The Battle of Birthright: Trump’s Quest to End ‘Birth Tourism’

But open borders advocates fiercely fight back.

By James Fite | Jan 24, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Opinion, Politics

Jus Soli – “right of the soil” – is the birthright of US citizens … but what qualifies one for inheritance? In one of many Inauguration Day executive orders, President Donald Trump answered the question: If both your parents are here illegally, then the automatic conference of citizenship defined by the 14th Amendment isn’t for you.

Simple, right? Not exactly. Just three days later, on January 23, a federal judge issued a temporary stay against the order. As it turns out, this issue won’t be resolved so easily. Trump should have expected this immediate challenge – in fact, perhaps he did, and queuing up the legal battle was all part of the plan.

An Issue of Birthright

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The idea of automatic birthright citizenship applying even to the children of illegal aliens stems from the wording of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Those who believe in birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the US – often derisively called “anchor babies” – argue that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” means literally everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they argue, means subject to the laws of the land because they happen to be here.

Those who oppose, on the other hand, argue that the part about jurisdiction means those who owe allegiance to and are beholden to only the United States, excluding the children of foreign nationals who are citizens of other countries. The president falls into the latter camp.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” Trump declared in the executive order. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” he continued. Such persons are later defined as those born in the US when neither parent is a US citizen and the mother is in the country illegally at the time of birth or under a legal but temporary status, like a visa for work, school, or travel.

Trump’s order declared that no US department or agency would issue or recognize citizenship for these people, to take effect February 19. The order didn’t make it anywhere close to that effective date. In just three days, US District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a temporary stay and told a Justice Department lawyer: “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

Defining Inheritance

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” Judge Coughenour said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one.”

Clear, however, is perhaps not the best word to describe the issue.

A “plain reading” of the 14th Amendment could be used to support either argument, depending on how one defines “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” There are, however, deeper questions – including regarding the validity of the 14th Amendment itself.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts established Union military rule over the defeated Confederacy, dividing all the rebellious states but Tennessee into five military districts tightly controlled by Union generals. The end of the war meant the Confederate states must remain in the Union, but in order to rejoin and once again govern themselves (more or less), they had to – among other things – ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The Reconstruction Amendments were effectively ratified at gunpoint, and the 14th, at least, has remained controversial to this day.

Barring another amendment or some extreme (and unlikely) action by the Supreme Court, however, the 14th Amendment will remain in force regardless of the validity of its origin. A much better argument against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals was made by the man who introduced it into the Senate in 1866.

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,” Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan said on the Senate floor. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Based on the punctuation and word usage, many argue that this only applies to the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers. The best refutation of that interpretation, however, quickly followed in the general discussion at the time. “I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians,” said Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin.

“Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Mr. Howard clarified. “They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nationals.”

All Native Americans were granted citizenship in 1924 through the Indian Citizenship Act, but the very necessity of its passage almost 60 years later simply demonstrates that Mr. Howard’s interpretation was, in fact, the standard understanding. And it was Mr. Howard’s version of the amendment that the Senate and the House adopted and that went into the Federal Register as the 14th Amendment.

Senator Howard’s argument was that, as a foreign national subject to the rule of another authority before the US government, Indians were excluded from this automatic birthright citizenship. Applying that logic to modern birth tourism would suggest that babies born on American soil to illegal aliens – or, for that matter, even foreign nationals here legally but without being naturalized citizens – are not, in fact, US citizens.

The Battle Continues

Judge Coughenour’s two-week stay, which he says is necessary to give time for both sides to make their arguments, expires before the order was supposed to take effect on February 19. That, perhaps, is the oddest part of the ruling. Otherwise, an immediate challenge and fairly quick ruling in a lower court was far from unexpected. An appeal has already been filed, and this case seems likely to work its way all the way up to the US Supreme Court. One might even be forgiven for assuming the president expected and even planned for it in order to get a ruling from a High Court he believes will decide in his favor.

For Discerning News Hounds

The Supreme Court did historically rule in favor of Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship – until it didn’t. In the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, both the majority and the dissent agreed that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded the children of citizens or subjects of foreign states, even if born in the US. This was reinforced in the Elk v. Wilkins decision of 1884, which stated that an Indian born on a reservation was not a citizen of the United States.

In 1898, however, the Supreme Court reversed that position in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishing birthright citizenship for anyone born in America, regardless of the parents’ citizenship status. Which way today’s High Court will rule, however, is anyone’s guess – and President Trump seems to be betting on himself.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From James Fite Editor-at-Large

Voters Hold Gavin Newsom to the Fire

Presidential hopes may have been incinerated. 

By Sarah Cowgill | Jan 24, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Opinion, Politics

As pomp and circumstance unfolded in the Capitol Rotunda for President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, from the opposite coast, Gov. Gavin Newsom watched his own presidential dreams go up in smoke. Newsom now faces a much angrier electorate than his post-COVID lockdown voters who lost their businesses, livelihoods, and homes. This time the voters he may soon face lost the lives of family members and treasured pets, saw entire neighborhoods charred to the ground, and have nowhere to go but out of the state.

The smiling, tone-deaf governor of California was too busy trying to Trump-proof his state to notice his fire department first responders had no water with which to battle the raging flames that destroyed the Pacific Palisades, Hurst, and the unincorporated village of Eaton. The fires are not yet contained, although the Santa Ana winds that fueled the flames have died down somewhat. A rebuilding effort – a la Marshall Plan-style – could cost tens of billions of dollars. Everyone else’s dollars. But will Newsom still be around to see it?

Recall Gavin Newsom Chants Catching Fire

As Newsom focused on his special legislative session dedicated to preventing President Donald Trump’s policies from tainting the Golden State, firefighters discovered in real time what poor management had done to protect California. Trump was and is the least of the state’s problems. At the top of the leadership heap, Newson is under fire for not only fumbling the response but also being woefully ill-prepared for the inferno to begin with — hydrants ran dry and one state reservoir sat empty during an extremely dry, unseasonably hot and blustery fire season. No one was minding the store as months and months passed, building the perfect conditions for an inferno.

