While Democrats Chased Trump, the DSA Changed Their Party

Townhall 

For nearly a decade, the Democratic Party has been united around one objective: Stop Donald Trump.

Every election. Every headline. Every fundraising email. Every committee hearing. Every cable news appearance. The message was simple: Trump is the threat. And opposing Donald Trump became the organizing principle of modern Democratic politics.

But while Democratic leadership was looking outward, something else was happening inside their own party.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) weren't spending their time trying to win over Republicans. They were quietly reshaping the Democratic Party from within. And if the recent primary results in New York taught us anything, it's that this strategy is no longer theoretical.

It's working.

For years, some Republicans, conservative commentators, and policy organizations warned that democratic socialism was no longer a fringe movement. Those warnings were often dismissed as political fearmongering.

Today, after a series of victories by DSA-backed candidates in Democratic primaries, cracks are showing inside the Democratic coalition. Some leaders are embracing the party's socialist wing, others are openly warning about its growing influence, and many have remained conspicuously quiet. The debate over the DSA is no longer happening only on the Right—it's unfolding within the Democratic Party itself.

That's because what happened in New York wasn't an accident. It wasn't a viral campaign. It wasn't a lucky election cycle. It was the product of years of organization.

Years of recruiting candidates. Years of building neighborhood chapters. Years of identifying low-turnout Democratic primaries where intentional grassroots movements can have an outsized impact. Years of understanding something many Americans have forgotten: politics isn't built every four years. It's built every single day.

Sound familiar? It should. We've witnessed this playbook before. First with Bernie Sanders indoctrinating a new generation of “progressive activists” back in 2016 during his presidential campaign, which was a major recruitment play for the DSA. And then with candidates like AOC and Rashida Tlaib—proving that the DSA could defeat establishment Democrats in primaries.

New York wasn't the beginning of the story, it was the next chapter.

And the DSA has never hidden this strategy.

Its own published materials discuss building long-term political power through local organizing, candidate recruitment, campaign infrastructure, and Democratic primary victories—not as isolated wins, but as part of a broader movement to expand democratic socialist influence over time.

That's not a conspiracy, it's organization. And unfortunately, it's extremely effective.

While Republicans and Democrats have poured enormous amounts of energy into presidential politics, media cycles, and national messaging, the DSA has invested in something much less glamorous—but arguably much more important.

The political pipeline.

School boards become city councils. City councils become state legislatures. State legislators become members of Congress. Members of Congress become committee chairs, governors, Cabinet officials, and eventually party leaders. Politics has always been a farm system, and the DSA understands that.

Ironically, while much of the Democratic establishment spent years defining itself in opposition to Donald Trump, the DSA spent those same years defining the future of the Democratic Party. And unless Democrats outright say they’re against it, we can’t “trust” their alliances. We will never see eye to eye, but at least we understood where the fight was (most of the time). Say what you will about Nancy Pelosi, not many of us are fans, but she kept her coalition on a tight leash. Now that she is out, everyone is vying for that power and wants to be the new head of the Democratic Party, which is splintering into different factions. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani even has a message for political opponents using him as the new face of the Democratic Party: “Let them.”

The question isn't whether the DSA exists. The question is whether the Democratic Party is willing to acknowledge how much influence it now has within its own coalition.

For years, Democratic leadership asked Americans to focus almost exclusively on Donald Trump. Every election became a referendum on one man. Every disagreement became another reason to rally the party around a common opponent.

Meanwhile, another horrific movement was steadily building influence inside the party itself.

Today, after a series of high-profile primary victories and growing debate among Democratic strategists, that movement is no longer operating on the sidelines. Whether Democratic leaders welcome it or not, they now face a defining question: Is democratic socialism simply one voice within the party, or is it the loudest?

The American people deserve a clear answer.

Political parties evolve. Coalitions shift. That's nothing new. But voters should know what those shifts mean before they cast their ballots—not after.

If Democratic leaders reject the DSA's vision for the country, now is the time to say so clearly. If they embrace it, they should be equally transparent about that choice.

Because this isn't simply a debate about personalities or campaign strategy. It's a debate about the direction of one of America's two major political parties and, by extension, the competing visions voters will be asked to choose between.

