Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Matt O’Brien: Mass Incarceration Remains a Myth, Mass Migration Is Still a Problem

by Matt O’Brien

The Intercept has published an article titled, “Immigration Detention Is Part of Mass Incarceration: The Case for Abolishing Ice and Everything Else.” It is, in essence a promotion piece for two unabashedly anti-Trump screeds: Migrating to Prison: America’s Obsession With Locking Up Immigrants, written by law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández and All-American Nativism: How the Bipartisan War on Immigrants Explains Politics as We Know It, by Daniel Denvir.

Both authors argue that the Trump administration’s attempts to strengthen immigration enforcement are not intended to preserve American sovereignty and national security. Rather, they claim, Team Trump is exploiting systemic racism, fear of migrants and a “mass incarceration problem” that undermines civil rights in the United States. Moreover, both García Hernández and Denvir assert – against the weight of historical evidence – that only recently has the U.S. government begun to take immigration violations seriously.

But, even for The Intercept, which is unabashedly anti-Trump and pro-open-borders, touting such over-the-top hyperbole is a bit much. Neither García Hernández’ nor Denvir’s claims have any validity whatsoever.

To begin with, the United States in its relatively brief history has received more immigrants than all the other nations of the world combined. Clearly, we don’t have any fear of migrants. Not to mention that, since immigrants aren’t a race – they come from every corner of the globe – it’s patently ridiculous to claim that being broadly in favor of border enforcement renders someone a “racist.”

When it comes to the detention of lawbreakers, the U.S. isn’t even close to having a “mass incarceration problem.” As Rafael A. Mangual of the Manhattan Institute has pointed out, the U.S. does have a fair and impartial justice system. And that system regularly incarcerates violent felons and other serious criminals who pose a danger to the American public. What’s more, unlike many other countries in the world, the U.S. transparently reports the number of people it jails each year. Meanwhile, the notion that the U.S. regularly incarcerates people who simply don’t deserve to be in jail just isn’t supported by any objective data.

As far as the severity with which immigration offenses have been viewed throughout American history, both García Hernández and Denvir are way off base. In 1798, Congress passed the Alien Friends Act, which empowered the president to imprison or deport aliens believed to be “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.”

In 1799, in Frie’s Case, Supreme Justice James Iredell applied the Alien Friends Act and related legislation. He noted that no one had ever argued, “that aliens had a right to go into a foreign country, and stay at their will and pleasure without any leave from the government.” Justice Iredell’s statement is proof positive that even the earliest government officials believed that foreign nationals may enter and remain in the U.S. only with the permission of the Executive Branch. Furthermore, it’s a clear acknowledgement that the federal government has always had the authority to take enforcement actions against foreigners who enter the U.S. without permission or who exceed the bounds of permissions granted.

So, what’s up with The Intercept and the authors it cites? They believe that the actions of individuals are not a product of conscious choice. Instead, they see crime and illegal migration as things that people are forced into. And they consider anything other than total forgiveness for any type of criminal behavior to be immoral. It’s what Kurt Schlichter of Townhall.com calls “decriminalizing crime.” However, eliminating all restrictions on bad behavior only leads to chaos and the breakdown of the social order needed for the United States to remain successful.

American voters know that we don’t have a mass incarceration problem, we have an unchecked mass migration problem. That’s why they elected Donald Trump as president. He was the first candidate in five decades who seemed to understand their frustrations with immigration policies that put the desires of foreign nationals above American’s basic need for safety, security and economic stability.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2020/01/06/incarceration-illegal-immigration-criminals-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

Matt O’Brien: ProPublica’s “Big Story” Is More Than a Little Wrong

by Matt O’Brien

Radical news outlet ProPublica is currently running a scare piece claiming, “Border agents can now get classified intelligence information. Experts call that dangerous.” According to ProPublica, “…the Trump administration is creating a new center in suburban Virginia that will allow immigration agents to access, for the first time, the sprawling array of information scooped up by America’s intelligence agencies….”

The article, part of the organization’s “Big Story” newsletter, further claims, “Migrants and others denied entry will be unable to see the evidence against them because it is classified.” It also asserts that, “It could also be nearly impossible for those denied entry to challenge faulty information if wrongly accused, they say, since most of it is classified.”

But, there are so many factual errors in ProPublica’s overwrought monument to pointless, fake news hyperbole that it is difficult to know where to begin debunking it.

Immigration officers throughout The United States Department of Homeland Security already have access to classified information. They have, for decades. In Jay v. Boyd, decided in 1956, the Supreme Court explicitly held that, when determining an alien’s admissibility to the United States, the government may rely on “confidential information not disclosed to the alien.”

