The Great Manipulation: How Marxism Hijacked Black Grievance for Political Power

 

The Great Manipulation: How Marxism Hijacked Black Grievance for Political Power

There exists in America today a carefully cultivated narrative, repeated endlessly across media platforms, academic institutions, and political campaigns. It tells us that America is irredeemably, systemically racist. It tells us that Black Americans remain trapped in an oppressive structure designed to deny them opportunity, dignity, and success. It tells us that the 2016 election of Donald Trump was not a political outcome but a racial reckoning, proof positive that the nation’s original sin remains unforgiven and unredeemed.

There is only one problem with this narrative: it is demonstrably, empirically false. And those who propagate it know it is false. They are not mistaken; they are strategic. They have identified in Black grievance the most potent political weapon available to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with racial justice and everything to do with the wholesale transformation of the American republic. A recent social media post, written by a Black veteran and twice Obama voter who now supports Donald Trump, lays bare this manipulation with devastating clarity. The post is not the rant of a right-wing extremist. It is the testimony of a man who has lived through the shift, watched the narrative change before his eyes, and recognized the lie for what it is.

Let us examine the timeline, because chronology is the enemy of propaganda. The “systemic racism” panic did not emerge from the long arc of civil rights struggle. It did not follow the election of America’s first Black president, an event that should have marked the culmination of that struggle. It emerged, as the post correctly notes, in the final years of the Obama administration, accelerated dramatically after Hillary Clinton’s unexpected defeat in 2016, and achieved full hysteria following the tragic but misrepresented death of George Floyd. The triggering event was not a new wave of racial oppression but a political loss. The narrative was not born of evidence but of electoral desperation.

Consider the foundational myth of this movement: “Hands up, don’t shoot.” It was chanted in streets, printed on t-shirts, repeated by members of Congress, and taught to schoolchildren. It was a lie. The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder himself Black investigated and concluded that Michael Brown had not surrendered with his hands raised but had assaulted a police officer and attempted to seize his weapon. Black witnesses confirmed this. The evidence was clear. Yet the lie persisted because the lie was useful. It provided the emotional fuel for a political realignment that would cast the Democratic Party’s electoral setbacks not as policy failures but as moral outrages requiring systemic revolution.

This is the Marxist playbook. It has been executed countless times across countless societies. Identify a genuine historical injustice. Exploit its emotional resonance. Generalize it from a specific wrong to a universal condition. Transform victims into permanent victimhood. And leverage the resulting resentment to dismantle existing institutions and concentrate power in the hands of those who claim to speak for the oppressed. The targets are always the same: the family, the church, private property, the rule of law, national sovereignty, and the very concept of objective truth. The methods are always the same: accusation, division, and the relentless repetition of narratives that cannot survive honest scrutiny.

The post’s catalog of Black achievement undercuts the systemic racism thesis more effectively than any ideological rebuttal. A Black president. A Black attorney general. The world’s greatest golfer and greatest female tennis player. The most popular talk show host and pop star. Dominance in professional basketball. Network television hosts. A billionaire entertainment mogul. And perhaps most staggering: if Black American wealth were its own nation, it would rank as the eighth-largest economy on earth. No other country, not a single one, has produced such concentrated success among its Black population. Not the nations of Africa, with their centuries of independent governance. Not the European powers that once presided over vast colonial empires. Not Brazil, with its large and historically significant Afro-descendant population. Only the United States.

This is not to deny the persistence of racism, the reality of disparate outcomes, or the painful legacy of slavery and segregation. Conservatives do not argue that America has achieved racial perfection; we argue that America has achieved racial progress unmatched in human history, and that the path to further progress lies in accelerating the principles that produced this success free enterprise, equal protection under law, colorblind justice, and cultural assimilation to American civic values not in abandoning them for European-style socialism or postmodern identity politics.

Yet the Marxist Left requires perpetual grievance. A Black president is not evidence of progress but of co-optation. Black billionaires are not success stories but exceptions that prove the rule of oppression. Black conservative voters are not exercising political agency but suffering from false consciousness. The narrative must be insulated from refutation at all costs, because if Black Americans were to recognize that the greatest obstacle to their advancement is no longer systemic white supremacy but the progressive policies that have devastated Black families, neighborhoods, and schools, the entire edifice of modern leftism would collapse.

This is why the response to Black conservatives is not debate but denunciation. We are not fellow citizens with differing policy preferences; we are traitors to our race, Uncle Toms, sellouts. The accusation of racial betrayal serves the same function as the accusation of systemic racism: it forecloses inquiry, punishes dissent, and maintains the political cohesion of a voting bloc upon which the Democratic Party’s electoral strategy depends. The left does not need Black votes to govern; it needs Black votes to legitimate its governance, to cloak its redistributionist agenda in the moral authority of the civil rights movement.

The post’s author identifies himself as a two-time Obama voter who has voted for Donald Trump three times. His journey is not unique. Across the country, Black Americans—particularly men, particularly veterans, particularly those who work with their hands and build their own businesses—are quietly abandoning the Democratic coalition. They are not being converted by conservative media personalities or seduced by white nationalism. They are observing the results of progressive governance in their own communities: failing schools, unaffordable housing, family disintegration, and a culture that celebrates victimhood while punishing excellence. They are watching cities governed for decades by Democrats descend into disorder and decay. And they are asking a simple question: what, exactly, have we gotten in exchange for our loyalty?

The answer is nothing but slogans. The answer is rhetorical performances of solidarity unaccompanied by tangible improvement. The answer is the systematic destruction of the very institutions the nuclear family, the Christian church, the small business, the trade union, the neighborhood school—that enabled Black Americans to rise from slavery and segregation into the middle class. The answer is being used.

Conservatives must meet this moment not with cynical appeals to racial resentment but with a positive, principled, and colorblind vision of American citizenship. We must honor the legacy of Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr., who demanded that individuals be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We must champion school choice, economic opportunity, safe neighborhoods, and strong families—policies that transcend race and benefit all Americans. And we must tell the truth, even when it is uncomfortable, even when it is unfashionable, even when it costs us.

The lie of systemic racism is destroying this country. It poisons the wells of civic trust, convinces young Black Americans that their fate is sealed before they draw their first breath, and provides moral cover for a political movement whose ultimate objective is not racial justice but revolutionary transformation. The truth is that America, for all its flaws, remains the greatest engine of human advancement and opportunity the world has ever known. And the truth is that the Marxist Left will never admit this, because their power depends on convincing Black America that we are still enslaved. We are not. We are free. And it is time we started acting like it.