Every election is ultimately about more than the candidates on the ballot. It's about the ideas, priorities, and movements that stand behind them.

As November approaches, voters will decide which vision they believe is best for the country. That decision is stronger when it's made with a clear understanding of where each party is headed.

Personally, I will continue to vote for common sense. Which does NOT equal socialism.

Podcast thread for July 1st

 

A very important NCIS Verse announcement definitely feels like it's cooking....

The Waning Of The West

American Thinker 

In the twilight of Western civilization, a demographic collapse is unfolding with chilling predictability. The descendants of Christian Europeans, the architects of past empires, dwindle inexorably, their numbers eroded by a fertility crisis that represents decline as much as it portends oblivion. Birth rates languish below replacement levels—averaging 1.5 children per woman across the continent—ensuring fewer heirs to sustain the cultural edifice erected over millennia. Leaving aside the statistical anomaly, this is a somber testament to an existential malaise, where the imperatives of posterity yield to the ephemeral pursuits of the self.

As Europe grapples with this self-inflicted atrophy, an alien demographic vigor surges forth, reshaping public spaces, norms, and power dynamics in ways that evoke conquest. Since WWI, the part of Christendom (Europe) that escaped the Islamic conquests of the seventh century has doubted its own right to exist and, succumbing to the collective masochism of civilizational fatigue, challenged itself ideologically.

After waves of aggressively atheistic collectivism (Nazism, Bolshevism), the Western cultural trajectory shifted in the opposite direction. However, the individualism of a society without roots in tradition has birthed a cowardice that facilitates its own erasure, allowing an ascendant Islamic presence to exploit the void with unyielding dominance. The gravity of this transformation demands unflinching scrutiny, lest the continent’s heritage dissolve into irrelevance.

At the heart of this demographic hemorrhage lies the triumph of individualism, a philosophy transmogrified into narcissism under the guise of post-Christian secularism. Contemporary Europeans, unmoored from the communal ethos of their forebears, prioritize “personal fulfillment” above all else: career trajectories, leisure pursuits, and hedonic indulgences that brook no interruption from the burdens of child-rearing. Atheism, historical ignorance, self-absorption, and indifference to the cultural community are destroying Western civilization from within.

The nuclear family, traditionally a bulwark of societal continuity, fractures under the weight of delayed marriages, cohabitation without commitment, and a cultural valorization of autonomy that borders on solipsism. Demographers warn of an “inverted pyramid” population structure, where aging cohorts burden a shrinking workforce, yet such alarms elicit scant response. Why? Because the post-Christian mindset, steeped in Enlightenment-derived humanism, fixates on the “here and now”—a temporal myopia that dismisses the survival of civilization as an abstraction unworthy of sacrifice. Rather than enlightened progress, this is an indictment of a society that has forsaken its duty to the future.

As fertility plummets, immigration fills the void, though not with assimilative intent. Instead, it imports parallel societies whose reproductive vigor—often exceeding three children per family among Muslim immigrants—accelerates the inversion of Europe’s ethnic tapestry. The somber irony is palpable: while Europeans chase ephemeral joys, they cede the cradle to those who view progeny as both legacy and leverage.

The demographic shift manifests most viscerally in the transformation of Europe’s public spaces, where the diurnal rhythm of urban life betrays a creeping alienation. By day, the streets of cities like Paris, Berlin, and London bear witness to an increasing proliferation of headscarves and niqabs, symbols of a cultural assertion that challenges the secular neutrality long cherished in the West. These veils now punctuate the landscape, signaling a gradual Islamization that erodes the shared civic ethos. 

Yet it is after dusk that the transformation assumes a more ominous hue. Packs of young men, predominantly from North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, patrol the boulevards with predatory assurance, their gestures and utterances proclaiming dominion over what used to be common ground. “This is ours,” their demeanor declares, as they cluster in groups, exuding a dominance that deters native passersby. Anything like respect for the immigration societies that generously subsidize their existence—through welfare systems sustaining large families—is conspicuously absent. Instead, a palpable contempt simmers, fueled by a narrative of historical grievance that justifies exploitation.

