โ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐.โ
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer just dropped that line at the Supreme Court โ... View Moreโ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐.โ
U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer just dropped that line at the Supreme Court โ and every American should hear it.
๐
๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ก๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฌ. Not individuals gaming the system. Not one-off cases. ๐
๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ก๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ in the Peopleโs 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 Scaliaโs Hamdan dissent: โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ช๐ค๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ค๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ด๐ช๐ฃ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ 19๐ต๐ฉ ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐บ.โ The 14th Amendment was written when the fastest way to cross the Atlantic was a steamship. As Justice Alito pointed out โ โ๐ธ๐ฆโ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ข ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ฆ 8 ๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ธ๐ข๐บ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข ๐ค๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐโ๐ด ๐ข ๐.๐. ๐ค๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ป๐ฆ๐ฏ.โ
The opposing sideโs response? โ๐๐ตโ๐ด ๐ข ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ธ ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ณ๐ญ๐ฅ. ๐๐ตโ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ต๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ.โ Thatโs the argument โ 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 ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ฅ-๐ฌ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ก๐ข๐ฉ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐ from a geopolitical adversary.
๐๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ข๐๐ฌ. ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐จ๐ฉ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐. ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ค๐๐๐ฉ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐๐ ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ง.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐁𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫, 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐈𝐬
The final outcome is not yet determined. Wars rarely resolve cleanly in real time.
But war is judged not only by the final ... View More𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝐎𝐛𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐲 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐁𝐞 𝐂𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫, 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐒𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐨 𝐈𝐬
The final outcome is not yet determined. Wars rarely resolve cleanly in real time.
But war is judged not only by the final outcome. It is judged by whether it improves your strategic position relative to its alternatives.
The question is not whether everything is settled, but whether the United States and its allies are in a better position than they would have been had Iran's coercive tools continued maturing under a nuclear shadow.
That is the only honest standard for evaluating preemption — not whether it produced a clean ending, but whether it changed the trajectory.
The debate was never about whether short-term disruption would be noticeable — higher gas prices, tighter shipping lanes, some degree of regional uncertainty. The real question was whether allowing Iran to continue building a more durable coercive position would have been worse.
Iran did not need a blue-water navy to impose serious costs in the Strait of Hormuz. It needed mines, drones, fast boats, maritime harassment, and enough missile capacity to keep shipping, insurers, and regional infrastructure under pressure.
That is a low-cost, effective model: cheap to impose, expensive to reverse.
The war exposed that infrastructure more clearly, partially degraded it, and disrupted the process by which those capabilities were becoming harder and costlier to reverse. The war also revealed the regime’s ballistic missile reach beyond what Tehran had publicly claimed, underscoring how far its offensive posture had already evolved.
Iran still has missiles, so regional escalation remains possible. The war has not yet produced a final settlement.
But none of that refutes the argument. It just means that the conflict is unfinished.
The relevant question now is whether Iran is more constrained than it would have been had its offensive capabilities continued maturing without interruption.
The alternative was not peace or stability. Iran made sure of that through continued enrichment, missile development, proxy wars, deeper maritime coercive capacity, and the growing possibility that these tools would harden under a nuclear umbrella.
The strategic danger was never simply that Iran could cause disruption in the present. It was that Iran could turn Hormuz into a recurring instrument of statecraft in the future.
Once that coercive position sits beneath a nuclear umbrella, the deterrence math changes dramatically.
A nuclear weapon would make stopping Iran costlier for everyone else.
Every American or Israeli effort to reverse maritime coercion would carry a greater escalation risk. Gulf states would hedge more. Europe would face higher and more recurrent energy pressure. Coalition cohesion would weaken as the price of resistance rose.
The cost of future action would increase precisely because the coercive position was allowed to be reached.
That is how nuclear-backed leverage works. It does not eliminate costs, but it makes resistance more expensive and less certain.
The gain, then, is not a final victory but the preservation of leverage.
Iran's offensive architecture was interrupted before it fully matured, and the costs of confronting it later are likely lower today than they would have been under a more hardened missile, maritime, and nuclear posture.