#Blacks #Matxism #BLM #Politics

Blacks Are Being Used By The Marxist and Socialist

 ANALYSIS/OPINION

Blacks Are Being Used By The Marxist and Socialist:

I have FB Friends that insist on repeating a lie in plain site that is separating the country. Therefore I will repeat the truth that will bring some clarity to the Shitstom.

They Lie In Order To Destroy and Divide. Hillary lost so now we are a systemic racist country. I know of many 2 time Obama Voters that voted for Trump 3 times. I was one of them. It wasn't because I am a 'Racist' or because "I hate my own Race'. That is something Democrats say because the are hiding the facts of their policies, their intentions, or don't carry the mental capacity to carry on a fact based debate without going LOW WHEN WE GO HIGH'.

I respect our country. I feel blessed to be born here. I served and my Son served in combat zones. I know for a fact that this country isn't perfect. Every country in the world has had or supported the slave trade. You can still go to 3 or so countries today and buy a slave legally...according to local law. As far as the US goes the rest of the world has had the same 'Original Sin' as the US.

When it comes to 'systemic racism' that is something derived from Obama, BLM, Biden, Harris, etc. This rhetoric didn't begin until the last 2 years of Obama’s 2nd term and it all started with a lie that has damaged race relations ... "Hands up don't shoot!" That was a lie. Eric Holder was the AG then. His Grand Jury, Black People who were witnesses, testified Brown punched the cop and tried to take gis gun. BTW, Eric Holder was Black. This attitude rose up when Trump trounced Hillary in 2016. They just knew she would win. So when she lost they had to create the systemic racism narrative that has rocked the country unnecessarily. 

I mentioned this before, but if keep repeating the same lies I can repeat the same truths.

This is what we had and still basically have today. 10 to 12 years ago this was the situation:

1. The President was Black

2. The Attorney General was Black

3. The #1 Male Golfer was Black

4. The #1 Female Tennis Player was Black

5. The #1 Talk Show Host was Black

6. The Joint Chiefs of Staff may have been Black (Powell -I think)

7. The #1 Pop Star was Black

8. Top Basketball Player was Black

9. The Host of Family Feud was/is Black

10. The Host of The $20,000 Pyramid was/is Black

11. The Host of America's Funniest Videos is Black

12. If Black US Wealth was a Country it would be the 8th largest economy on the Planet.

13. Tylor Perry ... Successful and Black

14. The owner of BET = Black

15. When I lived in the LBC I learned that WEST COAST CHOPPERS was owned, at the time, by a Black owned company.

No other Country On the Planet could Blacks be that successful all at the same time. The Continent of AFRICA can't even produce that.

BLACKS are being used, by way of ORANGE MAN BAD, simply to promote and FastTrack the Marxist movement and don't even realize it.

#Marxism #Fascism #Socialism #Blacks #AfricanAmericans

Hay Diet Treats Chemical Condition of the Body

 

Hay Diet Treats Chemical Condition of the Body 

Dr. William Howard Hay introduced food combining in 1911. After 16 yrs medical practice his own health began to deteriorate, and he developed high blood pressure, Brights disease (now more commonly known as acute or chronic nephritis, a kidney disease) and a dilated heart. There being no treatment available for dilated heart at the time, Dr. Hay was inspired to treat his own symptoms. His basic premise is that there is one underlying cause for health problems and that is the wrong chemical condition in the body. 

He did this by eating 'fundamentally' as he called it; taking foods in a natural form and not mixing proteins and starches at the same meal. The wrong chemical condition is acidity which is caused by the manufacture and accumulation of acid from the products of digestion and metabolism in amounts greater than the body can eliminate.  

Along with dietary changes, Dr. Hay also advised fresh air, exercise and general lifestyle changes. The basic rules of this diet are: starches and sugar should not be eaten with proteins and acid fruits at the same meal; vegetables, salads and fruits should play a major part in the diet; proteins, starches and fats should be eaten in small quantities and only wholegrain unprocessed starches should be used; and finally at least 4 hours should elapse between meals of different food groups. It is also known as the "food combining" diet. Acid foods are protein rich, meat, fish, dairy, etc., and alkaline the carbohydrate-rich starch foods like rice, grains and potatoes.

Following the simple rules of the Hay Diet can reverse chronic and degenerative conditions such as constipation, indigestion and arthritis. It can be beneficial to asthma and allergy sufferers. It can also stimulate natural weight loss, thus reducing the health risks linked to obesity, such as diabetes, gallstones and coronary heart disease. 

#Food #Diet #Nutrition

Hypocrisy of Democrats

 Hypocrisy of Democrats

The People Who Wanted You To prove you had a covid shot let your Grandmother Die Alone During Covid.

The Cruelty of the Compassionate: How COVID Policy Exposed the Progressive Hierarchy of Care

There is an image from the height of the COVID-19 pandemic that will forever be seared into the memory of a generation: an elderly woman, alone in a sterile hospital room, separated from her husband of sixty years by a pane of glass and the cold, immutable decree of bureaucratic policy. She is holding an iPad, not a hand. Her final words are not whispered into the ear of her beloved but transmitted through a speaker, mediated by technology, observed by strangers. She dies alone. And the same people who insisted that you must prove vaccination to eat indoors, attend a worship service, or keep your job were the architects of this cruelty.

A recent social media post cuts through the fog of euphemism and bureaucratic evasion that still surrounds this period: "The People Who Wanted You To prove you had a covid shot let your Grandmother Die Alone During Covid." This is not merely a grievance. It is an indictment. It exposes the hierarchy of values that governed pandemic policy, a hierarchy in which individual liberty, family bonds, and human dignity were consistently subordinated to political optics, institutional convenience, and the relentless expansion of state power. From a conservative perspective, this was not a public health emergency managed imperfectly. It was a moral catastrophe enabled by a progressive worldview that sees citizens as subjects, families as obstacles, and death as a statistical abstraction rather than a sacred passage.

The vaccine mandate debate and the nursing home isolation policy were not separate phenomena. They were expressions of the same governing philosophy. Both assumed that the state possesses not only the authority but the wisdom to dictate the most intimate decisions of human life. Both treated the individual as a vector of risk rather than a bearer of rights. Both dismissed the accumulated wisdom of family caregivers, the emotional and spiritual needs of the dying, and the fundamental principle that a person is more than their medical chart. And both were enforced with a self-righteous certainty that brooked no dissent, tolerated no exceptions, and accepted no accountability for the devastation it wrought.