Encounters escalate into asymmetrical confrontations: a lone European pedestrian against a phalanx of ten, or a small group overwhelmed by fifty. The fear is ubiquitous, a chilling undercurrent that silences dissent and enforces submission. In contradistinction to propagandistic hyperbole, this is a civilizational charge against a continent that, in its senescence, permits its public realms to become arenas of cultural invasion and intimidation, where the rule of law yields to the law of the clan.

Compounding this spatial usurpation is a pervasive fear among post-Christian Europeans. It shows in a moral paralysis that masquerades as enlightened tolerance but reeks of cowardice. In fact, the modern European, individualistic and existentially isolated, succumbs to the “irreversible course” of history, as predicated on demographic transformation, and surrenders to totalitarianism cloaked in religious garb. In the face of blatant mockery—public funds diverted to support polygamous households or radical mosques—Europeans contort themselves into knots of empathy, lest they incur the dreaded labels of “bigot,” “racist,” or “Islamophobe.” This semantic tyranny, wielded by progressive elites and amplified by media, stifles critique, transforming legitimate concerns into Orwellian “thoughtcrime.”

Feminists, those erstwhile champions of gender equity, exhibit a particularly egregious hypocrisy: silent on the subjugation of Muslim women to patriarchal strictures—forced marriages, honor killings, and veiling as symbols of ownership—they prioritize intersectional alliances over universal sisterhood. Why this reticence? Partly, it stems from ideological blinders that romanticize the “other” as eternally victimized; partly, from raw terror. To intervene in “Islamic internal affairs” is to court trouble (e.g., violence, harassment).

The somber reality is that Europe’s vaunted humanism has devolved into a craven appeasement, where the fear of physical reprisal eclipses moral conviction. With a semblance of tolerance, this is in reality a betrayal of Enlightenment values, allowing supremacist ideologies to flourish unchecked within liberal democracies.

The Muslim population in Western Europe, now numbering in the tens of millions, forms the substrate from which this dynamic emerges. While the majority—for obvious reasons, namely women, children, and elders—eschew violent confrontation themselves, they constitute a demographic reservoir that nurtures an avant-garde of extremists. A vocal minority of young men, drawn to supremacist doctrines that channel their disaffection into hatred, perpetrates the bulk of aggressions: from street harassment to coordinated assaults.

Yet the silent majority, though ostensibly “moderate,” rarely confronts these radicals, deterred by communal pressures or covert sympathies. Polls reveal unsettling undercurrents—significant portions endorsing sharia law or viewing Western decadence as deserving of divine retribution—suggesting that passivity in public debate could mask tacit approval. This is not to essentialize an entire faith but to warn against the naivety of multiculturalism that ignores how cultural relativism enables radicalism.

The violent fringe thrives not in isolation but atop a pyramid of enablers: families that harbor fugitives, communities that enforce omertà, and a broader ummah that views Western tolerance as providential opportunity. Europe’s failure to demand assimilation—insisting instead on integration without reciprocity—exacerbates civilizational decline, allowing parallel societies to metastasize. The somber prognosis: without confrontation, the moderate facade crumbles, revealing a demographic tide that submerges the indigenous culture.

Across Western Europe, the demographic transformation accelerates, paving the way for a future where the cradle’s imbalance dictates destiny. In Sweden, Muslim-majority enclaves like Malmö exhibit no-go zones where police tread warily; in France, the banlieues simmer with resentment, birthing periodic uprisings; in Germany, the influx post-2015 has strained social cohesion, with birth rates among immigrants outpacing natives twofold. Projections are dire: by mid-century, Muslims could comprise 10-15% of the population, concentrated in urban centers where their influence amplifies. This portends a transformation that erodes the Judeo-Christian foundations of Europe—its art, laws, and liberties—replacing them with a theocratic overlay. 

Post-Christian Europeans, absorbed in narcissistic reverie, accelerate developments by abdicating reproduction and confrontation alike. The historical thrust is clear: this is civilizational suicide, abetted by a fear that paralyzes action. Importantly, the waning of Christian Europe’s descendants was never an inexorable fate but a consequence of choices—individualistic excesses, fearful silences, and demographic denial.

The public spaces, until recently emblems of liberty, now echo with alien assertions; the feminists and intellectuals, guardians of progress, cower before the storm. Millions of Muslims, while not monolithic, provide the momentum for a shift that exploits Western largesse without gratitude.