Newsom had the audacity to grin during an interview, speaking about investors buying up the destroyed neighborhoods — not his shining leadership moment. And although the man is not slated to leave office until 2027, his neck is on the recall chopping block again. The latest effort is run by Randy Economy, who told Newsweek it’s not Newsom’s to rebuild. “How dare he? It’s up to the 10,000, 15,000 homes that have been destroyed,” Economy huffed. “It’s up to the people.”

During a presser on Thursday, January 23, SavingCaliforniaVote publicly announced its recall against the Golden State governor. The organization will gather the required signatures for the notice of intent to recall and plan to serve the governor later within the week.

Newsom’s people bristled and stuck to the talking points assigned: “Readers still should have the context that the same group of far-right Trump acolytes have launched six different recall attempts against the governor since he’s taken office, each of which have (sic) failed spectacularly,” spokesperson Nathan Click told Newsweek on Monday (Jan. 20).

Economy wasn’t stymied and blasted away: “This is emblematic of who he is as a leader, and I think this is emblematic of who he is as a politician, and he has no depth. So, therefore, we are taking the extraordinary steps to officially recall him.”

Newsom’s Marshall Plan

The Marshall Plan was enacted in 1948 to help war-ravaged Europe regain its feet and assist the populations of embattled countries to stave off starvation and create paying jobs. The following countries participated in the plan: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Western Germany, the UK, and the United States. It created its own layer of bureaucracy – the Economic Cooperation Administration — and doled out about $13 billion for economic aid, designed to restore industrial and agricultural production, expand trade, and establish financial stability. It worked.

However, it will not work for a regional aid package in California. Liberty Nation News Economics Editor Andrew Moran explained:

“Gov. Newsom has pledged to usher in a 21st-century Marshall Plan for California following the devastating wildfires. However, his brand of Gavinomics has failed to foster success before and after these natural disasters. Housing and homelessness are two issues that have worsened, even as the state government has dedicated an exorbitant amount of taxes, resources, and manpower. California has fallen short of its new housing efforts, while homelessness has spiraled out of control.

Everything that has transpired in The Golden State can be understood by reading legendary Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, who warned about the unavoidable outcomes of central planning. Hayek stated that the central planners, no matter how well-intentioned, did not possess the sufficient knowledge (or omnipotence) required to allocate resources efficiently. Instead, Newsom Nation has fostered a top-down approach to various portfolios, which can be challenging for local governments since people are fleeing the state in massive numbers.”

Early estimates suggest the total damage and economic loss due to the wildfires could range between $60 billion and a high of $130 billion — far exceeding the current record of $16 billion.

Angry People Sign and Vote

To recall the governor, petition signatures must equal at least 12% of the votes cast in the previous election. In the last gubernatorial contest, about ten million people voted – so, give or take, 1.3 million voters would have to sign on to the recall effort. “It’s about 9,000 signatures a day,” Economy said. “That should be no problem.”

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Sarah Cowgill National Columnist

Germany Incentivizes Sickness by Subsidizing Sick Days

January 24, 2025 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

Back in 2019, I compared OECD nations based on the total burden of social welfare spending as a share of economic output.

France was the worst of the worst, unsurprisingly, followed by Finland and Belgium.

That column also differentiated by types of spending.

• Greece had the biggest burden of pension spending.
• France had the biggest burden of heath spending.
• Belgium had the biggest burden of redistribution spending.

Today, let’s look at an even narrower slice of the social welfare state.

According to a new article in the Economist, Germany arguably has the most lavish sickness benefits in Europe. Maybe the most extravagant in the world.

That sounds very kind and compassionate, but it seems this policy is creating perverse incentives and undermining national prosperity.

Here are some excerpts from the article.

Germany is now “the world champion when it comes to sick days,” according to Oliver Bäte, the boss of Allianz, Europe’s biggest insurer. …Ola Källenius, the boss of Mercedes, agrees with Mr Bäte. He warns of the “economic consequences” of a sickness rate in Germany that is often twice as high as in other European countries. …Germany has one of the most generous sick-leave regimes in the world and it is costing businesses dearly. …

“It’s very hard to police,” says Jochen Pimpertz of the German Economic Institute (iw). In a study he found that the total nominal cost of sick pay for employers rose from €36.9bn to €76.7bn between 2010 and 2023 (a 57% increase, adjusted for inflation). …There is clear correlation between the generosity of the system and the number of sick days, says Nicolas Ziebarth of the Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research. Germany’s arrangements are lavish compared with elsewhere in Europe and have become easier to manipulate.

The article mentions that there used to be similar problems in some Scandinavian nations, and that reminded me that Sweden enacted some good reforms a few decades ago.

So I did a search for “sick days Sweden” and found a study published by the OECD in 2020.

Authored by Philip Hemmings and Christopher Prinz, it included this chart showing that spending on sick days was dramatically reduced over a 20-year period, dropping from 5  percent of GDP in the late 1980s to 2 percent of GDP about 20 years later.

How did Sweden get these remarkable results?

The answer was simple. They reduced, in two stages, the amount of money people got for being sick (or, in many cases, for pretending to be sick). Here are a few excerpts from the study.

Sick-leave compensation reform (1990s). Pushed by a major economic downturn in the early 1990s, Sweden embarked on a series of sickness benefit reforms as part of a broader attempt to curb public spending. This included the introduction of a 14-day sick-pay period covered by employers (1992). In addition there were significant changes to compensation:  Before 1991, sickness benefits replaced 100% of earnings for 90 days and 95% thereafter, with no time limit. As of 1993, there was no payment on the first day of sickness absence (i.e. one “waiting day”), compensation then varied over time: 75% of previous earnings (days 2 and 3 of absence), 90% (until day 90), 80% (to the end of first year) and 70% thereafter.