The implications do not stop with Iran.
China and Russia benefit from a world in which American deterrence becomes more costly, less flexible, and more constrained. A hardened Iranian coercive posture would not simply strengthen Tehran. It would also shift leverage away from the United States and its allies and toward revisionist powers that prosper when deterrence becomes costlier to sustain.
The choice was never between peace and war but between disruption now and a more dangerous equilibrium later.
Critics treat the present disorder as proof that preemption was reckless. Implicit in that assumption is that the delay was neutral. It was not.
Delay would have allowed Iran's coercive position to mature further: greater missile range, greater maritime leverage, more hardened infrastructure, and greater confidence that the costs of stopping it would keep rising.
The point is not that the problem has been solved. The point is that a worse version of the problem should be interrupted before the costs flip, and inaction becomes the more expensive choice.
That is a strategic gain, even if it is incomplete.
This does not require overclaiming or pretending that uncertainty has vanished.
As I’ve written before, if the campaign drifts into open-ended war without further strategic gain, if disruption proves prolonged without corresponding constraint on Iran, if the costs begin to outweigh the leverage gained, then the calculus changes.
Serious analysis has to allow for that.
But uncertainty is not an argument for passivity.
If you insist on a final outcome before making a strategic judgment, you are making a category mistake. The future is never finished in real time.
If perfect resolution becomes the standard for action, inaction will always win by default. And paralysis disguised as prudence is the opposite of realism.
By the relevant standard, the case for preemption remains strong.
Some people are so desperate for attention they "like" their own posts even if it is a disagreement.
No Kings explained for people who think they're fighting fascism.
500 groups. Three billion dollars in revenue. Pre printed signs stacked and shipped before you even knew what you were supposed to be... View MoreNo Kings explained for people who think they're fighting fascism.
500 groups. Three billion dollars in revenue. Pre printed signs stacked and shipped before you even knew what you were supposed to be mad about.
That is not a spontaneous uprising. That is infrastructure.
That is planning. That is money. That is message discipline.
And that is what you walked into on Saturday.
You looked around, saw the crowd, saw the slogans, felt the energy, and told yourself this was democracy. “No Kings.” It sounded clean. It sounded righteous. It felt like you were part of something organic.
But the signs were ready before your outrage was.
That should bother you.
Because you are not living under a king. You are living in a constitutional republic with elections, term limits, and a press that has spent years attacking the most powerful figures in the country without consequence. No one is being arrested for calling a president a fascist. No one is being silenced for dissenting.
That is not tyranny.
And yet you are being told it is.
You are being trained to see normal functions of a country as authoritarian. Loving your country becomes suspicious. Wanting a secure border becomes immoral. Believing parents should have a say in their children’s lives becomes dangerous. Asking basic questions about elections becomes taboo.
That is not clarity. That is conditioning.
Every country on Earth enforces its borders. Most require identification to vote. That is not controversial anywhere else. It is only controversial here because you have been told it should be.
And you believed it.
Meanwhile, look at the people who actually hold power and how long they have held it:
Chuck Schumer. 46 years. Longer than Stalin.
Steny Hoyer. 45 years. Longer than Mao.
Mitch McConnell. 42 years. 5x more than Napoleon.
Nancy Pelosi. 39 years. Longer than Henry VIII.
Maxine Waters. 35 years. Longer than Mussolini.
Bernie Sanders. 35 years. Triple Hitler’s entire reign.
That is what entrenched power looks like.
Decades. Not months. Not a single term. Decades.
But you are told the threat to democracy is the outsider who disrupted that system for a brief window of time.
You are told he is the king.
No. What you are reacting to is not monarchy. It is loss of control.
You do not hate kings. You hate kings that are not yours.
Because when power consolidates on your side, you justify it.
A sitting president steps aside. Within days, a replacement is effectively crowned without a real contest, without a meaningful debate, without voters having a say in a process that is supposed to belong to them.
No primary. No debate. No ballot.
And you said nothing.
Three days before you marched, lawmakers aligned with your movement rejected voter identification requirements. At the same time, you lived through a period where you had to show documentation to participate in basic parts of life.