Consider first the vaccine mandates. From the outset, the demand that Americans produce government-issued proof of vaccination to participate in ordinary life represented a radical departure from our constitutional traditions. This was not the routine requirement of a childhood immunization for school attendance, debated and enacted through democratic processes. This was an emergency edict, imposed by executive fiat, enforced by the threat of job loss and social exclusion. It divided families, pitted employees against employers, and turned private health decisions into matters of public record and political conformity. The message was unmistakable: compliance is the highest virtue; skepticism is a form of contagion.

Yet even as these mandates were being celebrated as triumphs of science and civic responsibility, another catastrophe was unfolding in the nation's nursing homes. Early in the pandemic, misguided federal and state policies mandated the readmission of COVID-positive patients from hospitals into long-term care facilities. This decision, later acknowledged as a catastrophic error by officials in multiple states, turned nursing homes into incubators of death. Then came the visitation bans. With the stroke of a pen, millions of American families were separated from their most vulnerable members. Husbands and wives, sons and daughters, grandchildren and grandparents were forbidden from physical contact during the final months, weeks, and hours of life.

The justification was infection control. But the policy was absolute, inflexible, and often irrational. Facilities that remained open to staff, vendors, and maintenance workers were hermetically sealed against family caregivers. The same bureaucrats who insisted that outdoor dining, retail shopping, and crowded protests could be managed with "mitigation strategies" decreed that a daughter could not hold her dying mother's hand. The same institutions that demanded we "trust the science" offered no science to justify the categorical exclusion of family, only bureaucratic protocols designed for administrative convenience rather than human dignity.

And where were the champions of vaccine mandates during this time? Where were the editorial boards, the public health officials, the progressive advocacy groups that had so passionately argued for the subordination of individual choice to collective welfare? With vanishingly few exceptions, they were silent. Some actively defended the visitation bans as necessary public health measures. Others offered tepid expressions of sympathy while affirming the wisdom of keeping families apart. The cognitive dissonance was staggering. Here were people who had spent months insisting that no personal freedom was too sacred to sacrifice for the sake of protecting the vulnerable, yet when the vulnerable were dying alone and afraid, their response was not to intervene but to rationalize.

This is the hierarchy of progressive care. The freedom to decline a medical procedure must be suppressed, but the freedom to comfort a dying parent is negotiable. The unvaccinated individual is a public menace requiring containment, but the institutional protocols that condemn the elderly to solitary death are merely prudent. The state must have power over our bodies, but it bears no responsibility for the emotional and spiritual wounds it inflicts in the exercise of that power.

Conservatives saw this clearly, even as we were shouted down as heretics and killers. We understood that the same people who demanded proof of vaccination were the ones who had, often years earlier, championed the expansion of assisted suicide, the normalization of abortion on demand, and the redefinition of marriage away from its procreative, family-centered purpose. We recognized that a worldview which treats human life as a quality-of-life calculation, a cost-benefit analysis, or an obstacle to personal autonomy would inevitably produce policies that devalue the elderly, isolate the dying, and sever the bonds of intergenerational care.

The conservative alternative is not and has never been a rejection of public health. It is a rejection of the reduction of human beings to biological risks. It is an insistence that the individual person, created in the image of God and endowed with inherent dignity, cannot be sacrificed on the altar of statistical optimization. It is a conviction that the family is not an impediment to good medical care but its essential partner, and that the wisdom of a spouse who has slept beside the same person for fifty years is worth more than any algorithm devised by a distant bureaucrat.

We saw this alternative lived out in countless quiet acts of defiance during the worst of the pandemic. The nursing home staff who looked the other way while a granddaughter slipped in through a side door. The hospice nurse who facilitated a final visit despite explicit prohibitions. The adult child who checked a parent out of a facility against medical advice, choosing the risk of infection over the certainty of isolation. These were not acts of recklessness. They were acts of love, grounded in the recognition that a life without human connection is not a life worth extending.

The vaccine mandates are largely gone now, abandoned as the political costs exceeded the perceived benefits. The visitation bans have been lifted, though the memories of those final separations linger in countless grieving families. But the underlying philosophy remains, dormant but intact, ready to reemerge with the next crisis. It is a philosophy that views individual rights as concessions granted by the state rather than endowments from the Creator. It is a philosophy that measures compassion in compliance rates rather than in tears shed and hands held. It is a philosophy that asks what you can prove about yourself before it asks who you love.

Conservatives must never forget what we witnessed during those long, lonely months. We saw the face of a governance that has lost its moral bearings, that speaks the language of care while practicing the cold arithmetic of control. We saw our grandmothers die alone, separated from us by policies designed not by scientists but by administrators, not by doctors but by apparatchiks. And we resolved, or should have resolved, that we will never again surrender our families, our freedoms, and our final farewells to those who see in every crisis an opportunity to expand their power over our lives.

The people who demanded your vaccine papers let your grandmother die alone. They did not mean to be cruel. They simply forgot, in their focus on viral loads and case rates and compliance metrics, that the elderly are not merely patients to be managed but persons to be cherished. They forgot that the purpose of medicine is not merely to extend life but to honor it. They forgot that the bond between a grandmother and her family is not a risk factor to be mitigated but a sacred trust to be protected.

We have not forgotten. And we will not forgive. The memory of those solitary deaths is not a weapon to be wielded in partisan combat but a warning to be heeded in future crises. The next time the state demands that we prove our compliance as the price of participation in society, we will remember who made that demand, what they did with their power, and whose lives they deemed expendable in pursuit of their vision of safety. We will remember that the people who wanted you to prove you had a COVID shot let your grandmother die alone. And we will choose differently.

#Covid #Covid19 #Vaccination #Vaccine #Vaccinnnes

"They do the jobs Americans won't do" is a BS Narrative:

 

"They do the jobs Americans won't do" is a BS Narrative:

Before Reagan gave 11 Million Amnesty Black Men dominated the drywall industry in Southern California. The going wage was as high as $17/Hr. When the ILLEGALS were allowed to stay the wage was brought down to $9/Hr. Black Men said we can't work for that. They eventually moved inland to Landcaster. Then ILLEGALS started buying up Compton. They would start firebombing the home of Blacks to run them out. There are several warehouses in Compton that break down the products in shipping containers coming from the Port of Los Angeles. 98% of the Workers were Latino. I was a Field Supervisor for the Security Company that checked the trucks entering and exiting. They were also hiring warehouse supervisors. I was a former Army Logistics Officer and I couldn't get a warehouse supervisor job because I didn't speak Spanish. So to say 'They are doing Jobs Americans won't do' is Bullshit. Because they won't learn the language and don't want to assimilate and wave flags of 3rd World Countries I don't feel sorry for them. Round Them All Up!!! They are damging and changing the fabric of the country.