This reform promoted a sharp drop in absence spells, especially in short-term absences… When the economy recovered in the late 1990s, sick-pay rates were increased, to 90% of the previous wage until the end of the first year and 80% thereafter. This led to a significant rise in absence rates, especially longer-term absences… Overall, the cost of being absent significantly affected absence behaviour. …

Starting in 2006, Sweden undertook a series of reforms to sickness and disability policies, which contributed to further considerable drops in both sickness absence rates and disability claims. These reforms included (Economic Survey of Sweden, OECD 2012b) among other things the introduction of…more rigorous implementation of existing regulations… Requirements for individuals on sick leave to consider a wider scope of jobs… A 2.5-year ceiling on the duration of sick leave compensation… More stringent disability-pension entitlement criteria.

The broader lesson from Sweden’s successful reforms is that Ronald Reagan was right.

As was Thomas Sowell.

The more you subsidize of something, the more you get of it.

And, at the risk of stating the obvious, it’s not a good idea to subsidize dependency and idleness.

P.S. Sweden has implemented a lot of good reforms in recent decades. What happened with sickness benefits is laudable, but I’m even more impressed by the country’s partially private Social Security system and the impressive 1992-2001 period of spending restraint. Though a lot more needs to be done.

Three Days in January

By Rich Kozlovich

The title is a take off on the movie Seven Days in May which I think is a great movie, and I think more people should watch it and realize just how close America came to be taken over by a cabal of wannabe dictators in the military, the bureaucracy, and the Democrat party.  

“Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” ― David Horowitz

Seven days in May was about a military take over, but the principles are identical to what we saw going on for the last four years, which actually started with the Obama administration.     

Well, there will be no "Seven Days in May" because Trump has, in just Three Days in January, scared the daylights of those working (and I use the word working loosely) in the Stygian stables of the federal government.  

I read where generals are saying they're willing to work with Trump.  What?  Talk about delusional!  They're not required to "work with" the President of the United States, they're require to work for the President of the United States.  They're required to salute, say "Yes Sir", shut their mouths, do what they're told or resign.  It's just that simple! 

I will say this, if there ever was a time to be a junior officer in America's military, it's now, as promotions are going to be coming fast as furious as Trump fires a lot of generals, admirals (Of which 41 of them are four star officers.  All during WWII there were only 7 four star generals) along with others who've failed to understand their proper role.  Some of whom need to be court martialed. 

1. Milley's game
2. General Mark Milley: “You’re Fired!”

I had conversation with a very good friend who is also very conservative, and I commented that Trump was 78, and I understand how his mind works because I'm 78, and time is running out for both of us, and make no mistake, he will not let anything get in his way to save the nation from the leftist insanity of the Democrats, academia, the media, the bureaucracy, the military, or corrupt insane billionaires like George Soros.  Nothing is going stop him this time, and make no mistake the efforts by the left to do so will be massive. 

He's going all out since time isn't on his side.  He has nothing to lose, and everything to gain.  What will that gain be?  Restoring sanity to the nation, and as a result, he may end up being the greatest President America ever elected since George Washington. 

The Election Wizard listed what Trump has done in his first three days:

1. Humiliated the World Economic Forum. 
2. Released JFK, RFK, and MLK assassination files. 
3. Fired woke DEI employees. 
4. Designated cartels as terrorist organizations. 
5. Authorized ICE to remove illegal immigrants. 
6. Restored freedom of speech. 
7. Revoked security clearances for certain officials.
8. Withdrawn the U.S. from the WHO. 
9. Pardoned January 6th political prisoners and other political prisoners. 
10. Moved toward controlling Greenland and the Panama Canal. 
11. Secured one trillion dollars in support from Saudi Arabia. 
12. Made progress in ending wars that started under Biden.

I remember when the media would cite FDR's first 100 days as the touchstone for what a President should be like.  That's horsepucky because his presidency was a socialist disaster the corrupt media and Hollywood supported.  Fortunately that media is dying, both electronic and print, and it won't be long before they're going down the drain, and no one cares what these celebrity pinheads think.  America and the world is hearing the truth for a change since the "alternative" media is now ascendant.  Even P&D is getting over 100,000 hits a month, from all over the world, and P&D isn't tied into any group or system that promotes P&D. 

1. CNN, NBC Planning Mass Lay-Offs Amid Tumbling Ratings, Revenue 
2. Disgraced CNN to Lay off Hundreds as Viewership Collapses

 If this is what Trump can do in three days, think what the next four years will be like. 

The Southport Stabbing: Europe's Genius Undone by Its Folly

By Sean Gabb @ Sean Gabb Newsletter

 

On the 29th July 2024, a man went on a stabbing spree in Southport, Merseyside, killing three children and injuring ten others. The attacker, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, the son of Rwandan immigrants, was arrested at the scene. By all accounts, the attack was shocking not only in its savagery, but in its attendant circumstances. 

Witnesses report that Mr Rudakubana shouted slogans as he killed that suggested he was an Islamic terrorist. Almost at once, social media was filled with questions and with speculation. Also, protests began in several northern cities – Manchester, Leeds, and Bradford, for example – where demonstrators blamed the Government and the ruling class for immigration policies that had made the killings both possible and likely.

Instead of considering these protests and promising to address the causes of the crime, the British Government and the legacy media focussed on managing the narrative and silencing comment on the immigration policies that had allowed Mr Rudakubana’s family into the country. Keir Starmer, the new Prime Minister, seemed more worried about potential “violence against Muslims” than the actual brutality of Mr Rudakubana’s attack on English people. 