You needed proof to eat, to travel, to work.
But asking for proof to vote is suddenly oppression.
That contradiction should stop you cold. Instead, it gets waved away.
Look at how power is actually maintained.
Non citizens are counted in the census. Census numbers determine representation. Representation determines power. Remove verification, expand the count, and you increase influence without ever needing a crown.
That is how modern systems entrench themselves.
Then look at speech.
There is written evidence of government officials pressuring platforms like Facebook to suppress information. Not just misinformation. Information that later proved to be accurate. Scientists were sidelined. Doctors were ignored. Even humor and satire were targeted.
Humor.
When people in power are deciding which jokes are allowed, you are not dealing with a healthy system.
That control did not come through loud decrees. It came through quiet coordination with corporations that act as extensions of political authority.
That is far more effective than any throne.
And it does not stop at speech.
Across the country, institutions are redefining the relationship between parents and children, sometimes making life altering decisions without transparency or consent. The state is stepping into spaces that used to belong to families.
History has seen that pattern before.
Then there is the selective enforcement of rules.
During lockdowns, small businesses were shut down. Churches were closed. Families were kept from their loved ones in their final moments.
At the same time, large scale unrest that caused billions in damage and cost lives was treated as justified or even necessary.
One standard for one group. A completely different standard for another.
That is not equal application of law. That is power deciding what counts.
And when it comes to political violence, the conversation is selective.
When Charlie Kirk spent years walking onto campuses trying to engage in debate, he represented something fundamental about open discourse. The ability to show up, speak, and be challenged.
But increasingly, one side is met not with argument but with shutdowns, intimidation, and sometimes violence. Data that complicates the dominant narrative gets buried because it is inconvenient.
One side talks. The other side tries to silence.
And you are told which one is dangerous.
Look at who you marched alongside.
Organizations like the Party for Socialism and Liberation were not hiding. They were present, organized, and clear about their goal: revolution, not reform.
That ideology has already been tested in the real world. It does not produce freedom. It produces control.
And yet they had signs ready for you.
Hundreds of groups. Billions in funding. A coordinated message. And money that traces back to figures like Neville Roy Singham, a billionaire operating out of Shanghai with ties to networks aligned with the Chinese Communist Party.
You thought you were fighting for democracy.
You were participating in something far more organized than you realized.
Even institutions that once stood firmly for civil liberties are raising concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union built its legacy defending speech for people it disagreed with because it understood that once you start carving out exceptions, the entire principle collapses.
Now even that standard is eroding.
Look at the shift over time.
Bill Clinton stood before the country and said illegal immigration was wrong and received a standing ovation. He expanded policing. He talked about limiting government. He operated within a framework that assumed borders, law enforcement, and free speech were foundational.
Today, many of those same positions would get him labeled extreme by his own party.
That is how far the ground has moved.
So when you chant about kings, understand what you are actually defending and what you are actually ignoring.
Historians look for patterns when evaluating systems of power. Suppression of opposition. Disregard for process. Acceptance of political violence. Enforcement of ideology through institutions. Alignment between corporate and state power.
Ask yourself honestly where those patterns are showing up.
Because the answer is not as simple as the slogan you were handed.
You marched against kings.
But what you are actually enabling is a system that does not need a crown to control you.
And the most dangerous part is that you think you are fighting for freedom while you help build it.
We've now established precedence. ICE is working at airports in role of TSA agents. I propose ICE be in charge of social services- from now on, ICE hands out welfare & food stamps. New rule- you have ... View MoreWe've now established precedence. ICE is working at airports in role of TSA agents. I propose ICE be in charge of social services- from now on, ICE hands out welfare & food stamps. New rule- you have to go get your govt checks in person. No more mail or direct deposit. You want welfare, get off your ass & go to welfare office to get it- and be met by ICE agents. Result? No illegals will risk encounter w/ICE. So, no more illegals on welfare or food stamps. Without govt checks, they will all soon leave USA. #MASSSELFDEPORTATION
page=2&profile_user_id=512169&year=&month=
Load More