MOW your own lawn or higher an AMERICAN!!! Would you rather wine and dine your wife or hire a prostitute.

The Myth of “Jobs Americans Won’t Do”: A Conservative Reckoning

The phrase has become so ubiquitous, so reflexively uttered in polite political discourse, that few stop to question its veracity. “They do the jobs Americans won’t do.” It is presented as an immutable law of economics, a compassionate justification for mass illegal immigration, and a conversation-ender. But like so many narratives that have achieved the status of unassailable truth through sheer repetition, it collapses under the weight of actual evidence and lived experience. A recent, searing social media post lays bare the deception with the specificity of firsthand witness and the moral clarity of a man who has watched his country change before his eyes. The “jobs Americans won’t do” narrative is not a description of reality. It is a justification for wage suppression, union busting, and the systematic displacement of American workers.

The poster’s account of the Southern California drywall industry is not an isolated anecdote; it is a microcosm of a national pattern. Prior to the 1986 amnesty signed by President Ronald Reagan—a decision many conservatives now view with profound regret—Black American men dominated that industry. They earned a wage of approximately $17 per hour, a respectable working-class income that supported families, built home equity, and provided a pathway to the middle class. Following the legalization of millions of illegal immigrants, that wage was slashed to $9 per hour. The math was simple and devastating. American workers, possessing both legal rights and family obligations, could not sustain employment at that rate. They did not abandon the workforce out of laziness or entitlement; they were priced out of it by an artificially expanded labor supply that employers exploited to depress wages.

This is not an argument about the character or work ethic of immigrant labor. It is an indictment of a system that deliberately floods the low-skilled labor market to benefit corporate interests at the expense of the American working class. The Chamber of Commerce and its political allies have long understood that open borders and lax enforcement are not humanitarian policies but economic ones. Mass immigration, legal and illegal, suppresses wages for the native-born, undermines collective bargaining power, and creates a permanent underclass of workers too vulnerable to demand fair treatment. The “jobs Americans won’t do” framing inverts cause and effect. Americans won’t do those jobs because the wages and conditions have been systematically degraded to the point of unlivability. Pay a fair wage, restore workplace safety standards, and enforce labor laws equally, and American workers will show up.

The post’s subsequent account moves from economic displacement to outright criminal intimidation. The firebombing of Black homeowners’ residences in Compton, intended to drive them from their neighborhoods, is not a minor historical footnote. It is a documented pattern of ethnic cleansing facilitated by the same elites who now lecture us about diversity and inclusion. While corporate media have devoted countless hours to examining racial dynamics in housing and policing, this chapter remains conspicuously underreported. Why? Because it complicates the preferred narrative of virtuous immigrant communities and villainous native-born populations. It introduces uncomfortable facts about territorial violence, organized intimidation, and the deliberate targeting of Black Americans not by white supremacists but by those seeking to claim geographic and economic turf. The silence on this history is not accidental. It is protective.

The poster’s personal experience as a former Army logistics officer unable to secure a warehouse supervisor position due to lack of Spanish fluency is perhaps the most damning indictment of all. Here was a man with military leadership experience, proven organizational capability, and unquestioned American citizenship. He was passed over not because of any deficiency in his qualifications but because the workplace had been transformed into a linguistic enclave where English proficiency was no longer sufficient. This is not multicultural enrichment; this is occupational segregation. When an American veteran cannot obtain employment in his own country because he does not speak the language of a foreign nation, we have ceased to be a nation that assimilates immigrants and have become one that is being transformed by them.

The conservative vision of immigration has never been nativist exclusion for its own sake. It has always been grounded in the belief that newcomers should become Americans not merely in the legal sense but in cultural and linguistic identity. They should learn our language, embrace our civic values, salute our flag, and contribute to the common good as citizens, not as permanent guest workers or transnational sojourners. The mass importation of low-wage labor with no expectation of assimilation serves neither the national interest nor the long-term interests of the immigrants themselves, who are often exploited by unscrupulous employers and left vulnerable without the protection of legal status or union representation.

The closing analogy of the post is deliberately provocative, but its logic is sound. “Would you rather wine and dine your wife or hire a prostitute?” The contrast is between an arrangement based on mutual respect, commitment, and shared investment versus one based on transaction, exploitation, and emotional detachment. The American economy should be a marriage, not a brothel. We should invest in our own workers, pay them fairly, and expect reciprocal loyalty and productivity. The alternative a permanent underclass of disposable labor, whether imported from abroad or created at home corrodes the social fabric and betrays the promise of American citizenship.

The solution is not complicated, though its implementation requires political will that has been conspicuously absent for decades. Secure the border. Enforce existing immigration law. Mandate and fund E-Verify for all employers. End the visa programs that facilitate the importation of low-wage labor. Restore workplace enforcement and punish employers who exploit undocumented workers. And for those here illegally, there should be no path to citizenship, no amnesty, and no reward for lawbreaking. The 1986 experiment failed precisely because it offered legalization without enforcement, creating an endless cycle of immigration, amnesty, and more immigration. We cannot repeat that mistake.

The “jobs Americans won’t do” narrative has always been a lie. Americans will do those jobs, for fair wages and under decent conditions. They will do them while speaking English, living in stable neighborhoods, and raising families that contribute to the future of this republic. The question is whether our political class has the courage to prioritize American workers over corporate lobbyists and ideological activists who have never set foot on a drywall site or spent a night in Compton. The poster’s closing demand “Round Them All Up” may strike some as harsh. But after decades of watching his countrymen displaced, his neighborhoods transformed, and his qualifications dismissed, his frustration is not merely understandable. It is prophetic. We have been warned.