“For the Muslim community I will take every step possible to keep you safe,” he said in his first public statement on the killings. On the protests he added: “It is not protesting, it is not legitimate, it is crime. We will put a stop to it.” 

His focus was not on the victims, but on ensuring that no one questioned the system that had allowed this to happen.

In the days after the attack, several men were arrested for spreading what the government called “misinformation” online. Their crime? Posting details about Mr Rudakubana’s background and motivations—details that turned out to be broadly correct. Despite being right, these men were prosecuted and imprisoned under Britain’s hate speech laws. The most recently convicted, Andrew McIntyre, was sentenced earlier this month to seven and a half years in prison for postings on social media. Peter Lynch, a man of 61, was sent to prison last August for two years and eight months for the crime of shouting “scum” and “child killers” at the police. Last October, he hanged himself in prison. I am told he was seriously “mistreated” in prison. British prisons for many years have been overcrowded. Room was found for these prisoners of conscience after the Government began releasing violent criminals.

The injustice of this is glaring. These men were punished not because they lied, but because they spoke approximate truths the government wanted to suppress. Their imprisonment sends a clear message: in modern Britain, it’s better to be wrong on the side of the Government than right and against it.

A Carefully Managed Narrative

The media played its part in the cover up. At first, Mr Rudakubana was described, without name, as “originally from Cardiff. It took days before we were told he was a child of asylum seekers from Rwanda. Even then, the coverage was carefully balanced by a picture of him as a respectable schoolboy – not at the beast in human form shown by more recent photographs.

Only much later, when the story had faded from the headlines, did the real facts emerge. Mr Rudakubana was not just a troubled individual. His phone contained materials linked to terrorism and genocide, and his actions appeared to have an ideological motivation. Yet by the time these details came out, they barely caused a ripple. The public had been moved on to the next distraction.

A Chinese Perspective on Immigration

Now, though born in this country, I am of entirely Chinese ancestry. None of my ancestors fought at the Battle of Hastings, nor took part in the Civil War. Nor is any of them likely to have held an opinion on the Great Reform Act or British entry into the Great War. But, if you will pardon a certain understatement, I like England. Indeed, like George III, I glory in the name of Briton. And I will say that this country’s immigration policies are insane. There is an arguable benefit from welcoming immigrants who have something to contribute. I agree that a nation is not just a set of propositions that anyone can accept in order to join the nation. But neither is nation purely a matter of blood. There is some overlap between the two that great nations always manage pragmatically. But there is no benefit from importing unlimited numbers of people whose values and dispositions are plainly incompatible with the life of a civilised country. What happened last year in Southport is only one volume in a whole library of effects.

Mr Bickley has asked me to be careful in what I say at this point. But Chinese people openly accept the idea of a racial hierarchy. We believe that Europeans and Orientals are at the top, and each group has its strengths and weaknesses. Europeans have an extraordinary capacity for genius. They gave the world Homer, Aristotle, Mozart, Newton, and Darwin. Because I am studying Greek at A-Level, I will mention the matchless contribution made by just the Greek alphabet. All other peoples have struggled with clumsy syllabaries or with vast numbers of ideographs to express their thoughts. The Greeks, when they took to writing in the eighth century BC, dropped all this, instead developing a few dozen marks, each able to express one sound, their combination able to express an unlimited number of words. It is a step so simple and obvious, only a people of supreme genius could have made it. That step alone summarises the genius of European civilisation.

This being said, if you take a hundred Europeans at random and a hundred Orientals, the latter will have a higher average intelligence. Add to this an unusual capacity for hard work, and you will understand why we often do so well once freed from the customary restraints of Eastern civilisation, and freed from the stupidities of early Communist rule in China. Our different qualities are not in competition, but are complementary. Together, we can make our planet a better place and reach at least the inner planets.

Yet for all their genius, Europeans have come close to ruining themselves with disastrous ideas. Political correctness and critical race theory, and a general shame about the past, are things that no Chinese person can take seriously. These are ideologies obviously manufactured for the purpose of corruption and dissolution. I cannot understand why so many Europeans embrace them as if they were self-evident truths, even when they lead to policies as evil as those that allowed the Rudakubana family into Britain.

Protecting the System

The Southport stabbings and what followed show how Britain’s ruling class places its own survival over the well-being of the nation. The Government and media were not interested in finding the truth or addressing the problems caused by mass immigration. Their goal was to silence dissent and protect their policies from criticism. Britain, a nation capable of producing Shakespeare and Newton, has allowed itself to be led half-way to destruction by ideologies that weaken its society and endanger its future. The Southport stabbings were not an isolated incident; they are a symptom of a much deeper rot.

Note: Image copyright of Merseyside Police: used for “legitimate criticism or review.”

DEVELOPING: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

Stay tuned for more as this story develops. 

By Liberty Nation Authors Jan 23, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News

A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. On Thursday, January 23, US District Judge John C. Coughenour ruled in a case brought by four states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon – that argued the 14th Amendment and existing US Supreme Court case law ensure birthright citizenship.

The EO was signed on Inauguration Day and was slated to take effect on February 19. While Trump and many others interpret it as not applying to the children of illegal immigrants because they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the US government, the lawsuit argues that it does – and that American courts have interpreted it this way for nearly century.