In fact, over 20 years ago, in 1998, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) General Counsel Paul Virtue appeared before Congress to discuss the government’s need to consider classified information in connection with immigration applications in order to protect America’s national security. And that was under the Democrat, left-leaning Clinton administration.

And the Trump administration isn’t setting up any shadowy new intelligence center in the capital city’s suburbs. There are already a number of information-collection-and-sharing facilities all around the Washington, D.C., area. They range from the National Counterterrorism Center, operated by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) National Targeting Center (whose motto is “Catching smugglers, terrorists and lawbreakers works better through partnership.”). Many other agencies also run information-sharing centers in the area. Their collective purpose is to protect the United States from foreign national security threats, particularly terrorism.

The suburban Virginia facility referenced by ProPublica is called the National Vetting Center (NVC). And it serves one simple purpose that its parent agency, United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has loudly and publicly proclaimed:

Over time, the U.S. Government has developed multiple, unconnected processes to bring together threat information already lawfully held by the government about individuals seeking to enter the United States or obtain benefits under our immigration laws.  The NVC is centralizing and improving these processes to more efficiently and effectively inform department and agency vetting.  Relevant, appropriate information will be accessible in a consolidated and timely manner to the departments and agencies leveraging the NVC’s process and technology.

As for those “civil rights concerns” that ProPublica is crowing about: There aren’t any. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out, requests by foreign nationals for admission to the United States don’t give rise to constitutional civil rights claims, because “the admission of aliens to this country is not a right, but a privilege, which is granted only upon such terms as the United States prescribes” – Ekiu v. United States (1892), Fong Yue Ting v. United States(1893), Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), Kliendienst v. Mandel (1972).

Finally, ProPublica’s claim that individuals denied entry to the United States on the basis of classified information will be denied an opportunity to review and contest such information is utterly specious. Foreign nationals can’t even challenge a denial of admission made on the basis of unclassified information. Under existing statutes and case precedent, the Department of State can summarily deny a visa to a foreign national and CBP personnel at the border may deny admission to anyone who fails to establish his/her admissibility – and the law provides absolutely no legal mechanism  for challenging a denial of admission.

In reality, it turns out that this “Big Story” is actually much ado about nothing.

IR: https://www.immigrationreform.com/2019/11/04/pro-publica-bias-reporting-fake-news-immigrationreform-com/


Matt O’Brien joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 2016. Matt is responsible for managing FAIR’s research activities. He also writes content for FAIR’s website and publications. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in French from the Johns Hopkins University and a Juris Doctor from the University of Maine School of Law.

Bill Lockwood: Christianity in the Cross-hairs

by Bill Lockwood

The Democrats have Christianity in their cross-hairs. It must be eliminated. According to presidential candidate Joe Biden, his top priority in the Oval Office, should he be elected, will be to pass and enforce the “Equality Act”—a proposed bill that normalizes deviant sexual behavior while penalizing biblical Christianity.

Recently, Joe Biden honored the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for moving “the moral arc in this nation towards justice.” The HRC is a prominent homosexual advocacy group. He was referring to the so-called Equality Act, which passed the House Judiciary Committee in May. The Equality Act would effectively gut the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which has protected Americans with a Christian conscience from interference from Big Brother Government. As Bill Donohue, president and CEO of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, wrote in May:

The Equality Act is the most comprehensive assault on religious liberty, the right to life, and privacy ever packaged into one bill in the history of the United States. …this act is based on the idea that sexually challenged men and women—those who think they can transition to the other sex—should be treated as if hey were members of a minority race.

In short, the Equality Act takes “political correctness” and puts a statist government’s teeth into it. Let’s see the background.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The RFRA began as a reaction following a 1990 Supreme Court decision (Employment Division v. Smith) which concerned Christians that religious liberty might be threatened. In 1993 none other than Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the RFRA, a bill which was intended to keep federal laws from burdening a person’s religious convictions. The bill passed and was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

It is important to note that this resulted from a huge national movement of Christians to protect their First Amendment God-given rights. The Left, however, has never appreciated it, to say the least. For example, in 2014, the RFRA was used as a basis to challenge the ObamaCare mandate that required all for-profit companies to cover abortion-inducing drugs in their health-care plans. Hobby Lobby successfully challenged in Court Obama’s iron-fisted unconstitutional law.

The Left, therefore, has not only despised Christianity itself, but the basic protections that our Constitution has guaranteed them, including the First Amendment. After the 1993 RFRA, the war began to rage openly.

In 1997 the Supreme Court “ruled” that the RFRA could not apply to the states—only the federal government. This left the states open to irreligious assaults. The Christian communities around the country then began to pass at state levels their own religious freedom bills. Enough!, says the Left. We will eradicate Christian liberty once and for all—hence, the Equality Act.