#ILEGALS #Jobs #Immigration #Wages #Drywall #Spanish #Theydothejobsamericanswontdo

Opinion On Voter ID

 OPINION ON VOTER ID ~ DITTO

#SAVEACT #Voting #Vote #Women #ILLEGALS #Minorities #VoterRights

The ID Double Standard: Exposing the Left’s Manufactured Voting Rights Crisis

 

The ID Double Standard: Exposing the Left’s Manufactured Voting Rights Crisis

A curious paradox has come to define the modern Democratic approach to election integrity. On one hand, the party insists that requiring a photo identification to cast a ballot is an insurmountable barrier a modern poll tax designed to disenfranchise minorities, the elderly, and married women who have changed their names. On the other hand, these same political figures, activists, and media outlets routinely present photo identification as a mundane, necessary, and unremarkable requirement for virtually every other significant transaction in American life. This contradiction is not an oversight. It is a deliberate strategy, and its persistence raises an uncomfortable but unavoidable question: If IDs are essential for buying cold medicine, boarding an airplane, or entering a federal building, why are they suddenly an act of oppression when required to verify the single most important act of democratic citizenship?

The conservative answer is clear and grounded in both common sense and observable reality. The left’s relentless opposition to voter ID laws has nothing to do with protecting access to the ballot and everything to do with preserving the conditions in which electoral fraud can flourish. The rhetoric of “disenfranchisement” is a shield, deployed to deflect scrutiny from a system whose integrity they are unwilling to defend. It is a narrative that requires the American people to believe two irreconcilable things: that our society is efficient and fair enough to require identification for everyday commerce, yet simultaneously so corrupt and discriminatory that the same standard cannot be trusted at the polling place.

Consider the daily life of the very voters Democrats claim to be protecting. A minority woman in Atlanta cannot board a domestic flight without a government-issued ID. She cannot purchase alcohol or tobacco. She cannot open a bank account, rent an apartment, or pick up a prescription for controlled medication. If she works in a federal building or many private offices, she cannot even get past the security desk. Yet we are asked to believe that asking this same woman to present that very same ID, for the few minutes it takes to vote once or twice a year, is an unconscionable burden. This is not a serious argument about access. It is a performative argument about grievance.

The specific invocation of married women who have changed their names is particularly revealing of the left’s rhetorical opportunism. The suggestion is that requiring an ID that matches current voter registration records somehow punishes women for marrying. This ignores the mundane reality that millions of American women navigate this exact process without incident for countless other purposes. When a woman marries and changes her name, she updates her Social Security card, her driver’s license, her passport, her bank accounts, her credit cards, and her employer’s payroll system. She does this because she understands that identification is essential to function in modern society. To suggest that she is somehow incapable of doing the same for her voter registration is to infantilize women and assume a helplessness that simply does not exist. It is not protection; it is condescension dressed as concern.

The historical record further undermines the left’s narrative. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent amendments successfully dismantled the Jim Crow apparatus of literacy tests, poll taxes, and outright intimidation. Those were real barriers, deliberately constructed to exclude based on race. Voter ID laws bear no resemblance to this history. They are neutral, uniformly applied, and require nothing that most Americans do not already possess or can easily obtain at no cost. The comparison is not merely inaccurate; it trivializes the genuine suffering and courageous struggle of civil rights pioneers who faced fire hoses, attack dogs, and lynchings. To equate that with being asked to show a driver’s license is an insult to their memory.

If the left genuinely believed that voter ID laws suppress turnout, the evidence would by now be overwhelming. Yet study after study has failed to produce convincing data showing that strict ID requirements disproportionately depress minority or female participation. What the evidence does show is that Americans across demographic groups overwhelmingly support voter ID laws, recognize them as commonsense, and are bewildered that such a basic safeguard is even controversial. The disconnect between elite progressive opinion and public sentiment on this issue is a chasm. The left’s continued opposition places them in opposition not only to conservatives but to the broad, bipartisan common sense of the American people.

This leads to the uncomfortable truth that the post’s final question forces upon us: Are they making and keeping it easier to cheat? The circumstantial evidence is substantial. The Democratic Party has, in recent years, opposed nearly every proposed measure to secure elections. They have fought voter ID, fought the cleaning of voter rolls, fought signature verification, fought witness requirements for mail ballots, and fought post-election audits. They have championed mass mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, and the relaxation of chain-of-custody rules. When presented with evidence of fraud, irregularities, or administrative incompetence, their instinct is not to investigate and correct but to dismiss and suppress. When a party consistently opposes every tool of election integrity, it is reasonable to conclude that integrity is not their priority.

This is not to claim that widespread, organized voter fraud is currently determining election outcomes in every race. It is to say that the left’s systematic dismantling of safeguards creates a vulnerability that bad actors, foreign and domestic, will inevitably exploit. The integrity of our elections depends not only on the absence of detected fraud but on the presence of robust systems that deter and prevent it. The left’s insistence that such systems are unnecessary and discriminatory leaves our democracy dangerously exposed.

Conservatives do not believe that requiring ID to vote is a solution to every electoral problem, nor that it alone guarantees perfect integrity. But we do believe it is a necessary, foundational, and eminently reasonable baseline. We believe that the franchise is too sacred to be entrusted to an honor system. We believe that if we require identification to buy a six-pack of beer, we can certainly require it to elect the President of the United States. We believe that the left’s selective concern for the burdens supposedly imposed on minorities and women is a transparent political convenience, abandoned immediately whenever those same groups are asked to produce ID for any purpose other than voting for Democrats.

The path forward requires rejecting the false choice between access and integrity. We can and must have both. Every eligible American citizen should be able to vote easily and conveniently. And every vote cast should be verifiable, secure, and attributable to a real, living, qualified voter. Photo identification is the most straightforward, least restrictive means of achieving this balance. The left’s continued resistance serves only one identifiable interest: those who would corrupt our elections for their own advantage. It is time to stop indulging the narrative of manufactured grievance and start defending the integrity of the democratic process itself. Show your ID. It’s not oppression. It’s citizenship.

#Voting #Minorities #Women #VotingRights #Democrats #Safe

 

Democrats argue SAVE America Act could impact women voters

#Women #Vote #Voting #SaveAmericaAct #VoterID

Ex-police chief said Trump told him in 2006 'everyone' knew of Epstein's behaviour

#Epstein #Trump #Clinton

PEDOPHILE vs Minor Attracted Person

 

PEDOPHILE vs Minor Attracted Person 

Clue me in on something. Since when did Trump become a 'PEDOPHILE'. The same people that don't want 'PEDOPHILES' to be called 'PEDOPHILES' want 'PEDOPHILES' to be called (MAP) Minor Attracted Person, yet they call Trump a 'PEDOPHILE'. I guess they forgot Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane at least 26 times and Biden lost track of 300,000 unaccompanied MINORS. And they act like THERE WAS NOTHING TO SEE THERE. So they have to say Trump is a 'PEDOPHILE'. The same people don't have an issue with Clinton's pattern with Women and the fact he took advantage of a 20 year old intern in the Whitehouse, Monica Lewinski. Who was a Trump victim of 'PEDOPHILIA'? They seemed to be an expert on this. Can someone tell us the evidence on Trump's 'Victims'?

