, to be admitted the United States, if, upon arrival at a port of entry in the United States, he is found to be inadmissible under this chapter, or any other provision of law. The substance of this subsection shall appear upon every visa application.

(i) Revocation of visas or documents

After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.

Tim Pool, reading from Federal Statue -- Section 221(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act --  (@8:10 mark)

There Is No "THE Supreme Court"

Sean Davis is off to a good start ... but hasn't yet freed his mind of the judicial supremacy (*) lies we all were taught in civic class.

1) There is no such thing as "THE Supreme Court" --

The Constitution uses the adjectives "supreme" and "inferior"(Note: capitalization as per the Constitution) to distinguish the singular highest-level court from the multiplicity of lower-level courts which the Congress may establish from time to time;

1a) That is, what we mistakenly call "THE Supreme Court" is "supreme" only with respect to the lower/inferior courts;

2) Except for some explicitly enumerated sorts of cases reserved to the high court, the jurisdiction of *all* the federal courts, including the high court, can be expanded, or curtailed, as the Congress sees fit;

2a) Far from establishing "3 co-equal branches of government" (*), the Constitution *actually* establishes the federal courts as creatures of Congress.

(*) The "3 co-equal branches of government" claim is a lie invented by lawyers to disguise their judicial supremacy power-grab.

A Counterfactual: US Citizenship, according to the Democrats --

An alternate history thought-experiment:

On December 8, 1941, the Empire of Japan invaded and occupied the US territory of Hawaii. During the following months, Japan stationed 100,000 soldiers and sailors in the islands, along with 5,000 Japanese civilian administrators.

At the time of the hard-fought US Liberation of Hawaii on July 4, 1944, there were living in Hawaii:
- 33,000 Japanese POWs;
- 4,000 Japanese civilian former administrators;

- 6,000 dependents of those civilian former administrators;

- including 1,000 who had been born in Hawaii.

According to the logic of the Democrats concerning the 14th Amendment, those 1000 Japanese children born in Hawaii are US citizens, and are not merely US citizens, but are indeed natural born US citizens, and thus eligible to be US President in about 35 years. And, moreover, they and their parents cannot be repatriated to Japan, For, after all, they were born in the de jure territory of the USA, irrespective of the illegality of their mothers being in US territory at the times of their births.

Obviously, this is absurd.

Likewise, the Democrats' assertion about "birthright citizenship" for "anchor babies" is absurd.

"No" to Civil War 2.0

Look, if California Dems want to secede from the Union, and they are able to convince the citizens (and not to be forgotten: the non-citizen voters) to go along with that suicidal move, it is their right to do so, despite the lie we all were taught in civics class since the falsely-named Civil War.

California Dems like to boast that if California were an independent nation-state, they would have the 5th-largest economy in the world. What they overlook is that California's economy is as large as it *precisely* because California is a State in the USA. As an independent nation-state, their economy would quickly contract.

Also -- and I'd bet you that the Dems haven't thought of this -- IF California were to secede from the US ... which is the state's right to do ... THEN the USA no longer has an obligation to send Colorado River water to California. And, without that water, California's economy would collapse.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

I have written about "Chinese Birth Tourism" (i.e. Communist Chinese "anchor babies") as it relates to natural born citizenship before, noting that the US federal government prosecutes and imprisons persons who organize or facilitate such "birth tourism".  This post will focus on the absurdity of the leftist pretense that "anchor babies" are indeed US citizens.

The linked article reports that a "California woman" and her husband, who had "helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth so that their children would have automatic United States citizenship", were "both convicted of conspiracy and money laundering".  

Obviously -- definitionally -- if the US federal government is prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning the organizers of "birth tourism" schemes on conspiracy charges, then it is the "birth tourism" itself which is the underlying crime at issue.  I mean, really! Literally everyone knows that only Donald Trump can be prosecuted for "conspiracy" to not commit a crime.

Think about this -- the (pregnant) Chinese women who make use of these (illegal) "birth tourism" schemes are in the US legally when they give birth.  Is giving birth in the US illegal?  Is giving birth in the US when one is not a US citizen illegal?  Obviously, the answer to both questions is a resounding "No".  So then, where is the illegality?  It is in trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thereby benefit oneself in the future). IF -- as the Democrats and other leftists assert -- the 14th Amendment mandates that *all* persons born in US territory (*) are by that mere fact US citizens, irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parent(s), THEN prosecuting the persons who facilitate those births is absurd.

As explained below (*), despite the 14th Amendment, until 1924, and even though born in US territory, and even though born to parents who likewise had been born in US territory, most American Indians were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties; to wit: their tribal nations.

Now, IF the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to American Indians or the children of American Indians -- to a class of persons who had for many generations been resident within the territory of the USA -- due to the fact that their parents were not already US citizens, THEN how can the Democrat/leftist assertion that the Constitution automatically confers US citizenship on the child of someone who had crossed the border five minutes ago possibly be true?  It is absurd!