The Equality Act

This historic proposal will take the 1964 Civil Rights Act and apply it to the Homosexual Network operating in the United States. It will therefore gut the RFRA by granting homosexuals and other deviant sexual behaviors preferential treatment in hiring; houses of worship would be turned into places of “public accommodations” where the Equality Act would rule; beginning in kindergarten children will be indoctrinated with the LGBTQ agenda; freedom of speech by Bible-oriented Christians would be endangered by law; privacy rights in bathrooms and gym locker rooms would be a thing of the past as would parental rights to teach children the sin of homosexuality. In short, liberty would be lost.

Bill Donohue adds,

If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, check out what has happened to religious liberty in New Jersey and Ohio where Catholic hospitals have been targeted. Unless they agree to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who claims to be a man, they can be sued. The ACLU has been suing Catholic hospitals all over the nation trying to force them to adopt its anti-Catholic agenda. While it typically loses, this legislation will reverse that record.

In short, the Equality Act could put people out of work for their beliefs, according to the Heritage Foundation. Those who believe the Bible will be disallowed by law from expressing those beliefs in public. The biblical definition of marriage will be relegated to your closet. Your family will have been invaded by the federal mandates that favor homosexuality as a “protected class.”

What is occurring in Great Britain will be occurring here as well. There, the Muslim community is seeking protection from criticism by having Islam classified as a “race” via the United Nations. Those who criticize the teachings of Mohammed become “racists” with all that that word carries. No open dialogue, no open thought—just conformity. So here. No dialogue. No debate. No scientific proof—just a statist government enforcing its will.

Your iniquities have separated between you and your God, your sins have hid his face from you …therefore justice is far from us, neither does righteousness overtake us; we look for light, but behold, darkness; for brightness, but we walk in obscurity. – Isaiah 59:1,9

Alex Newman: Growing Push to Teach Bible in Government Schools

by Alex Newman

WILLIAMSTOWN, Kentucky — Across America, states are looking to Kentucky for guidance on teaching the Bible in government schools without arousing the wrath of lawless federal courts determined to stamp out God’s Word.

Under a bill signed two years ago, students in Kentucky are allowed to take elective Bible classes at government schools, provided the Bible is not presented as the inerrant Word of God—a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.

After Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas passed similar legislation. At least 10 others have introduced bills to do the same. Project Blitz is leading the charge nationwide.

The idea is to ensure that students understand their heritage as well as the foundations of their civilization and the great literature of the Western world, supporters say.

However, the Bible will not be taught as God’s Word due to rogue federal court decisions purporting to outlaw that. And many Christians have expressed concerns that anti-Christian zealots would use the course to demonize Scripture and those who believe it.

Still, supporters said it was important to allow children to be exposed to the Bible.

“It really did set the foundation that our Founding Fathers used to develop documents like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights,” Kentucky Rep. D.J. Johnson (R-Owensboro) was quoted as saying by local news service WDRB when the bill passed there. “All of those came from principles from the Bible.”

Governor Matt Bevin, who has developed a national reputation as a true conservative, also expressed strong support for the measure when he signed it in June of 2017.

“The idea that we would not want this to be an option for people in school, that would be crazy. I don’t know why every state would not embrace this, why we as a nation would not embrace this,” the governor told supporters at the bill signing. “You could be an atheist, and you would appreciate there’s a lot of wisdom in the Bible.”

Under the legislation, local school boards are allowed to offer an elective course on Bible literacy as part of the “social studies” curriculum.

The measure was approved overwhelmingly by the state legislature. And across America, the idea is tremendously popular.

Even President Trump has expressed support. “Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible,” he tweeted in January. “Starting to make a turn back? Great!”

On the other side of the debate, the ACLU and various other fringe far-left organizations are foaming at the mouth in outrage. The increasingly unhinged Washington Post even claimed it was “unconstitutional.”

The Takeaway

The Supreme Court never had the power to ban Bible reading and prayer in schools. And it certainly did not have the power to establish the dangerous false religion of humanism using government schools to conscript children.


Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Jesse Lee Peterson: WHY CHRISTIANS ARE LOSING THEIR COUNTRY

Jesse Lee Peterson blasts left for attacking people for telling truth

by Jesse Lee Peterson

America is a Christian nation, but that fact has been under attack by the children of the lie. The left has pushed immorality to the point we have so-called “same-sex marriage” and “transgender” nonsense trampling the rights of Christians. “People of color” and “women” join the attack on freedom of speech and our rights to self-defense. Good people are accused of “hate speech,” punished for telling the truth in public – or even in private!