When Democrats walk through S*** they walk into a room and tell you YOUR shoes stink.

The Semantics of Evil: Why "Minor-Attracted Person" is a Dangerous Deception

The argument from activists and some academic circles is familiar. They claim "pedophile" is a stigmatizing, pejorative label that prevents individuals from seeking help. "Minor-Attracted Person," they suggest, is a value-neutral, clinical descriptor that separates the person from their condition, fostering a more "compassionate" dialogue. This is a Trojan Horse. Language is not merely descriptive; it is normative. It shapes perception and defines reality. To change the word is to begin the process of changing the societal judgment attached to the act. We have seen this playbook before. Behaviors once rightly deemed deviant and destructive have been slowly reclassified through a relentless campaign of euphemism and identity politics, shifting the focus from the objective harm of an action to the subjective feelings of the actor.

The term "pedophile" carries with it the full, crushing weight of societal condemnation, legal consequence, and moral outrage. It is a word that justly evokes revulsion and triggers our most protective instincts. "Minor-Attracted Person" does none of that. It sounds like just another identity category like "person of color" or "LGBTQ individual" implying a state of being rather than a predatory orientation. It subtly suggests that this attraction is an innate, immutable identity deserving of recognition and accommodation, rather than a dangerous paraphilia to be managed, controlled, and condemned.

This rebranding effort is a core tactic of a broader postmodern project that seeks to dismantle objective truth and moral boundaries. If pedophilia is merely another "sexual orientation," then the logical end point is its eventual inclusion in the pantheon of protected identities. We are already seeing this logic creep into fringe academic and online spaces where activists draw explicit parallels between the gay rights movement and the push for "MAP" rights. This is not only an obscene false equivalence but a glaring warning sign. The normalization of this language is the first step toward demanding tolerance, then acceptance, and finally, legal and social sanction.

Conservatives believe in clear moral binaries for the protection of society. Some things are simply right, and some things are simply wrong. The sexual exploitation of children is categorically, always, and absolutely wrong. There is no spectrum, no nuance, and no "attraction identity" that can mitigate that truth. To obscure this binary with softer language is to create a gray area where none can be permitted to exist. It provides cover for predators and confuses the public conscience. How can we vigorously prosecute a crime if we are simultaneously told to empathize with the criminal's "identity"?

Furthermore, the "compassion" argument is a dangerous red herring. True compassion is uncompromisingly directed toward the potential victims the children. Society’s primary obligation is to shield them, not to soothe the feelings of those who harbor desires to harm them. Resources should be directed toward robust law enforcement, supporting victims, and strengthening families not toward funding academic conferences or therapeutic frameworks that treat a propensity for child abuse as a legitimate "orientation" to be discussed and validated. Encouraging individuals with these urges to seek help is one thing; the entire linguistic and cultural framework to make them feel less "stigmatized" for having them is entirely another. The stigma exists for a vital, life-preserving reason.

The conservative response must be one of unyielding moral clarity and linguistic resistance. We must refuse to adopt the sanitized lexicon of the activists. We must call a pedophile a pedophile, a predator a predator. We must understand that this battle over words is a battle over reality itself. If we lose the language, we will inevitably begin to lose the cultural and legal protections that language upholds.

Our institutions from schools and media platforms to medical and therapeutic associations must be held accountable. Any effort to mainstream the term "Minor-Attracted Person" must be seen for what it is: an attempt to lower our guard. We must defend the boundary that protects childhood innocence with unwavering resolve. The safety of our children is not negotiable, and it certainly will not be bargained away in the name of political correctness or a falsely construed compassion. The line is drawn at the word "pedophile," and it is a line we cannot afford to erase.

#pedophile #pedophilia #map #Epstein #minorattractedperson #ChildMolestation

The Guardian of Liberty: Why Voter ID is the Bedrock of American Democracy

The Guardian of Liberty: Why Voter ID is the Bedrock of American Democracy

#Voting #Liberty #Democracy #votingrights

In the quiet of the voting booth, a sacred transaction takes place. It is the moment where the citizen, the sovereign of this republic, lends their consent to be governed. The integrity of that moment is the very foundation of our constitutional order. It must be beyond reproach, a fortress against corruption. Yet, following the 2020 election, a profound unease settled over half the nation. This disquiet was crystallized in a simple, powerful observation that has echoed through countless kitchen tables and community gatherings: *The only states Kamala Harris won were states that didn’t have voter ID.*

This statement, paired with the ongoing revelations of irregularities—such as the 300,000-plus suspect ballots identified in Georgia, a state decided by a mere 11,000 votes—is not mere partisan grievance. It is the symptom of a deep-seated crisis of confidence. From a conservative perspective, this is about far more than a single election. It is about the fundamental, non-negotiable principle that the legitimacy of government derives solely from the consent of the *verified* governed.

The conservative argument for voter ID is not rooted in suspicion, but in a profound commitment to citizenship, fairness, and the rule of law. It begins with a simple, commonsense premise: in a nation of laws, we require verification for actions of far lesser consequence than choosing the leadership of the free world. You need an ID to drive a car, to board an airplane, to enter a federal building, to open a bank account, or to purchase certain cold medicines. To suggest that the act which secures our republic should have a *lower* standard of verification is not progressive; it is irrational and dangerously negligent. It demeans the value of the vote itself.

The evidence from Georgia is not an anomaly to be dismissed, but a warning siren to be heeded. The forensic audits and investigations conducted there revealed a landscape ripe for potential abuse: thousands of ballots with mismatched signatures, votes cast by individuals who had moved out of state, and systemic failures in the chain of custody for absentee ballots. When the margin of victory is a fraction of the number of ballots under question, public confidence doesn’t just waver—it collapses. For the conservative voter, this is not about “overturning” an election after the fact; it is about installing guardrails *before* the next one. The goal is not to exclude, but to ensure that every *legal* vote is counted once, and that illegal votes are counted not at all. Any system that cannot provide that basic assurance is not a democracy; it is an invitation to chaos.