European Westerners have chosen to perish in obscurity; the cradle stands empty, and the veil descends.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

McCarthyism Didn’t Go Far Enough To Root Out Filthy Commies, So Now We Have Modern NYC

McCarthy was 100% correct that communists had infiltrated the U.S. government, and his legacy has been vindicated by later evidence. 

The Federalist 

After the Democratic primaries in New York last week, the Big Apple is looking a little more red. The Democratic Socialists of America, a rising faction within leftist politics, had a particularly good night. (The trend continued in Colorado last night)

Darializa Avila Chevalier, a radical’s radical in the DSA, unseated five-term incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the 13th Congressional District. Brad Lander beat incumbent Dan Goldman for the 10th District’s nomination, and DSA member Claire Valdez won the nomination for an open seat in the 7th District. Each also had the endorsement of Islamo-Marxist Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

The appellation of socialist, and “democratic socialist” at that, might put some people (read: fools) at relative ease. “At least they aren’t communists,” some might say, after huffing a generous amount of cope.

Except, they are, and they’re very open about it.

Case in point, MS Now’s Ali Velshi warned Chevalier, “You’re going to appear in all sorts of people’s ads. All sorts of Republicans’ ads that say, ‘This is what you’re gonna get if you vote for the Democrats: a communist.’”

In near-perfect academic doublespeak, no doubt thanks to pursuing a doctorate in, checks notes, sociology, Chevalier responded with, “For far too long, this reactive conversation of what we should be afraid of has prevented us from being able to have a politics … Democrats can actually identify with.”

For those following along at home, she basically said, “Yeah, I am. But I can’t plainly say that because the word ‘communist’ makes people uneasy. But have no fear, once I’m in office I’ll enact policies to the left of Lenin and Mao.”

They believe that if they tack on “democratic” in front of “socialism,” it’ll fool gullible people into relinquishing their private property and personal agency to the state. So far, that strategy has worked out relatively well in places like New York City. But her policy positions speak for themselves. Most of them are the usual leftist drivel: “Tax the rich to the hilt. Abolish ICE. Free stuff for everyone. Every Third Worlder who hops the border should automatically be a citizen. Free Palestine.” You know, the usual stuff.

But Chevalier in particular said the quiet part out loud through an organization she helped found on Columbia’s campus, the CU Apartheid Divest (CUAD). It repeated the popular Iranian slogan “Death to America” and declared, “We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization. … As the fascism ingrained in the American consciousness becomes ever more explicit and irrefutable, we seek community and instruction from militants in the Global South.”

Not exactly subtle.

When extremists tell you what they believe and what they want to do to this country, believe them. Popular streamer and infamous dog torturer (don’t worry, cruelty to animals is a cultural thing) Hasan Piker perhaps laid out their plan best in the wake of the DSA’s victories.

There was a time not so long ago when such rabid anti-American zealots had to hide their insane beliefs from the public and work in the shadows to enact their scheme to topple this nation. And there was a time when we had both the ability and the will to root them out.

Enter Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis. In 1950, McCarthy gave a speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, warning, “Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down — they are truly down.” He alleged that the State Department had been infested by communists, saying, “While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205.” (The actual number that McCarthy cited is a matter of dispute. Some sources say 205, some say 57.)

From this speech sprang a series of investigations by both the Senate, most notably through the Subcommittee on the Investigation of Loyalty of State Department Employees. The House, most infamously through the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), also engaged in its own investigations into communist activity in America, but HUAC had no formal ties to McCarthy.

The perjury conviction of Alger Hiss, who had been accused of spying for the Soviet Union while an official at the State Department, gave some validity to McCarthy’s charges. He then led a years-long crusade to investigate communists in the government. A concerted campaign against McCarthy’s investigations by his fellow senators and the media (most notably Edward R. Murrow) succeeded in discrediting McCarthy, and his investigations petered out by 1954.

Thus, largely thanks to the media, McCarthyism became a byword for cynical witch hunts and needless censorship, while McCarthy himself has since been regarded as a paranoid crank at best or a power-hungry opportunist at worst. But he was right.