Christians, men and especially white people are under attack. Christians are forced to bake “gay cakes” for homosexuals pretending to get “married.” Men are falsely accused of “sexual harassment,” “sexual assault” or of being “child molesters” – and they’re not allowed to say the women are lying! Children are abused by women, even killed in the womb, and the man can’t do anything to protect his children. White people are called “racist” just for loving their country, for telling the truth about “people of color,” or for standing up for white people.

A decade ago, the fallen messiah Barack Obama claimed America is “no longer a Christian nation.” He pushed homosexuality and transgender madness, and took up for Muslims at every opportunity. He was the first “feminist” president, and loved abortion.

Obama attacked whites and police, making blacks feel justified in their anger and false victimhood. He brought Black Lives Matter to the White House – a group worse than the KKK, founded by black lesbians, homosexuals and white “social justice warriors.” They killed the souls of black people by pushing anger, and their attacks on police resulted in an increase in murders around the country.

You cannot be a Christian and support the Democrat Party. After Obama, they’ve only grown more radical, electing far-left Muslims, homosexuals, and women – in order to attack a real men, President Trump. Donald Trump represents everything they hate – the goodness of America. The straight, white, conservative, Christian man of power built this country. But leftists don’t want America to be made great again, so they go after all males, white people, and Christians in order to take down Trump.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

This week, they went after Democrat Joe Biden – Obama’s vice president. They accused him of sexual harassment with no proof. For years, Biden openly kissed and tried to flatter women and little girls in front of cameras – never trying to hide it. But now people impulsively judge him as “creepy,” watching suggestively edited videos that play on the imagination and people’s anti-male brainwashing. In the old days, men warned you to believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.

But Biden as a hated “white male” is not welcome in the Democrat Party. They want a woman or a “person of color” to run for president.

Men have been trained by women to show affection, to worship women, make them feel special – but only with “consent.” Meanwhile, women throw themselves on men, hug and kiss men without permission, sexually assault them, and even rape men and young boys. Even Christians join in on this double-standard, in which every man is a suspected “rapist” or “child molester.” At our recent Men’s Forum at my nonprofit BOND, a home contractor said he wears a camera on himself all day to prevent being accused!

The city of Chicago recently elected a black lesbian for mayor. She’s pretending she will end the corruption in the city. But she herself is morally corrupt – she has no values. She’ll go after the Christians, white people and men, and only further destroy the city.

There are homosexuals who are stuck in that lifestyle but know it’s wrong. But this new mayor-elect, Lori Lightfoot, is promoting wrong as right. Similarly, Pete Buttigieg, a homosexual millennial mayorof South Bend, Indiana, is trying to run for president. The corrupt liberal media love him for being shamelessly homosexual. The former mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, is a lesbian with a pretend “wife.” Females on the Supreme Court and in Congress have conducted so-called same-sex “weddings.”

In Ireland, they have a homosexual prime minister who brought his gay “partner” to America for an official event with Vice President Mike Pence. This man, Leo Varadkar, gave a slap in the face to Christians, speaking against “discrimination.” The radical homosexuals are allowed to discriminate against Christians, but not the other way around. There is no freedom.

Christians have lost their countries because Christians are no longer any different from the world. They believe that they can be born again of God and continue to sin. The men are controlled by women – they kiss up to women in their personal lives and in politics. The whites are afraid to tell the truth to the people of color. The Christians have anger in their hearts, playing God – there’s no love in anger, but only fear, doubt, worry and insecurity. Christian parents are sacrificing their children to corrupt schools where kids come out liberal, turning away from God.

If you want your country to be right, you have to be right. As Christ said, you must become perfect as the Father in heaven is perfect.

https://youtu.be/ZS6OPX5yU7o

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/04/why-christians-are-losing-their-country/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: King Cuomo of NY: Shades of Herod!

by Bill Lockwood

Shockingly, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, recently signed into law measures to expand abortion rights across the state. Mislabeled the Reproductive Health Act, the state of New York wanted to put protective barriers around Roe v Wade which Democrats feared could be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court under Donald Trump. Cuomo stated: “With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body.”

The bill allows women to abort their babies up to the very moment of birth, even as they prepare for delivery. This grotesque ignoring of the value of children’s lives by abortion—properly called infanticideis alarming and should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans as to the wicked direction of leftist politics.

Herod the Great, the unusually cruel king of Judea who served under the auspices of Emperor Augustus at the time of our Lord’s birth, was in the last years of his reign when he learned that “the King of the Jews” was to be born in Bethlehem. In an effort to exterminate Jesus Christ, the newborn king, Herod ruthlessly slaughtered all of the babies of Bethlehem from two years old and younger (Matt. 2:16). Cuomo is cut out of the same cloth.