The opposition to voter ID, championed most vehemently by Democratic leadership, is framed in the language of empathy—a claim that such requirements are a "poll tax" that disenfranchises minority and elderly voters. This argument, however well-intentioned it may be portrayed, is profoundly paternalistic and empirically hollow. It suggests that certain American citizens are incapable of obtaining a form of identification that is a basic necessity for modern life. This is not empathy; it is a soft bigotry of low expectations. Moreover, it ignores the will of the people. Poll after poll shows overwhelming majorities of Americans, across racial and ethnic lines, support voter ID laws. They understand that integrity enables participation, it doesn’t hinder it.

The real disenfranchisement occurs when a legal voter’s ballot is diluted by a fraudulent one. The retired veteran in Peoria, the single mother in Macon, the factory worker in Scranton—their sacred franchise is cheapened when the system is not secure. They followed the rules. They fulfilled their civic duty with the solemnity it deserves. To tell them that we will not take the most basic step to verify the identity of those casting ballots is to tell them that their vote, and the principle it represents, does not merit protection. This breeds the very cynicism and disengagement the left claims to fight.

Furthermore, the conservative case understands that voter ID is merely one pillar in a necessary structure of electoral integrity. It must be paired with transparent processes that allow for meaningful observation, the maintenance of accurate and clean voter rolls, and rational limits on the chaotic, fraud-prone practice of mass unsolicited mail-in balloting that was hastily implemented in 2020. Election Day should have meaning, not be stretched into weeks of opaque “ballot harvesting” where the chain of custody is broken. The push against these measures reveals a troubling truth: for some, the *appearance* of increased turnout—by any means necessary—is more politically valuable than the *reality* of unquestionable integrity.

The geographical correlation noted in the original statement is telling. The states without voter ID laws are often those where one-party control has allowed the legislative and electoral machinery to be fused. The resistance to simple verification is not about access; it is about maintaining a strategic advantage in a system they manage. It is the ultimate insider’s game, dressed in the language of social justice. They do not trust the people with their own sovereignty, preferring instead a nebulous process they alone can administer and, when convenient, reinterpret.

For the conservative, this is a fight to preserve the republic itself. Our system is built on compact and trust. The citizen trusts that their vote will be counted fairly. The loser trusts that the process was legitimate, allowing for a peaceful transfer of power. That second compact shattered in 2020, not because of the complaints of the loser, but because the mechanisms designed to inspire trust had been systematically weakened or removed. When tens of millions of Americans look at Georgia, or Pennsylvania, or Arizona, and see a process that was changed at the last minute by courts or executives rather than legislatures, that was shrouded in opacity, and that produced margins smaller than the pools of questionable ballots, they are not “sore losers.” They are patriots rightfully concerned for the health of their democracy.

The path forward is clear, simple, and rooted in the American tradition of practical solutions. We must enact robust, nationwide voter ID laws, offered for free to any eligible citizen. We must couple this with a national effort, akin to the Motor Voter law, to ensure every eligible citizen is positively identified and registered. We must return to Election Day, with in-person voting as the clear norm, supplemented by absentee ballots only for those with a verified, legitimate need. We must have audits that are transparent and routine.

This is not a partisan agenda. It is an American one. It says to every citizen: your vote is so precious, so powerful, that we will take every step to ensure it is yours alone to cast, and that it is counted with exacting precision. It replaces the whispered doubts of “rigged elections” with the quiet confidence of a system that is airtight, observable, and trustworthy.

The call for voter ID is ultimately a call for renewal. It is a demand that we treat our highest civic ritual with the seriousness it deserves. It is a reaffirmation that in America, the people rule—but only if we can be certain that “the people” are exactly who they say they are. To ignore the lessons of 2020, to dismiss the concerns of half the electorate as illegitimate, is to gamble with the union itself. We must rebuild the fortress of our elections, brick by verifiable brick. Our liberty depends on it.

The Guardian of Liberty: Why Voter ID is the Bedrock of American Democracy

DEMOCRATS CALL YOU WHAT THEY ARE

 DEMOCRATS CALL YOU WHAT THEY ARE

#Democrats #KKK #Confederacy #Racist #Racists #History

 

Professors Are Sounding the Alarm About Film School Students

Attention spans are down and it's really affecting how work gets done

Attention spans are down and it's really affecting how work gets done

#Education #Learning #MentalHealth #FilmSchool 

 

 Jerry Gahan

What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

Politics Articles | July 31, 2015

           The Trans Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world. The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.

The Trans Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world. The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty, the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.

            The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR).

These treaties have forced American workers to compete against desperate and low

wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the

United States, and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class and increased wealth and income inequality. Former President Bill Clinton said that NAFTA was the biggest mistake of his presidency.

            Sections of the TPP published by Wikileaks have revealed the treaty’s vast influence over multiple areas including individual rights, internet freedom and even the rule of law itself. Unelected corporate boards and the President can now wield unprecedented control over almost every aspect of human activity. “If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs,” Wikileaks’ Julian Assange wrote.

            Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.

The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.

            Despite massive opposition from the American people, Tea Party Republicans and a majority of Democrats, Obama was granted fast-track authority by a 60-38 vote. “Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obama trade deals, without any Congressional input…” notes Breitbart.

            The Administration admits that there will be massive job loss. They plan on       

financing retraing for those affected workers via the TAA (Trade Adjustment Assistance) by STEALING $700 million from Medicare.

            For more information on the TPP, visit http://govreform.net/tpp.html

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Author and owner Government Reform http://www.govreform.net , poliotical activist

Internet and Politics

 

Internet and Politics

In the past, political figures relied upon the news in the form of television stations and even newspapers to release information to the public, i.e. direct to the electorate. Now with the invention of the internet, more political figures are releasing their own information. How does this affect the release of information? Does this add to the impact of law and government on society, or is this merely a direct root to brainwashing the public. Furthermore, is it good to use political figures time releasing information when they should be enacting change? In this article we will look at the relationship between the internet and politics, and whether the move towards more accessibility and greater personal accounting is beneficial to democracy and government.

The correct answers are never easy to find, however with some work, analysis and thought it is possible to come up with the right answer. The right answer is there is no answer - isn’t that horrific. Each politician has different means of how comfortable they are on the internet. Using the internet has allowed some to maintain a closer proximity to the people they represent, while others have used it as a means to avoid personal contact with the people. Either way, the Internet is obviously a powerful campaigning tool, and most politicians seemed to have realized and utilized this within their own campaigns.  