• The Misuse of the 14th Amendment, By Susan Daniels Jan 22, 2025 -  “The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people, protect the civil rights of all citizens, and guarantee equal protection under the law. The amendment was ratified in 1868, two years after the Civil War.” I don’t think the Founding Fathers imagined people would come here to take advantage of our government systems by giving birth and going back home..........
• Day 3, Trump Golden Age: ...and just like that, illegal border crossings are down to 420 in a day - January 23, 2025 by Monica Showalter -  Three days into President Trump's term of office and the Border Patrol is reporting they've got ... 420 illegal border crossings to deal with across the 2,000-mile border, not 12,000..........Now there are reports of caravans turning around. Some migrants are telling the press they're planning to go home.  The sob stories are flowing -- and as Todd Bensmann notes, none are verified through actual reporting......
• Pregnant Migrants Seek C-Sections Before Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Deadline - By Alana Mastrangelo 23 Jan 2025 -  President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birth citizenship for children of migrants has reportedly prompted a rush for C-section births by pregnant illegal migrants and visa workers. Dr. S D Rama, who operates a maternity clinic in the United States, told Times of India that a significant increase in pre-term delivery requests has been seen following President Trump’s Monday executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants. Indian women in their eighth or ninth month of pregnancy are now scrambling to schedule C-sections before the February 20, when President Trump’s order is set to go into effect......
• Imaginary birthright - January 24, 2025 by Bill Ponton - President Trump’s decision to end birthright citizenship is challenged in court, but the whole argument is ludicrous........  The most laughable element of Bonta’s argument is his contention that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to enable what we see today.  I contend that if the framers were alive today, they would be scratching their heads in bewilderment about our present predicament. They might even call up the Union army thinking that Mexico was trying to reconquer its lost territories.
•  Tom Homan Is Right: Babies of Criminally-Present Aliens Are Not Citizens -Paul Dowling - The lawmakers who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment never dreamed of the lengths to which future Democrats would go to twist the authorial intent of the amendment into a wrongheaded policy harmful to Americans. .............So, here is what the Constitution says about birthright citizenship: “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.” The wording makes it clear that persons born in the U.S., but subject to the jurisdiction of another country, are not American citizens. In other words, babies born to foreign nationals who are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico are Mexican citizens, because they, like their parents, are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico -- not the United States.

Climate Kleptocrats Reeling From Trump Executive Orders

By Craig Rucker, President of CFACT

 

Tired of all the winning?  We're not either.  CFACT is energized!  Woke climate campaigners and profiteers are not having a good day.

Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change, said, the global clean energy boom - worth US $2 trillion last year alone and rising fast is the economic growth deal of the decade... embracing it will mean massive profits, millions of manufacturing jobs and clean air."

Sorry, Simon, you'll have to shake your trillions down from from Europe, Canada and Australia now. 

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of "Food and Water Watch," said that Trump's actions will lead to "climate change-supercharged disasters – all falling disproportionately on low-income families and communities of color.

Sorry, Wenonah, the days of holding "low-income families and communities of color" hostage in the name of climate are drawing to a close.Reality-based energy policy is set to replace politically correct energy boondoggles.

Take a look at the climate, energy, environment and free speech executive orders President Trump signed just hours after taking his oath of office. We posted them in their entirety to CFACT.org.  A few highlights:

• Withdrawal from the UN's Paris Climate Agreement
• Halting payments to UN climate funds
• Halting offshore wind turbines
• Eliminating electric vehicle mandates
• Unleashing Alaskan energy and resources
• Unleashing American energy production
• Reforming administration of the Endangered Species Act
• Declaring a national energy emergency
• Thwarting the Green gadflies blocking California's water resources
• Ending censorship and protecting freedom of speech

Welcome to a new era of common sense climate, energy and environmental policy.Well done, President Trump! Keep the reforms rolling. For nature and people too.

Mocking European Statism

January 23, 2025 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

Editor's Note:  I publish Dan's articles because he has a lot of great information that I embrace, but he and I don't agree on what he calls Trump's protectionism.  Otherwise it's a great article. RK

I have a special page for humor involving Europe, but I have not added to it since sharing some Brexit humor in 2016.

Let’s being the process of catching up with some amusing cartoons and memes mocking our government-loving cousins on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

I’ve made the serious point that bureaucrats in Brussels, when dealing with any issue, have a knee-jerk response of “more centralization.” This cartoon is a humorous version of that.

Sticking with that theme, here’s a comparison of where Europe leads compared to where China and the United States have an advantage.

 

Europeans often try to compensate for their economic inferiority by mocking the United States.

As this next meme indicates, Americans feel no need to play that game.

 

For our fourth item, here’s a list of things to do in Europe in 2025.

As usual, I’ve saved the best for last.

Though Trump may be about to impose protectionist policies that will hurt Europe, so the shooter may have a point (those protectionist policies also will hurt the US, so it will be a lose-lose situation).

I’ve used that same visual for my meme about the European Central Bank, so I’m obviously a fan.

I’ll close with a serious point. The European Commission in Brussels is a source of needless red tape, has a pro-centralization ideology, and it’s always trying to push for more tax harmonization.

All of which explains why I was a fan of Brexit (even if British politicians have been too stupid to take advantage of their independence).

However, Europe’s biggest economic problems are excessive taxation and a stifling burden of government spending – and those are almost entirely the fault of national governments.

P.S. I’ve also pointed out that the euro currency is not a big cause of European economic stagnation (even though the head of the European Central Bank is a joke).

P.P.S. Europeans will correctly complain about Trump’s protectionism, but they will be throwing stones in a glass house.

The Endangerment Finding: It Looks Like Trump 2.0 Will Be Much More Fun Than Trump 1.0

January 22, 2025 Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

The first couple of days of the new Trump administration have seen the President sign a blizzard of Executive Orders. These provide more material than a humble solo blogger like myself can ever comment on comprehensively. So I’ll just have to start with one particular item that I am deeply familiar with: the EPA’s so-called Endangerment Finding of December 2009.

I have seen differing counts of the number of Trump’s first-day EOs. ABC News here counts 42. One of the most consequential has the title “Unleashing American Energy.” There is a large amount of important material in this EO. In overall summary, it directs the reversal of all of the Biden administration efforts to restrict and suppress the production and development of America’s energy resources. But one provision, I would argue, is important above all the rest. That is Section 6(f), which directs a reconsideration of the so-called Endangerment Finding (EF) of December 2009. That provision of the EO reads as follows:

(f)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Administrator of the EPA, in collaboration with the heads of any other relevant agencies, shall submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,” Final Rule, 74 FR 66496 (December 15, 2009).