What’s next? Allowing the murder of children up to two years old? New York’s reasoning is that their bill involves the Reproductive Health of a woman. What about her Psychological Health? Here is how two Italian utilitarian professors argued for infanticide-even after birth-due to a woman’s psychological health.

However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health

of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.

Giubilini & Minerva

The above statement was published in a prestigious online Journal of Medical Ethics several years ago. If that is not an argument for infanticide, it would be difficult to determine what would constitute one. It was co-authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. Their position is that killing of a newborn baby is “ethically permissible” in all circumstances where abortion would be.

To soften our minds to this horrific suggestion, they tell us that the unborn child as well as the newborn is “only a potential person.” Further, feeling that “infanticide” is too strong a term, they therefore “propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion.’” This emphasizes “that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than a child.” In other words, quit thinking in human terms like “child” or “baby.”

The “circumstances” which would “ethically” allow “abortion” include such considerations as when the “well-being of the family” is at risk. And then, almost unbelievably, the professors tell us that “The best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice…”

Biubilini & Minerva’s reasoning is simply an extension of the justification for Cuomo’s abortion bill. Let New Yorkers or any pro-choice person give a coherent answer as to the conceptual difference between a woman’s reproductive health and her psychological health. This cannot be done precisely because abortion itself is infanticide: the killing of innocent God-given life.

Once a society begins wickedly exterminating its unborn children (America has murdered more than 1 million babies a year since 1973—financed in large part by taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood) a hardening of the conscience begins that inevitably leads to open Herodian-style infanticide. New York proudly leads the way downward.

One might ask the professors, or the Governor, who sets himself forth as some great one on this issue, just how long after birth might a baby be murdered? The professors are not certain on this point. That will have to be settled by “neurologists and psychologists” who advise the “king.” And that advice will be skewed depending upon the interest of the crown.

Bill Lockwood: An Exciting Time to be a Commie Again

by Bill Lockwood

Communists and socialists rally under ‘Trump Resistance’, write Joshua Delk and Paul Kengor of The American Spectator. “it’s an exciting time to be a commie again.” They are speaking of claimed recent surges in the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America since the election of Donald Trump. However, it is more than that. Our entire cultural landscape is buzzing with socialism as activists attach themselves to one leftie organization then another. Many of these come together in what is known as #The Resistance Movement. But, as Julienne Davis of Fox News observed last year, these Marxist-style organizations are not “battling the establishment.” They are the Establishment.

The Establishment today includes,

Academia. The entire education industry, unconstitutionally wrested from local and state controls by the federal managers, is completely laced with social justice, environmental justice, evolutionism, earth justice, women’s rights (aka abortion), Islamism, and every other propaganda piece that the left may conceive. At the University level open Marxist professors poison the minds of the students.

Entertainment. Few and far between are conservative actors and actresses. Awards programs have featured anti-Trump diatribes dressed up as comedy. Movies and television regularly include liberal indoctrination themes as well as hate pieces against Christianity.

The Media. Main-stream media has become indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. News-casters grow openly vitriolic against conservative values, against the Republican Party, and especially against President Trump. Every tweet of his becomes the occasion for more harangues that remind the viewer more of a rabid dog than an even-handed commentator.

The Main-Stream-Media fosters communistic-style class warfare, dividing the nation along ethnic, religious, political, sexual and every other line imaginable. According to a recent article in The Guardian America’s “identity politics went from inclusion to exclusion.” Reviewing a book by Amy Chua the article states we are at an “unprecedented time” in America. “Political tribalism has reached a new peak” leaving the US “in a new perilous situation.”

The Churches. Especially shocking to many is the fact that many mainline denominations that self-identify as Christian have become megaphones for socialism and World Government under the auspices the United Nations. The website of the National Council of Churches (NCC)  includes preachments for ‘restorative justice’ and “end to death penalty”; public education for all, affordable and accessible health care; social security; “tax and budget policies that reduce disparities between the rich and poor” (read, redistribute wealth); “sustainable communities” (rationing of goods and services); “limits on the power of private interests”; “equitable global trade”; “nuclear disarmament”; “environmental justice among the world’s religions”; and more.

#The Resist Movement

Much of today’s socialism is coalescing behind what has become known as #the Resist Movement. But what is #The Resist Movement?

From their own website they claim roots back to the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960’s. Those who have followed that movement know its communistic-inspired taproot complete with paid agitators, even though the Resist website claims that it has always been a “grassroots” activism that “explodes” across the country. “Resist” is about changing the “unequal distribution of power and money.” That can only come, of course, by Big Government interference.