Many politicians are taking the internet and using it as a means of keeping a continuous stream of contact with the media, the people they represent, and everyone else. The internet has allowed the political figures who use it the ability to quickly communicate with everyone whenever important information is available. This makes them more accessible to the ordinary man in the street, which has never been possible through any other medium in the past.

Using the internet to communicate directly with people has improved the accuracy of the information that comes down in the political reigns. Being assured of accurate information is why many prefer to receive the information directly from the lawmakers whom they elected. Many times, it is possible to find the information in more detail online, and with less hassle and false facts.  

Couple the increased communication with the fact that each day, millions log onto the internet and it makes it the perfect place for candidates to hone their campaign skills to help increase their visual image in the public eye. Most voters want a political figure they can find easily so they are able to do research to find the candidate that they truly believe in without spending hours doing research. Furthermore, the internet allows politicians to point their campaigns directly at a completely new demographic that had never before been tapped into. This is unleashing a whole new generation of voters eager to make the difference, which is working wonders for the politicians involved, and of course their savvy communications managers.

Many voters have embraced the idea of being able to show support for their political parties from the comforts of their home over the internet. Politicians are also enjoying the ability to quickly communicate and using various social websites as well as the websites for their offices to keep a good flow of communication open with voters. With everything compiled it is a wonderful age, where the internet is able to bring politicians and voters much closer together, while still allowing the politicians to be in Washington, or where their office is performing their job. 

With the ease of the internet, politicians are able to communicate with the public from anywhere, giving them more time to communicate greater amounts of information to the public, as well as be able to gather feedback from the public in regards to the wishes of the majority. Overall, it is a wonderful time and a wonderful addition to the political world since the invent of the internet. 

#internet #politics #policy

This is another reason Trump is fighting birthright citizenship

Analysis and Comment

This is another reason Trump is fighting birthright citizenship:

Over the past 13 years, and probably as far back as the 80's and 90's, a China agency reports that 100,000 babies a year were born to Chinese Women giving the baby 'Birthright Citizenship'. Then they are taken back to China to be raised. When they turn 18 they are eligible to come here to vote based on 'Birthright Citizenship'. The 14th Amendment wasn't meant for that. And no, the Forefathers didn't write it. They were dead after the Civil War. The back story to Articles and Amendments are in the FEDERALIST PAPERS. Those are the 'notes' and the raw language.

The Assault on Birthright: Why America Must Secure Its Citizenship Legacy

The post above, circulating with urgent alarm, presents a stark claim: that for decades, the sacred privilege of American birthright citizenship has been systematically exploited by a foreign power. It alleges a calculated scheme where Chinese women, supported by state agencies, give birth on U.S. soil solely to secure an American passport for their child. That child is then raised abroad, only to return at adulthood to claim the full rights of an American—including, as the post darkly notes, the right to vote. The author’s final, pointed historical correction—“The Forefathers didn't write it. They were dead after the Civil War”—is more than a trivia fact. It is a crucial anchor for the conservative argument: that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause has been warped far beyond its original intent, and that it falls to this generation to restore its true meaning.

From a conservative perspective, this is not merely an immigration loophole; it is a fundamental question of national sovereignty, constitutional integrity, and the very definition of what it means to be an American citizen. The principle at stake is one of *consent*. A nation is not just a territory; it is a political community, a shared social contract built on common values, history, and allegiance. Citizenship is the formal entry into that contract. The foundational conservative belief is that this contract cannot be imposed unilaterally by an accident of geography, especially when that accident is engineered by those who reject the contract’s terms.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was a monumental and righteous achievement of the Reconstruction era. Its primary authors, the “Radical Republicans,” had a clear and noble purpose: to forever cement the citizenship of newly freed slaves, overturning the infamous *Dred Scott* decision and ensuring that no state could deny them the fundamental rights of Americans. The language, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens,” was crafted with this profound moral and legal mission in mind. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was understood at the time to exclude those owing allegiance to another sovereign, such as children of foreign diplomats or, arguably, members of Native American tribes. It was never conceived as a global invitation for “birth tourism,” where individuals with no permanent tie to, or allegiance for, the United States could secure for their offspring the ultimate prize of American citizenship as a mere contingency plan.

This is where the alleged Chinese program represents a paradigm case of this distortion. It illustrates a cold, strategic commodification of American citizenship. The child is not born into the American community; they are parachuted into it long enough to claim a legal identity they did not earn and to which they have no formative connection. They are raised under a foreign, and often adversarial, political system, educated in its values, and then—as adults—hold the power to influence the destiny of the nation that was, for them, merely a birthplace of convenience. This turns citizenship from a sacred bond into a transactional asset, a loophole that undermines the very principle of patriotic allegiance.

Conservatives argue that this is why the issue resonates so powerfully with figures like former President Donald Trump, who has consistently championed an “America First” policy. The fight is not about the individuals in these narrow circumstances, but about the systemic integrity of our borders, our laws, and our civic body. It is about the sovereign right of a nation to define the terms of its own membership. To ignore this exploitation is to outsource our demographic and political future to the strategic planning of other nations. It renders our citizenship policy passive and reactive, rather than an active, deliberate choice about who we wish to join us in the project of self-governance.

The remedy, from this viewpoint, does not necessarily require a constitutional amendment, though that is a worthy long-term debate. It requires the political courage to correctly interpret the 14th Amendment as its authors intended. The executive branch has the authority to clarify, through regulation and enforcement, that children born to individuals who are not permanent residents or citizens, and who are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, do not automatically qualify for birthright citizenship. This would restore the critical link between citizenship and actual jurisdiction—a link of allegiance, not just of geography.

To dismiss these concerns as nativist or xenophobic is to willfully ignore the strategic reality. A nation that cannot define or defend the meaning of its own citizenship has lost a core element of its sovereignty. The conservative mission here is one of preservation and restoration: to preserve the original, solemn purpose of the 14th Amendment as a guarantor of rights for those truly part of the American community, and to restore the understanding that American citizenship is a privilege bestowed by a consenting nation, not a trinket to be collected by those passing through. It is about ensuring that the future American electorate is composed of those who share a fundamental stake in the nation’s fate, not those for whom it is merely a useful option in a global portfolio. Our citizenship is our legacy; it must be protected from those who would treat it as a loophole.

#14thAmendment #ILLEGALS #Immigration #BirthrightCitizenship #Citizenship #Migration