This provision is of overriding importance because, as long as the Endangerment Finding remains on the books, it gives a license to the courts, and to activist left-wing judges anywhere in the federal system, to enjoin and undo all the other de-regulatory efforts of this and other energy-related EOs. However, if the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned and well-supported basis, then all the other energy-related initiatives will have a far clearer path to success.

Background on the EF will help readers to understand its significance. Back in the early 2000s, as the climate scare was cranking up, activists got the idea of trying to get the courts to compel EPA to regulate (and suppress) fossil fuels through getting CO2 declared a “pollutant” under the Clean Air Act. A group of states, led by Massachusetts and New York, petitioned EPA to declare CO2 a “pollutant,” which would then give EPA the ability, and arguably even the obligation, to regulate CO2. Since CO2 is an inherent product of fossil fuel combustion, “regulation” of CO2 emissions could include anything up to and including banning fossil fuel combustion entirely if EPA so decided. Such a ban would outlaw 80+% of the current U.S. energy system.

Those opposing this gambit responded that the Clean Air Act was never intended to deal with CO2, which is colorless and odorless and non-toxic and is an inherent product of the large majority of energy production and consumption. But the language of the Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, was of course vague enough to give an opening. Here is the relevant language of Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act as it existed at the time the Massachusetts/New York case made it to the Supreme Court:

“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare … .”

Other similar provisions gave the EPA Administrator comparable authority to regulate “pollutants” from sources other than motor vehicles.

So the statute defines “pollutant” to mean anything that, in the “judgment” of the EPA Administrator, “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” During the administration of George W. Bush, despite the states’ petition, EPA declined to make such a finding as to CO2. So Massachusetts, New York, and co-plaintiffs sued to try to compel EPA to make that finding. In 2007, that case reached the Supreme Court. Here is the Court’s Opinion, issued under the caption Massachusetts v. EPA. In summary, the Court ordered EPA to make a determination whether CO2 was or was not a “pollutant,” in the sense of constituting a “danger to public health or welfare.”

To its shame, the GW Bush people punted this determination over to the Obama administration, which then took office in 2009. The Obama people got right to work, and to no one’s surprise, issued a long regulatory document in December 2009 finding that CO2 did indeed pose a danger to human health and welfare, and thus was a “pollutant” subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. This is the document known as the Endangerment Finding, that is referenced and cited in Trump’s EO.

The EF then gave the Obamanauts license to go wild regulating CO2. As one extreme example, the Obama people promulgated what they called the Clean Power Plan, which, by ratcheting down allowable CO2 emissions over time, would have forced the closure of essentially all fossil fuel power plants.

That is where things stood when the Trump 1.0 administration took office in January 2017. I and many others were hopeful that the new administration would roll back many of the destructive anti-energy policies of the Obama people, but at the same time we were wary that any de-regulatory initiatives would get blocked by the courts, using the EF as the basis. After all, if EPA had found CO2 to be a danger to human health and welfare, then how could it fail to take efforts to restrict emissions?

As Trump took office in 2017, it was unclear to us whether the new President or his people had any concept of the drastic significance of the EF. And thus, a group known as the Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council (CHECC) was formed to petition EPA to rescind the EF. That entity filed a Petition to EPA on January 20, 2017 — the first day of the Trump 1.0 administration. I acted as one of the lawyers for CHECC. Fundamentally, the idea was to bring this issue to the attention of the new Trump EPA and make sure that they paid attention to it. We also presented compelling scientific evidence as to why the idea that CO2 was a “danger” was preposterous.

Somewhat to our surprise, our Petition was then completely ignored. Over the course of four years, we continually tried to get information as to what was going on (with little success), and also filed seven supplements to our Petition, each bringing to bear new scientific articles or evidence making clear that CO2 was not at all a “danger” to human health and welfare. But through the entirety of Trump 1.0, there was no action on this issue. On January 19, 2021 — that is, one day before leaving office — the Trump EPA denied our Petition with a one-paragraph summary dismissal. The incoming Biden administration then took another year and three months and came out with a much longer and more devious denial of our Petition in April 2022.

Many readers here are undoubtedly familiar with the saga of our efforts after that denial. We could have just given up, but we had the idea that if we saw this through the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court, we might get a decision compelling a reconsideration of the EF just in time for a new Trump administration to take office. With such a decision, the Trump people could no longer ignore this issue, and would be forced to look at it. However, our efforts were unsuccessful in both the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court. Our petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied on December 11, 2023. For those interested, here is a link to the court dockets of the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court for these cases.

During the months since the recent election, I have been involved in many discussions about whether a new petition process should be started to try to get the EF rescinded this time around. And now suddenly,, upon entering office, Trump 2.0 immediately is taking on the Endangerment Finding, without any new petition getting filed at all. Hallelujah! Somebody over there must finally understand the importance of this. Maybe even the Donald himself! I would like to think that our previous efforts had something to do with educating Trump and his people, although I have no way of knowing that.

The job of rescinding the EF does not have to be difficult. The EF itself is totally full of holes. All EPA has to do to make for a bullet-proof rescission is to cite some dozens of scientific papers in the fifteen years since the EF that collect evidence contradicting the hypothesis of catastrophic CO2-caused warming. Lots of very knowledgeable people stand ready to help, including the members of the CO2 Coalition, which is a collection of eminent scientists that consider the EF to be thoroughly flawed.

I don’t mean to be overly optimistic, but I’ll make this prediction: If the EF is rescinded with a well-reasoned regulatory action, the courts will have little to no ability to stop the Trump roll-back of all the Obama/Biden restrictions on fossil fuels and energy transition. And after four years in which essentially all of those restrictions have been undone, and in which the EPA has been swept clean of climate activists, the ability of the government ever again to try to force an unwanted energy transition will be gone for good.

