One of the most astonishing side shows of Monday’s events was watching Democrats turn on a dime from declaring Trump a crazy, deranged, bullying war criminal who must be impeached or removed under the... View MoreOne of the most astonishing side shows of Monday’s events was watching Democrats turn on a dime from declaring Trump a crazy, deranged, bullying war criminal who must be impeached or removed under the 25th Amendment before he made good on his threat to destroy Iran…to attacking Trump for “chickening out,” making empty threats and showing other leaders that his word couldn’t be trusted. So, does that mean they WANTED him to make good on his threat to destroy Iran?
No, it just means they have terminal TDS, so no matter what he does, it’s not only wrong, it’s the WORST THING THAT EVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WOOOOOORLD!!!
Yawn.
We would hope that after suffering years of this Chicken Little hysteria from the left, most people have learned to just tune it out, like being stuck on an airplane with a crying baby. By now, we’re all used to this illogical nonsense, like holding televised rallies where they accuse Trump of being a dictator who’s taken away their free speech. Or claiming that Trump plans to cancel the 2028 election even as they jockey to become the Democrat nominee for the 2028 election. There’s a reason why woke leftists declared logic and reason to be white supremacy and banned them from university campuses.
As we’ve been explaining for 10 years now (most recently during the hysterical hoo-ha over tariffs), Trump isn’t your typical do-nothing, bribe-taking, legacy-polishing politician. He’s a business person whose goal isn’t to look good while kicking problems down the road. His goal is to solve problems as fast as possible. And if he’s facing a tough opponent, his goal is to WIN.
The whole tactic of issuing over-the-top threats and outrageous demands that force the other side to offer a “compromise” that’s what he actually wanted in the first place is right out of “The Art of the Deal.” It’s been around in book form for 39 years. If his critics couldn’t be bothered to read it by now, you’d think they’d at least have played the board game version.
Why the Supreme Court Must Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
If a pregnant woman broke into your house and gave birth in your living room, would the baby inherit your house? Of course not. The baby d... View MoreWhy the Supreme Court Must Reconsider Birthright Citizenship
If a pregnant woman broke into your house and gave birth in your living room, would the baby inherit your house? Of course not. The baby doesn’t inherit your house simply because it was born there. Its status determines its inheritance — and that status comes from its parents. The same principle should apply to American citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was written in 1868 to grant citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War — not to reward people who break our laws. It doesn’t say “All persons born in the United States are citizens.” It says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Those six critical words matter. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means full political allegiance to the United States — not simply whether someone can be arrested.
Children born to foreign diplomats do not receive U.S. citizenship because their parents owe allegiance to a foreign government.
Children born to invading enemy soldiers do not receive U.S. citizenship.
Native Americans born on U.S. soil were not made citizens by the 14th Amendment because they owed allegiance to their tribes, not to the United States. So Congress had to pass a separate law in 1924 to grant them citizenship.
The strongest evidence comes from timing itself. The very same Congress that passed the Civil Rights Act in March 1866 — with its clear language ‘not subject to any foreign power’ — drafted and proposed the 14th Amendment just three months later in June. It is simply not credible that these same lawmakers suddenly meant the exact opposite when they added the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ Those six critical words were deliberately included by the authors of the amendment. They were put there on purpose.
And for decades after the 14th Amendment was ratified, multiple lower courts ruled that children born to parents who were not legally domiciled in the United States did not receive automatic birthright citizenship.
Then, around 1966, the federal government quietly stopped asking whether the parents were legally present — a bureaucratic shift (either deliberate or unintentional) changed everything.
Yet today we see the consequences. Wealthy Chinese women fly here just to give birth. People cross the border illegally, file asylum claims they know will fail, then stay long enough to have a baby — all while law-abiding immigrants wait their turn in line.
Here’s what’s rarely said: it’s not just the child. The entire family — both parents plus the newborn — gets counted in the census under the Constitution’s “whole number of persons.” That single family of three boosts their state’s population count, which decides how many House of Representatives seats it receives, how many electoral college votes, and how much federal funding flows in. That money often goes to sanctuary cities where these families concentrate.
Meanwhile, schools, hospitals, roads, and every piece of infrastructure get strained by the extra population. Taxpayers foot the bill for people who shouldn’t even be here — while those following the legal process get pushed further back.
And it gets worse: wages earned here are sent out of the country every year as remittances — money that never recirculates in American communities. So taxpayers are funding schools, hospitals, and services for families who are taking resources out of our economy and shipping them abroad.
The Supreme Court has never squarely ruled on whether children born to illegal entrants are entitled to birthright citizenship. Now that they have taken up this case, they have an obligation to get it right.
This decision will shape the character of this country for decades, if not centuries. It will either reward and encourage the invasion at our border, or it will help stop it.
The Supreme Court is not infallible. They were catastrophically wrong in Dred Scott. They were wrong again with “separate but equal.”
They have stretched the 14th Amendment far beyond what its authors intended. The future of this nation now rests in the Court’s hands. They must get this one right.
“𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇 𝐓𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐖𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐄 𝐁𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐘𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐍𝐀𝐍𝐓 𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇.”
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer just dropped that line at the Supreme Court —... View More“𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇 𝐓𝐎𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐍𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐖𝐇𝐎𝐒𝐄 𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐄 𝐁𝐔𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐒𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐅𝐋𝐘𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐆𝐍𝐀𝐍𝐓 𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐍 𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀 𝐓𝐎 𝐆𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐁𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐇.”
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer just dropped that line at the Supreme Court — and every American should hear it.
𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬. Not individuals gaming the system. Not one-off cases. 𝐅𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐫𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 in the People’s Republic of China whose entire model is to fly pregnant women to the United States, deliver a baby with automatic U.S. citizenship, and fly them back home with a brand new American passport.
When pressed on whether this changes the legal analysis, Sauer quoted Justice Scalia’s Hamdan dissent: “𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 19𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺.” The 14th Amendment was written when the fastest way to cross the Atlantic was a steamship. As Justice Alito pointed out — “𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 8 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘰’𝘴 𝘢 𝘜.𝘚. 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘯.”
The opposing side’s response? “𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” That’s the argument — that the Framers of the 14th Amendment intended to grant automatic citizenship to the children of foreign nationals who fly in on tourist visas specifically to exploit that provision. Nobody who ratified that amendment in 1868 contemplated 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥-𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐟𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 from a geopolitical adversary.
𝟓𝟎𝟎 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬. 𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐟𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧.
page=1&profile_user_id=512169&year=&month=
Load More