Consider what is more typically meant by the term "anchor baby". There are two classes --

1) Those born to non-citizen parents who are in the US legally. This includes such persons as Barack Obama -- allegedly born in the US, with no real proof given, to a non-citizen father -- and Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris;

2) Those born to non-citizen parents who are on the US illegally. This is currently the more numerous class, and the more contentious, as the Democrats and other leftists aim to use them to cheapen the value of US citizenship, and hope to use them to cement in permanent leftist control of the US government;

The Democrats and other leftists assert that the US Constitution confers US citizenship on the two classes of persons noted above. And moreover, they assert that the Constitution confers not mere citizenship, but natural born citizenship (which, as Mrs Olson says of Folger's Coffee, is "the richest kind").

But, as the examples of both the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of those who facilitate "birth tourism", and of the citizenship status of American Indians show, the leftists are wrong. They are, in fact, lying.

If, despite the criminal prosecutions of those who facilitated such "birth tourism" births, the children born in the US to "citizens" of Communist China are indeed US citizens, why does the US government allow their mothers to take them back to China, to a life of slavery in-all-but-name and life-long indoctrination in hatred of America?

Or what? Does the act of trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thus to benefit oneself in the future) become a crime only if one has "conspired" with and paid money to a third party, such that those who "free-lance" it to drop an "anchor baby" get a pass (and get the citizenship)?

=======

(*) I have also mentioned this fact before (though perhaps not in a post on this blog) -- 

After ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and after the US supreme (**) Court's 1898 Kim Wong Ark ruling (which Democrats and leftists love to misrepresent), most American Indians *still* were not US citizens until passage of the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924".

This is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment --

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Notice that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not explicitly deny US citizenship to (most) American Indians.  And yet, they were not extended US citizenship either by the 14th Amendment itself nor by the supreme Court's Kim Wong Ark ruling.

Clearly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not mean what the Democrats and other leftists like to assert that it means.  Here is the Wickedpedia article's introductory paragraph on the Act --

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that any person born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This language was generally taken to mean members of various tribes that were treated as separate sovereignties: they were citizens of their tribal nations.

Attend to this: (most) American Indians -- even if born in US territory and even 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment -- were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties.

So, since the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to (most) American Indians, how is it that they became US citizens in 1924 by a mere Act of Congress? By the fact that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" is a naturalization law: the US Congress enacted a law stating that all non-citizen American Indians were thenceforth naturalized US citizens, and thus that their (US-born) descendants would be natural born US citizens.

Clearly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus soli' ("right of soil"). That is, it isn't merely the fact of being born on US soil which confers US citizenship. 

Similarly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus sanguinis' ("right of blood"). That is, one is not a US citizen merely because one's parents (note the plural) are US citizens -- it is for this reason that children born overseas to US citizen parents are not accorded US citizenship unless their parent(s) with US citizenship submit requisite paperwork as established by US naturalization law before the child's 18th birthday.

(**) "supreme Court" capitalization as per the US Constitution.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

EDIT (2025/02/12): Chip Roy Raises Issue Of Birth Tourism During Discussion Of Birthright Citizenship

Yes, The 19th Amendment Was a Mistake

The *reason* that some of the Western frontier States enacted female suffrage years/decades before the (evil) so-called Progressives convinced the country as a whole to enact female suffrage was that those frontier States had a lot of unmarried men ... who sometimes had political interests divergent from the interests of married men. THAT IS, female suffrage was initially enacted to double the political power of married men *as a class* over and against the political power of single man *as a class*.

And, of course, once the (evil) Progressives got their mitts on the levers of political power, the purpose of female suffrage became to convince women *as a class* that their interests diverged from the interests of men, and specifically from the interests of those men who have a vested interest in the *individual* welfare of those women: their fathers and husbands.

EDIT: At the same time, the 17th Amendment -- direct election of US Senators -- was a worse mistake than the 19th. And the 16th Amendment -- i.e. the one which established the principle that the US government *owns* your income (and thus owns you) -- was worse yet. Essentially, *all* the "Progressive Era" amendments had the effect of shrinking the citizen while growing the government.

The 19th Amendment Was A MISTAKE, Timcast Crew DEBATES Women Voting

On "Karens" and "Service Animals"

1) I'd go even further than Walsh on the issue of morons bringing their animals where animals don't belong -- I'd confiscate the animals and "put them down";

Last year, as I was entering a "farm and fleet" type store, some self-centered idiot was bringing his dog into the store. Or, to be more precise, the dog was *dragging* the fellow toward the door. I don't recall the breed, but it was one of those ugly ones which are disproportionately in the news. Anyway, a few minutes later, the dog had pissed all over the floor. The owner at least had the (uncommon for his type) decency to stand there until it was cleaned, lest someone not notice it and slip.