UPDATE, January 23:

I thought it would be appropriate to add to this post a word of thanks for those who participated in our effort from 2017 to 2023 to try to get a reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding. These people and organizations included:

(1) Jim Wallace. Jim was the lead author of several scientific papers that formed the principal basis for the challenge to the EF. The gist of these papers was that the existing empirical evidence was insufficient to conclude that greenhouse gases including CO2 had had a statistically significant impact on global temperatures, after accounting for natural factors like solar irradiation, volcanoes and ocean currents. (Note that we never argued that CO2 does not cause any warming, or that evidence disproved any relationship between CO2 and temperatures, but only that the claim that greenhouse gases including CO2 were causing dangerous warming was unproved and could not be proved with existing evidence.)

(2) Co-authors with Jim Wallace on the scientific papers included Joseph D’Aleo (of the icecap.us website), John Christy (of the University of Alabama at Huntsville), and Craig Idso (of the co2science.org) website.

(3) Jim Wallace also became one of the members of CHECC and helped round up a motley group of co-members. Joe D’Aleo also joined as a member of CHECC.

(4) Harry MacDougald (of the law firm Caldwell, Carlson, Elliott & DeLoach in Atlanta) was my co-counsel. Harry is much more knowledgeable than I about administrative law, and he is the one who made the argument in the D.C. Circuit.

(5) The Competitive Enterprise Institute and FAIR Energy Foundation also joined us as petitioners before EPA to seek reconsideration of the EF. FAIR also joined with us in the appeal process.

All of the above people and organizations participated in this effort on a pro bono basis. If we have made a small contribution to rescuing the country from the Net Zero energy transition disaster, it was well worth it.

The Fourth Estate and the Road Not Taken

Giving up the anti-Trump stance may be too heavy a lift.

By Mark Angelides Jan 22, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags: Articles, Media, Opinion

Poet Robert Frost wrote of the choices we face and the paths that ultimately define us; it is a concept that must surely be occupying editorial meetings across the nation as each particular outlet of the Fourth Estate determines whether it will opt for the path less traveled or the comfortable, familiar path.

Since legacy media have so avidly aligned themselves against President Donald Trump from 2015 onward, his return to the White House poses a conundrum: continue to be part of the unofficial “resistance” or play a straight hand?

Splitting the Fourth Estate Deck

There is evidence that some media outlets are attempting to go cold turkey on the Trump bashing. On the morning of Jan. 21 – one day after Trump’s inauguration – the top stories were a mixed bag. Here is a selection of the leading headlines that graced America over morning coffee:

Politico: “Time to Admit It: Trump Is a Great President. He’s Still Trying to Be a Good One.”

The Washington Post: “Trump takes sweeping actions on Day 1”

New York Times: “A Determined Trump Vows Not to Be Thwarted at Home or Abroad”

CNN: “Trump wields huge power to kick start his new ‘Golden Age’”

Most would agree that there is a measure of balance here. In fact, one might argue that these are the straight news headlines that have been missing from much of the media landscape over the last decade. They inform and entice – as every good headline should.

But what of the rest of the pack? A number of well-known outlets opted to take the well-lit and clearly marked freeway that has been their hallmark during Trump’s time in politics.

MSNBC: “Trump’s first executive orders preview his second administration’s chaos and cruelty”

AP: “Beneath a veneer of calm, Trump’s inauguration holds warning signs for US democracy”

And not to be outdone, HuffPost went for a full house: “TRUMP TAKEOVER / SHOCK MASS JAN. 6 PARDONS / WAR ON AMERICA’S GOV’T WORKERS / FRONTAL ATTACK ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP”

It seems clear that the denizens of pro-Democrat newsrooms have made very different choices.

Another Golden Age?

Does this mean those in the first list will resist the temptation to engage in the Trump-bashing that so defined them during Joe Biden’s presidency? Probably not. However, it does appear they have seen the writing on the wall – it’s black and red.

It is no secret that big box media have been struggling financially. DC’s most prominent newspaper – owned by Jeff Bezos – lost a whopping $100 million last year. This debacle was foreshadowed by its fast-receding digital audience. According to data shared with Semafor, when Biden took office in 2021, the site boasted 22.5 million daily users. After four years of playing for only the home team, that number was a mere 2.5-3 million last summer.

LN News: Now on Roku and Fire

And just last week, the paper noted that it would be laying off 4% of its workforce – that’s about 100 people.

The Associated Press also released news that it was cutting back on 8% of its staff due to restructuring. Notably, this “transformation” came after two major newspaper chains decided to ditch the AP.

Media is a business, and the numbers don’t lie. As alternative boutique news outlets see their audiences rise, legacy outlets suffer the hit, and it seems the reason is that they are simply not trusted to deliver honest news. As Liberty Nation News’ Corey Smith reported just before the November election:

“Only 54% of Democrats, 27% of independents, and 12% of Republicans trust ‘mass media,’ defined by Gallup as ‘newspapers, TV and radio,’ when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly.”

Journalist Matt Taibbi wrote in his book Hate, Inc.: “Your team either won or lost, and you felt devastated or vindicated accordingly. We were training rooters instead of readers.” And here’s the rub: This partisanship was cultivated. It seems that if the legacy media are to survive another four years of Trump, a new business model might be required.

Are we about to witness a resurgence of political parity? Don’t hold your breath. While some outlets may be attempting to thread the needle and retain readership amid the slings and arrows of outrageous partisanship, it’s not likely to last. Eventually, they will choose the road well-traveled, and that will make all the difference.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From Mark Angelides Editor-in-Chief

 

Is Everything Really Political?

Don’t like wokeness? What do you have to hide?