“Unequal distribution of power and money” has always been communism’s mantra. In other words, all of this socialistic hype about which we hear so much is nothing less than communism in America’s face.

Weekly Standard’s Chris Deaton pointed out that “the progressive grassroots organization Indivisible” “created to ‘resist the Trump Agenda.’” Once more, issues of importance to Indivisible include such liberal bullet points as abortion “rights,” ObamaCare—socialized medicine, LGBTQ rights, and “our democratic institutions”—whatever that may mean. This is a communist-inspired laundry list for re-casting America.

Truthout.org glorifies the Resist Movement showing its alliance with socialistic/communistic organizations such as Earthjustice and MoveOn Civic Action as well as alignment with socialist Bernie Sanders. Earthjustice president Trip Van Noppen, for example, interviewed by truthout.org, warned that upon the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court Americans could “jeopardize” the “ability to rely on the courts to protect their health, safety, and the environment.”

Translated from socialistic lingo, that means the liberals wish the Supreme Court to act as an oligarchy to force working Americans to pay for the health care of others while also submitting to a world governing force that restricts the way we do business so that the “environment” may be protected.

Democratic Socialists of America

That the Resist Movement is a communistic strategy to create chaos in the streets can be seen by listening to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which itself is a communistic organization. Not only claiming a surge in membership in the wake of Donald Trump’s election (18% per David Duhalde, The American Spectator), the DSA has planted itself, alongside the Communist Party, USA, (CPUSA) in the middle of the Resist Movement.

John Bachtell of the CPUSA trumpets “we are not dropping Leninism or the ideas of Lenin.” That, of course means revolution as the goal and blood will be the result. Bachtell plainly warns
“Tens of thousands will die as a direct result of the cruel and ruthless Trump and the GOP congressional policies.”

Ben & Jerry’s

Now comes Ben & Jerry’s ice cream company to join the communistic revolt against America. “Pecan Resist” is their new “flavor” featuring a label sporting a black woman holding a “Resist” sign. “Together we can build a more just and equitable tomorrow. We can peacefully resist the Trump administrations’ regressive and discriminatory policies and build a future that values inclusivity, equality, and justice for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, refugees, and immigrants. Pecan Resist supports four organizations that are working on the front lines of the peaceful resistance, building a world that supports our values.”

It is plain that the America as we now know it or have known it to be is not what is intended. From top to bottom communism plans to change society. It is also clear from these lefties that the direction of America under former President Obama was considered to be socialism.

The four organizations that Ben & Jerry’s plans to fund are: the black activist group Color of Change; the “nativist/environmental activist effort called Honor the Earth”; the radical feminist Women’s March; and Neta, described as “an independent media platform” led by “people of color along the Texas-Mexico border” (Dave Bohon, The New American, 11-7-18).

Color of Change was co-founded by James Rucker and his self-described communist partner Van Jones. Rucker also serves on the communist-leaning Southern Poverty Law Center. Before that Rucker was a grassroots organizing director at the Soros-funded group MoveOn. Color of Change claims as “partner and ally” Islamist Keith Ellison. Enough said.

Honor the Earth is an “indigenous people” movement connected to environmental legislation. Their website not only glorifies the United Nations, which promotes World Government, but blatantly preaches the complete erasure of property rights. “Rather than treating nature as property under the law, the time has come to recognize that nature and all our natural communities have the right to exist…the eco-system itself can be named as a rights-bearing subject with standing in a court of law.”

All of these rights were “codified”, it is claimed, in the Ecuadorian constitution in 2008. “Soon after, in Bolivia, the World’s People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth drafted the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.”

“Rights of nature is the recognition and honoring that natural ecosystems including trees, oceans, animals, mountains have rights just as human beings have rights.” So, there you have it. Boldly repudiating the biblical concept of man created in God’s image while asserting in pagan fashion that non-animate objects are equal in value as man, Honor the Earth appeals to a World Government to cancel American values.

Support from Ben & Jerry’s for the radical Women’s March is followed by financial contributions to Neta. What is Neta? This organization claims to be “one of the fastest-growing Latinx-run progressive media platforms in Texas and the U.S” based in the Rio Grande Valley along the US/Mexico border. It is intent on “engaging young people of color on important social issues and politics.” Neta launched on January 19, 2017, the day before Donald Trump’s Presidential inauguration.

And which “social issues” are there about which Neta is concerned? Claiming that the “border of the U.S and Mexico” is a “talking point”, Neta is interested in immigration, health care, reproductive justice, LGBTQ, and education.”