The Communist Party USA had more than 37,000 members in 1950, and it received a generous subsidy directly from the Soviet Union. New members swore loyalty to the USSR and pledged that they would “insure the triumph of Soviet Power in the United States.”

The Venona project, a counter-intelligence operation run by the National Security Agency from 1943 to 1980, found the communists had indeed infiltrated the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. The communications intercepted by the project showed that top officials in multiple departments, such as Treasury official Harry Dexter White, were in regular contact with the Soviet government. They passed along intelligence to Soviet agents, sabotaged America’s diplomatic efforts, and advocated for policies that would weaken America and strengthen the Soviet Union’s position in the Cold War.

Several scientists, including Klaus Fuchs and Theodore Hall, who had worked on the Manhattan Project, steadily fed atomic secrets to the Russians, allowing them to break America’s atomic monopoly and usher in the era of mutually assured destruction that we still live under. Additionally, hundreds of Soviet spies operated directly on U.S. soil, and the KGB maintained extensive links to CPUSA. And keep in mind, those are only the ones that Venona identified.

For his foresight, McCarthy’s reputation has been systematically smeared for the last 60 years, while the communists he warned about slowly but surely crept their way into and came to dominate the nation’s institutions. “The long march through the institutions” ended in a total victory for the communists, and that victory has facilitated the absolute insanity we see in today’s media, academia, and politics. Their victory has been so complete that they no longer need to hide in the shadows — they can openly campaign for office and openly boast about their plans to dismantle America.

The current wave of openly communist candidates attaining real political power in the public square shows that not only was McCarthy right that communist elements were operating within the United States, but also that his efforts to root them out did not go far enough, allowing the leftist cancer to fester within the American body politic. Communist politicians need to be removed from office, the financiers of the ongoing communist revolution must be defanged, and the malcontents within our bureaucracy, academia, and media need to be purged.

A complete scorched-earth campaign is the only viable way to excise the communist threat — a threat that is closer to destroying America than the Soviet Union ever dreamed of.

Assault Weapon Bans Now Headed to SCOTUS

RedState 

Of all the schemes dreamed up by the anti-Second Amendment left, the various "assault weapons" bans are among the dumbest. The guns generally lumped into these bans aren't "weapons of war," no matter how many times nitwits repeat that claim. They are functionally identical to many, less-scary guns on the market, which are never included in proposed laws. An AR-15, it seems, is nasty and bad, but a Winchester 100, functionally identical but firing a more powerful cartridge, is not. There's just no sense to any of this.

Now, there may be some light at the end of this stupid tunnel. The Supreme Court has now agreed to hear a list of cases involving "assault weapons." Over at our sister site, Bearing Arms, Tom Knighton has that news.

For years, we've wanted the Supreme Court to agree to hear a case on bans of so-called assault weapons. They've continually kicked the can down the road, and that's been a significant problem for the gun rights community.

However, everything is about to change.

In the Court's list of cases, two in particular came up that deal with assault weapon bans.

Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the latter of which is tied with National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, both (all?) revolve around the concept of an assault weapon ban. And, as of today, the Supreme Court has merged the two cases into one and granted certiorari on them.

In short, they're going to hear about assault weapons, and unless something very strange happens during this case, it's likely to cause them to be overturned nationwide.

Of course, something very strange may well happen; it wouldn't be the first time. But the current Supreme Court has been fairly friendly to the Second Amendment; a little cautious optimism may be in order here.

As Tom points out, there's a chance this case, or more properly, these cases, could have implications beyond just the silly notion of "assault weapons." Several states have banned or restricted other arms, such as Glock pistols, because of the possibility that criminals may illegally modify them to be fully automatic, never mind that the act of doing so is already illegal, never mind that the mere possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is illegal. But then, straining at gnats and swallowing camels seems to be a job requirement for leftist gun-grabbers.

Even a narrowly defined decision that leaves out the other types of firearms would be a big, beautiful win for the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court has handed us several of those in recent months, including one in the most recent term in the form of Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down Hawaii's ridiculous vampire law on Second and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. 

Let's hope for a similar outcome in this new case, one that scotches the idiot notion of "assault weapon bans" for good and ever. Then, maybe, we can move on to national concealed-carry reciprocity.