By Daniel Greenfield @ Sultan Knish Blog

Wokes interrogate critics of wokeness by asking what it is that wokeness has inhibited them from doing. The implication is that they want to do bad things, like shout racial slurs, and would be doing it right now even if it wasn’t for wokeness. To be a leftist is to see the world as being in a state of fundamental conflict between opposing forces. Leftist politics, violent or non-violent, totalitarian or libertarian, become the only hope of redemption for mankind from the forces of capitalism, nationalism, the patriarchy, and whatever other evils are added to the menu.

This battle for the human soul requires the total triumph of the Left over everything else. And thus also total control over everyone and everything to root out all these many human evils.

What wokes see as liberation, critics of wokeness see as total tyranny.

To understand why these two groups see wokeness so differently requires also understanding the leftist mentality and the concept of wokeness. To be ‘woke’ or aware is to see the entire world as political. While to oppose wokeness is to see wokes imposing politics on everything.

Critics of wokeness protest politicization while wokes insist that everything is already political.

This premise lies at the heart of leftist politics and also the opposition to it by apolitical people who may not be conservative or have any political agenda of their own except being free.

Leftism is a giant conspiracy theory. Its paranoid schizophrenic view of the world is not unique. The perception that the world is invisibly controlled by forces and agendas that most people are not aware of pervades many cults, conspiracy theorists and radical movements. But what is unique about the Left is its image as an intellectual movement and a cultural force that has enabled its paranoid worldview and its raving hostility to the world as it exists to dominate the discourse at the expense of the ideas, beliefs and cultures that predated it.

The central leftist conspiracy theory is wrapped in academic theories taught in every university, and its premises are as deeply embedded in our culture as they were in the USSR and much of the western world, willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly, has come to see at least some of reality through the lens of leftist conspiracy theories and to echo its messages.

Wokeness is the act of ‘awakening’ people to that alternate reality by imposing that lens.

Leftism is a way of seeing the world and a moral system about how the world should be. This morality is premised on seeing invisible systems of power, whether it’s capitalism or systemic racism, that it defines and seeks to dismantle to make way for its new moral order to take over.

Freedom is incompatible with that worldview. Leftism assumes that the vast majority of people have been incorporated into systems, ideologies and ways of being that they have to unlearn or be forced to unlearn. Under the impetus of identity politics, leftists may concede that some ‘indigenous peoples’ untainted by western capitalism might be pure enough to function on their own without a ‘wokening’ being imposed on them, but most of us will have to be ‘untaught.’

And the unlearning of the old and the awakening to the new is a repetitive process that requires constant monitoring to avoid backsliding. Individualism is subsumed by collective monitoring. Workplaces, schools and eventually all of society become a giant panopticon where activists seek out errors and sins to punish through public humiliation, financial loss and even violence.

The more intensive wokeness gets, the more extreme its activists become in monitoring everyone’s habits, associations and speech. And this is what most people view as ‘wokeness’ and come out against. They see wokeness not as leftist politics, but as being monitored and forced to be afraid and to censor themselves because of the total politicisation of everything.

Much like Communism, wokes argue that freedom might one day be realizable, but not until everything bad has been unlearned and everything good has been taught. And since the Left keeps generating new evils to unlearn, like heterosexuality and cis’ness, the final unlearning and the embrace of true wokeness or Communism is an event that can never actually arrive..

Since everything is political and since everything not fully woke is evil, everything must be destroyed. The habit of seeing the world through a lens of leftist conspiracy theories, and identifying more things to destroy as part of the larger goal of justifying the destruction of everything becomes the fundamental intellectual and cultural activity of leftist wokeness.

This system of deconstruction that defines impossible utopian ideals against the worldly evils that it identifies is the political engine of the machine. Its purpose is not so much to find new things to celebrate, like transgenderism, as to use them to wage war on old things. New things are of no use unless they are destroying the old and then they too must be destroyed.

Opponents of wokeness come to see this as a totalitarian assault on their freedom and their individuality. What begins as a war against systems quickly becomes a war on individuals. Dismantling ‘isms’ stops being just about waging war on institutions and boils down to waging war on individuals. The war on capitalism or the patriarchy isn’t out there, it’s inside you.

There is no freedom without individualism. And there is no individualism when everything is politicised. The backlash to wokeness is a backlash against that tyranny of conformity.

Wokes view any resistance to wokeness as immoral. Cancel culture they argue is just consequences culture. Individualism doesn’t exist. The people who claim to be individuals are just complicit in the systems such as capitalism or colonialism that they seek to preserve.

Wokeness claims to be pursuing liberation through tyranny which it can only justify by claiming that its tyranny is saving people from a much worse invisible tyranny all around them. And if they don’t feel saved, that’s because they’ve become complicit in that tyranny. And need to ‘check their privilege’ and ‘decenter’ themselves. And thus freedom becomes slavery.

And slavery becomes freedom.

Wokeness is not a temporary phenomenon, under its varied names it’s the inevitable next stage of leftist politics which begin with promises of utopia and end with a tyrannical dystopia.

Most people don’t recognize the nuances of leftist politics let alone understand that behind the grab bag of causes, some seemingly random, solar panels, Gaza, drag queens, is a larger operating modality, but they know when they are being threatened and intimidated.

Leftist policies seem good to people when they offer financial benefits, like free healthcare, or feelings of heroism, like civil rights, without looking into the details, but the package deal is that the integrated whole is a machine built to destroy everything they love and care about. Underneath the smiles and buzzwords is a paranoid hostility to people as they are and a worldview trained to see the bad in everything old and the good in everything new it does.

Wokeness is the transition from leftism as an economic and social benefit to a mandatory worldview. And it is here that people wake up and realize that it’s not freedom: it’s slavery.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

 

Domestic Enemies: The Founding Fathers’ Fight Against the Left tells the untold story of the Left's 200-Year War against America. And readers love it.