Same song; this time the Neta stanza. ‘Immigration’ means simply open borders; “reproductive justice” means socialism in the sense that taxpayers foot the bill for their abortions; LGBTQ and education is another way of saying they plan to indoctrinate all children in government schools along homosexual and queer lines.

So, the Resist Movement is nothing less than old-fashioned communism–now dressed up in ice cream packages, activist organizations for young people, earth-worshipping man-degrading concepts of the American Indian religions—all with one goal in mind. Destroying the America we know. An exciting time to be a communist, indeed.

Birthright Citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment and The Immigration Invasion

by Bill Lockwood

Some estimate the number of Central American citizens marching northward through Mexico to the United States to be upward of 14,000. Eighty percent of these immigrants are men younger than 35 years old. President Trump has issued a state of emergency and U.S. troops are being deployed to the Mexican border.

In the wake of this looming invasion of the sovereignty of the United States, several issues are being pushed to the forefront of national attention. The most notable is the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and its so-called Citizenship Clause. “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.”

Many cultural leaders and Constitutional commentators insist that these clauses mean that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students, or children born of illegal aliens who are unlawfully residing within our geographical boundaries automatically become U.S. citizens. This is known as “Birthright citizenship.”

This, however, is not what the text of the Constitution says or means, in spite of the fact that many people think that it does. For example, a recent article in the Chicago Tribune argues for birthright citizenship.

Chicago Tribune

“Trump eyes order to end birthright citizenship. Legal experts say that would violate Constitution,” blares the  headline.

President Donald Trump is vowing to sign an executive order that would seek to end the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizens, a move most legal experts say runs afoul of the Constitution and that was dismissed Tuesday by the top House Republican.”

John Wagner, a writer for The Washington Post and author of the above lines, adds that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) dismissed the idea in a recent radio interview, explaining that Trump’s proposal is not consistent with the Constitution. Ryan explained that not only can Trump not end “birthright citizenship” with an executive order, but that Republicans did not like it when Barack Obama changed immigration policy by executive action.

At the risk of taking on the Establishment legal experts but having confidence in the fact that the Constitution was written for all to understand, these “legal experts”, including Paul Ryan, are flat wrong. As a matter of fact, one of the “choke points” designed to minimize the likelihood “that an arguably unconstitutional federal law would pass and take effect” is the plain supposition that the Constitution speaks “not merely to federal judges, but rather to all branches and ultimately to the people themselves” (Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 62-63).

The Civil War Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments to the Constitution that was adopted in post-Civil War America. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment defined citizenship and guaranteed the rights of former slaves; and the Fifteenth Amendment granted the vote to African-American men.

The point of today’s conflict resides in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which actually reads: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the United States. Those who advocate birthright citizenship ignore the qualifying phrase.

What is the Meaning of the 14th Amendment?

First, consider Original Intent of the Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson pointed out the obvious, that “original intent” is the only legitimate interpretation.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

This canon of interpretation is obvious, but Jefferson knew there were and would be forces which twist the meaning of written laws to make the Constitution conform to their desires.

James Madison agreed.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution … What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

James Wilson wrote that “The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.” And modern-day Justice Clarence Thomas underscored the point. If we are not interested in the “original intent” the Constitution has no more value than the latest football scores.

All such interpretive methodologies that speak of “various contexts” of the clauses of the Constitution, or that the text actually morphs over time and clime partake is nothing less than existential nonsense designed to free persons from the constraints of law.

Second, consider the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, specifically the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The 13th Amendment which abolished slavery within all the territories of the United States. It was adopted in December, 1865, only months after the conclusion of the Civil War. However, the 13th Amendment was found not to be enough.

Former slaves were forbidden to appear in “the towns in any other character than menial servants” and were required to reside upon and cultivate the land “without the right to purchase or own it.” They were excluded from many occupations of gain and were “not permitted to give testimony in the courts where a white man was a party” (Thomas Norton, The Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application).

These and other similar circumstances brought about the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in July, 1868. The chief architect of the Amendment was Ohio politician John Bingham. However, it was Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship Clause in question.

During debate over the clause he assured his colleagues in the Senate that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was not intended to make Indians citizens of the United States because, although born in the geographical boundaries of our nation, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Instead, they owed allegiance to their tribes.

One of Howard’s colleagues, Senator Lyman Trumball, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued in exactly the same manner. He explained to the Senate that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”

“Not owing allegiance to anybody else.” That is as plain as it can be. Who can misread this? Illegal border crossers are not included in subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

It is for this reason the children of foreign diplomats do not automatically become citizens of the United States, although perhaps born on U.S. soil. There is no birthright citizenship.