You can view the Supreme Court's writ of certiorari here.

‘Grotesque Results’ Of Birth Tourism Allow Foreign Invaders To Seize Control Of U.S. From The Inside

‘The Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights,’ Justice Thomas wrote.

The Federalist 

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, gave its stamp of approval Tuesday to birth tourism, “the practice of traveling here with temporary authorization solely to give birth and obtain citizenship for one’s children, then returning to raise them in another country,” as Justice Clarence Thomas described in his dissent.

In doing so, Roberts and the high court have given away the country’s sovereignty to random, hostile foreign invaders to take control of the American government in less than a generation.

“The Court has repurposed the Fourteenth Amendment to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text,” Thomas wrote. “Today, the Court does so again by recognizing a constitutional right to citizenship for the children of all foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”

Thomas wrote about the birth tourism industry, consisting of companies that “reportedly collect large fees from wealthy foreigners to facilitate their trips to give birth in the United States.”

In his dissent Justice Samuel Alito offered a scathing critique of the majority’s approach to the issue. The majority opinion, Alito wrote, went “out of its way to hold that even a child born to a mother who is here for only a brief time is a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment,” ostensibly because doing otherwise would mean dismantling the entire system of so-called birthplace citizenship, which allows any foreigner anywhere to be considered a “citizen” so long as he was born on American soil.

“Showing merely that the Executive Order is valid as applied to a child born to a birth tourist would be enough to defeat respondents’ facial claim,” Alito said. “The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results. While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.”

Thomas noted another bizarre outcome of the Roberts opinion, stating that it essentially means a Chinese national has more of a claim to American citizenship than an American Indian does.

It is true that tribal Indians belonged to “alien and sovereign” nations and that the United States’ relations with them implicated “intersovereign concerns.” But, temporarily visiting foreigners also belong to “alien and sovereign” nations, and the United States’ relations with them also implicate “intersovereign concerns.” It is difficult to understand why China, for example, would be less alien or less sovereign than the Cherokee Nations. It is also difficult to understand why tribal Indians would be less entitled to American citizenship if born on non-Indian land within the United States than children of birth tourists who immediately returned to China.

As The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman noted, the thousands of Chinese babies whose parents have snatched (and will snatch) citizenship for them through birth tourism in the United States now have a comprehensive claim to the American homeland. All they must do is show up, perhaps at the age of 35, and convince the many millions of foreigners already imported into the United States — and their white liberal enablers — to elect them as president.

That is the clear implication behind Alito’s explanation of the severe national security consequences of the decision:

Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent.

“The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” Alito wrote. “Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship.”

SCOTUS Says Babies of Illegal Aliens, CCP Birth Tourists Are US Citizens Because of Magic Dirt

The Federalist 

In a major blow to American sovereignty, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that children born to illegal aliens and foreign “birth tourists” on U.S. soil are citizens under the 14th Amendment. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the court’s judgement and dissented in part.

The case known as Trump v. Barbara came to fruition last year, when Trump signed an executive order barring the federal government from producing or accepting certain documents purporting to recognize these birthplace citizens. The directive was immediately challenged in court by proponents of granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts ruled that the children born to parents “unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements” of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause: “they are ‘born . . . in the United States’ and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'” Therefore, he reasoned, “they are citizens at birth” under the Constitution.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ … We keep that promise today,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in part. The Biden appointee specifically criticized Thomas’ dissenting opinion and the government’s position as one that “propose[s] a return” to the “core tenet” of the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which held that black Americans — whether freed or enslaved — were not U.S. citizens.

In his concurrence, Kavanaugh said that Trump’s executive order violated federal law, but not the 14th Amendment. In agreeing with the dissent that there is no constitutional “birthplace citizenship” right, he argued that “Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment — amend [the law] or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country.”

In his blistering dissent, Thomas (while joined by Gorsuch) blasted the majority’s account for not being “historically accurate.” He emphasized that the court’s Barbara decision “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.”

“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time. The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ … Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas wrote.