2) There are at least two types of (generally white) women commonly being called "Karens":
2a) Obnoxious and self-centered women who are demanding that the world revolve around themselves;
2b) Women who are trying to confront/correct the behavior of obnoxious and self-centered people who are demanding that the world revolve around themselves, who then falsely call the woman a "Karen".

3) Walsh is pretending that all women accused of being a "Karen" fall into the second category;

4) Walsh is correct that "Karen" was a racial slur invented by (jealous) black (women) to mock white women. But, so what? It *also* identifies a recognizable personality-type, much like "Chad/Tyrone" and "Shaniqua" do.

5) On the ADA being mostly a piece of garbage -- it is, indeed. Like *all* such laws, it necessarily creates opportunities for graft and/or scam, and the abuses of such a law *always* quickly overwhelm the few cases the law was intended to rectify. And, of course, it being the nature of bureaucracy, the scope of the law most continually expand.

Matt Walsh Simps For Karens?! (2024/11/25)

A Twist in the Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon Saga

Concerning Mr and Mrs Longo doing OnlyFans --

Well, of course they did! How can anyone be surprised at that twist, after seeing the short clip of Mr Longo describing the actions of the government agents and wherein Mrs Longo wiped fake tears from her fake eye-lashed eyes with her fake clawed hands while making sure to stay in the camera's field? I wish that all porno would be outlawed, and could be destroyed; it's destroying people's lives, on an industrial scale, and thus destroying our civilization. BUT, the Longos participation on OF is a separate matter from the abuse to which these government goons subjected them. Consider -- the goons had a warrant to search for and seize a squirrel and a raccoon ... and yet they spent five hours tearing those people's home apart. This is absurd; this is tyrannical.

===

Also, isn't it amazing that *this* governmental abuse is the one which "goes viral", while the daily ones -- such as releasing violent rapists and murderers onto society; such as facilitating the murders of millions of babies every year -- are met with a societal yawn?  What does that say about our society?  How can anyone be surprised that such an up-side-down society is committing suicide?

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which is currently prosecuting an innocent man for a charge of murder because his actions to protect the lives of a subway car full of other innocent people partially lead to the death of the mad druggie who was threatening them.  Keep in mind that the druggie seems still to have been alive when the "first responders" got there, but they didn't want to risk infection by trying to resuscitate him (*).  Keep in mind that there were *three* men who restrained the crazed druggie, but that only the white man is being prosecuted.

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which, according to Mr Longo, while being very concerned to verify the immigration status of his wife, ALSO releases violent illegal alien invaders onto the public.

(*) After I retired from a lifetime in IT, and until I couldn't take anymore of the Covid-19[84] bullshit, I took a very low-paying job ($10.60 per hour) driving wheel-chair bound people to their appointments. I -- with no particular professional training -- was expected to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation for these people, should the need arise, and to clean up any projectile vomiting that might occur (God be praised, I was spared both situations; though more than one passenger was delivered to me in a soiled state). AND, I wasn't permitted to know which of my passengers had AIDS (though, some were obvious).

Some online comments comment about Peanut and Fred --

=====

Government in a nutshell. Capricious, arbitrary, pointless, wasteful and dangerous exercise of state power.

=====

I hear all the "This generations Harambe".

I tell you, this is leagues worse. Harambe was a fully grown Gorilla in a stressful situation, and the kid was in genuine danger.

Peanuts was a squirrel barely the size of a house cat. He woudnt hurt anyone, even if he wanted to, and the raid was unwarranted (i dont care if they had a court ordered warrant, if the law does evil, the law is evil), not to mention all the agents swarming the place.

Harambe was a chain of accidents and bad decisions, Peanut and Fred were deliberate evil done by the state.

=====

Peanut's Story is the ultimate litmus test on whether or not you lick government boot. Peanut did not hurt anyone. In fact, he brought joy to thousands online. His owners took good care of him and he was neither physically abused nor malnourished. However, in New York State, it is technically illegal to own a squirrel as a domestic pet, especially without the proper licenses and permits allowing you to do so. As such despite the owners good intentions, they did break a series of laws, and if we are to live in a Trusted Society, we should apply proper punishments to those who do break laws. But now comes the question: Was the punishment that was given not only just, but appropriate and necessary? If not, what type of punishment should the owners have received? Should they have received one at all? What it really comes down to, is that Peanut's Story is total representation of the Anarcho-Tyranny that the Left wants across the West, wherein the State will ignore or even facilitate violent and lawless behavior by favored groups while cracking down with the full force of the armed law on irrelevant minor infractions by anyone else.

=====

"I have information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton" - Peanut the Squirrel, the final message.

Peanut meme

EDIT (2025/04/25):

It seems that the NY state bureaucrats had determined to kill the two animals even before the raid and seizure.

Viva Frei: Tom Fitton Exposes NY's Plot to Kill Peanut & Fred in Shocking FOIL Request!