Modern Constitutional writer Hons von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center, explains further:

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

Liberals prefer to believe that anyone present in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of America. That is false, as a plain reading of the 14th Amendment shows, as well as the intention of its framers. Foreigners who jump our borders owe allegiance to other nations and are not only not citizens, neither are their children, though they may be born on this soil.

The above being the case, how did Americans, even lawmakers, come to adopt the position that “birthright citizenship” is the law of the land? Only by bureaucratic overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. This is a perfect illustration of how governing authorities stretch the meaning of the Constitution to unlawful lengths, then assert their unauthorized position so frequently that the idea becomes settled as if it really is the law of the land.

Americans should be thankful for a president like Donald Trump who is bold enough to take on the establishment and its pretended authority to tell us what the Constitution means. The current crisis in immigration is caused solely by Big Government bureaucrats who have twisted the Constitution into their own mold and a complaisant citizenry which allows them to do so.

Bill Lockwood: To Alec Baldwin: What are You Waiting For?

by Bill Lockwood

Communists of Antifa riot in Portland and call for more revolts across the country. Republican members of Congress are receiving “death threats.” Soros-funded mobsters disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings. James T. Hodgkinson, animated by Democrat anger, shot Rep. Steve Scalise. Floyd Lee Corkins II, motivated by leftist rhetoric of the socialist-oriented Southern Poverty Law Center, shoots a security guard at Family Research Council headquarters.

Instead of denouncing these lawless rampages, Democrats continue to stoke the smoldering fires. Maxine Waters yells to crowds to “get in the faces” of Republicans and scream “You are not welcome here, or anywhere!” Now actor Alec Baldwin publicly advocates the “overthrow” of the Trump Administration. “We need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin will slyly complain: “I said ‘not violently’”—but he knows the leftist insurrectionists and anarchists are already plunging into violence and the “overthrow” language is clearly added incitement.

What I want to know is: what are you waiting for, Alec? Lead your revolutionaries. Stop agitating impressionable college kids and angry nobodies and do it yourself. I am sure you will be joined by Hanoi Jane Fonda who recently screeched “We have to get in the streets—Nobody should work. We should shut down the country. Shut it down!” Gather your leftist comrades in Hollywood, Alec; shoulder your weapon; get at the head of the Fifth Column and head to Washington, D.C.

Be sure to march through Texas as you go.

The problem with these blow-hard actors and actresses is that they are childish weaklings who sit within posh security-enforced mansions and want other people—the ignorant minions of the  brainwashed masses—to do their dirty work for them. Baldwin is all bark, no bite. He is a wind-bag of vitriolic treasonous speeches. Jane Fonda is no better.

Do I personally desire a revolution? No, I do not. But I grow weary of communist-inspired leftists who continue, ever since the Obama Administration emboldened them, to threaten to remove our God-given right of self-government. It is disgusting that they wish to destroy our constitutional system that has given us a peaceful country.

I know that the Alec Baldwin’s and Jane Fonda’s of the world love dictatorships—and Obama would have loved to have been yours, Alec. But it is getting to the point of absurdity for these pinkies to continue to threaten us with revolution.

Vogue Writer Maya Singer

Gabriel Hays of MRC Newsbusters exposes another socialist who tries to stoke a revolution from her armchair. Maya Singer wrote an opinion piece in Vogue Magazine entitled Who’s Up for Burning It All Down? With the acidic ink of an anarchist she begins, “I am going to try to write this calmly. I want to remain calm because I want to remain lucid. Also, if my hands are shaking with rage I cannot type.”

Maybe Alec Baldwin will hold your hand, Maya. Perhaps you both can begin your march to the nation’s capital. “If you’d asked me,” she wrote, “before last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings… where we were on the road to revolution, I’d have said we were somewhere around ‘the people are very mad but they’re working within the system.’”

But now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed on the Supreme Court, Maya Singer says the dynamic has changed. Women might begin the firebombing, she wrote. “I really wouldn’t be surprised if millions of American women spend the weekend Googling, ‘how to make Molotov cocktails.”

“They’ll have no one to blame but themselves if we riot,” she added. So, Baldwin has another volunteer to join his riotous army—unless she, too, chooses to stay seated behind her computer. The communists about which generations before us have warned are upon us. They are the very Hollywood celebrities, columnists of slick-covered magazines, opinion-writers of a fawning press, and self-confessed communist professors who lecture from taxpayer-paid podiums.

The trouble with all of these public figures is that they are so deluded with their own inflated sense of importance and power and so devoid of character that they care not about the rights of the common people who are paying the taxes. That the common man will lose his liberties under God—which is what big government always does—is nothing to them. After all, they are the wealthy elite who despise “we the people.” But this is why we have selected Donald J. Trump to roll back Big Government.

« Older Entries