In describing the Barbara case as “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court,” Alito noted in his dissent that the majority’s ruling is a “serious mistake.” He underscored how the holding that “virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country” grants citizenship to the children of “birth tourists” — “women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home.” Contrary to the court’s ruling, he said, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

“The Court’s interpretation preserves a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally. Immigrants naturally prefer affluent countries where economic opportunities are available. Other than Canada, the United States will be the only affluent nation where birth alone is enough to establish citizenship,” Alito wrote. “If the Fourteenth Amendment required these results, the country would have to live with them or amend the Constitution. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country. In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”

Gorsuch also authored a short dissent explaining why he and Thomas’ views of the citizenship clause are consistent with the Supreme Court’s 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, which held that the children of lawful permanent residents of America are citizens. He also outlined why respondents’ facial challenge to Trump’s executive order “must fail.”

Rep. Andy Ogles Has the Answer to the Birthright Citizenship Crisis

Townhall 

Congressional Republicans have gone on offense in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship. The latest effort to reinstate the popular presidential initiative comes from Rep. Andy Ogles and the Anchors Away Act.

The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit the admission into the United States of pregnant women who are seeking to give birth to their child for the purpose of acquiring citizenship. The announcement was met with resounding support from conservatives.

“Today, the Supreme Court cheapened the most valuable thing on planet Earth: U.S. citizenship,” Ogles told Townhall. “Not only is birthright citizenship clearly not in the U.S. Constitution, but this broken system has allowed foreign nationals to take advantage of our country, our benefits, and our generosity. These foreigners have embedded themselves into our society and are being trained by foreign governments to corrupt our culture,”

“I refuse to let these anchor babies colonize our country. Save our sovereignty. Anchors away!” Ogles added.

Ogles’ new bill is one of a few being pushed by the most conservative members of Congress. Sen. Eric Schmitt announced a similar bill and stated that he would begin pursuing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to put the issue of citizenship to rest.

President Trump has instructed Congress to act quickly to codify the now-defeated order into law.

The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas

Conservative Treehouse 

What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens.  Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court.

As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance.

The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.

The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler.

This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval.

Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will.

Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation.  That antagonism can then be directed.

Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem.  This can be done without visible vitriol.

The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends.

Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day.

But people will lie – doesn’t matter.

But people will create fake documents – doesn’t matter.

But people will still overstay their visas – doesn’t matter.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect.

Make every overburdensome visa rule and travel permit regulation specifically attributable to John Roberts decision. Pre-screenings, pregnancy tests, supplemental bond requirements for 15-to 45-year-old females, shortened visa terms and much more.

No exclusions for diplomats, sports figures, foreign actors, employees, H1Bs, student entry or any other visa type – the works. Make the total visa entry system subject to a regulatory and compliance nightmare at a scale that is unheard of.  That is the scale of the problem Roberts has created.  Now blame John Roberts for it.

This ‘Roberts Requirement’ applies to all visa types.

The objective, and it can accompany many other requirements such as a “bond” attachment required for 15- to 45-year-old females to travel, is to create such an overwhelmingly restrictive visa process that it creates ridicule on the SCOTUS decision.

Make every regulation specifically cited to the Supreme Court decision and make it exceptionally burdensome.

Make SCOTUS own the outcome.

Canadians and Mexicans also need to comply.  The same rules apply to every nation and no longer are visas determined by timeline, but by the number of extensions required or allowed within it.

Every visa has a maximum duration of 3 months, with various extensions possible.

A one-year visa becomes a three-month visa with 4 extensions allowed. At each extension the same origination requirements must be fulfilled.

A two-year USA visa, is now a U.S. visa with 7 extensions allowed, etc.

Student visas carry the same requirement for 3-month extensions.

Require a – refundable at exit – surety bond purchase valued at $500,000 for any non-tourist visa. [Later the bond issuer, sell those non-refunded bonds and release the bounty hunters.]

No visas are exempt from the entry requirements.

This is a new era with new rules that specifically come as an outcome of new judicial rulings.  This is not a White House or State Department issue.  This is an issue created by the Supreme Court that needs an immediate response.

Congress can fix it, but in the interim – maximum regulatory pressure is applied directly to the wound.

♦ Example of point and counterpoints.

POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations.

Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct.  That was then; this is now.  The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors. Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed.

Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it.

Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do?

Think about it!

Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.