Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Shermichael Singleton absolutely schools the CNN panel on birthright citizenship. He drops the receipts showing that Democrats once agreed it was a loophole Congress needed to shut down. SINGLETON: “Philosophically, I fundamentally disagree with the court on this. To me, I go back to subject to the jurisdiction of,...

overton_news's profile picture

Overton

265,929 subscribers

39,297 views • 15 days ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

This woman says every African American should love Donald J. Trump. “He said that the birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of the slaves after the Civil War. This man is everything. We will never see anybody like him again. Birthright citizenship, right from the President’s mouth. “ Do you agree with President Trump that birthright citizenship was reserved for those babies of African slaves and that we now need to end birthright citizenship? I agree with him. Two people sneaking over the border and having a baby should NOT grant that child citizenship. That’s not what it was intended for. Two people here visiting from another country and having a baby should NOT be an avenue to grant citizenship.
0:42

This woman says every African American should love Donald J. Trump. “He said that the birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of the slaves after the Civil War. This man is everything. We will never see anybody like him again. Birthright citizenship, right from the President’s mouth. “ Do you agree with President Trump that birthright citizenship was reserved for those babies of African slaves and that we now need to end birthright citizenship? I agree with him. Two people sneaking over the border and having a baby should NOT grant that child citizenship. That’s not what it was intended for. Two people here visiting from another country and having a baby should NOT be an avenue to grant citizenship.

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

52,192 views • 1 year ago

Obama: So we have to extend to people during their period of mourning and shock. At the same time, we can also at the same time say I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake — that’s not me politicizing the issue. It’s making an observation about who we are as a country. I can say that I disagree with the suggestion that my wife or Justice Jackson does not have adequate brain processing power.
2:53

Obama: So we have to extend to people during their period of mourning and shock. At the same time, we can also at the same time say I disagree with the idea that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a mistake — that’s not me politicizing the issue. It’s making an observation about who we are as a country. I can say that I disagree with the suggestion that my wife or Justice Jackson does not have adequate brain processing power.

Acyn

4,451,892 views • 10 months ago

This is maddening. Speaking of the 2004 election in Ohio, John Kerry told Brian Lehrer in 2018 that “The problem for us was we were doubting whether the [voting] machines themselves had been appropriately measured & whether the algorithms were correct, etc. We challenged that ahead of time by the way. People don’t know that. And we were told by the court that we were not able to get that algorithm, to check it, bc it was proprietary information. And I believe that it was absolutely incorrect that in the United States of America, the election for the presidency of the United States should somehow be the purview of privately owned machines where the public doesn’t have the right to know whether the algorithms can be checked or whether they are hackable or not. And we now know they are hackable. But we knew as we sat there to decide where to go in terms of the challenge, that we were a nation at war, we had just been through a Supreme Court test of an election four years earlier. I thought once I measured it that whatever constitutional challenge we brought or whatever appropriate challenge we brought to the ballots that were counted, it was going to wind up ultimately in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would do the same thing that it did before. We would take the country through a three month exercise with a 5/4 decision that would award the presidency back to George Bush. Now some people may think that’s the right thing to have done. I thought it would have been horrendous for our country one year into a war, at that moment when there were serious doubts about terrorism and other things, to be going through a long period of questioning of the presidency, and I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for the nation.” 1/ Vice President JD Vance Marc E. Elias
2:27

This is maddening. Speaking of the 2004 election in Ohio, John Kerry told Brian Lehrer in 2018 that “The problem for us was we were doubting whether the [voting] machines themselves had been appropriately measured & whether the algorithms were correct, etc. We challenged that ahead of time by the way. People don’t know that. And we were told by the court that we were not able to get that algorithm, to check it, bc it was proprietary information. And I believe that it was absolutely incorrect that in the United States of America, the election for the presidency of the United States should somehow be the purview of privately owned machines where the public doesn’t have the right to know whether the algorithms can be checked or whether they are hackable or not. And we now know they are hackable. But we knew as we sat there to decide where to go in terms of the challenge, that we were a nation at war, we had just been through a Supreme Court test of an election four years earlier. I thought once I measured it that whatever constitutional challenge we brought or whatever appropriate challenge we brought to the ballots that were counted, it was going to wind up ultimately in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would do the same thing that it did before. We would take the country through a three month exercise with a 5/4 decision that would award the presidency back to George Bush. Now some people may think that’s the right thing to have done. I thought it would have been horrendous for our country one year into a war, at that moment when there were serious doubts about terrorism and other things, to be going through a long period of questioning of the presidency, and I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for the nation.” 1/ Vice President JD Vance Marc E. Elias

JennyCohn ✍🏻 📢

125,175 views • 1 year ago

The 14th Amendment was written to protect freed slaves, not to grant U.S. citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Congress should not sit back and leave this issue up to the courts. Watch Andre Barnes explain how birthright citizenship is a loophole that needs to be closed:
1:09

The 14th Amendment was written to protect freed slaves, not to grant U.S. citizenship to children of illegal aliens. Congress should not sit back and leave this issue up to the courts. Watch Andre Barnes explain how birthright citizenship is a loophole that needs to be closed:

NumbersUSA

15,784 views • 3 months ago

🚨Governor DeSantis reacts to SCOTUS allowing the invasion of America to continue via “birthright citizenship” Says the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to give freed slaves citizenship, not for “birth tourism”. “The Supreme Court said Dred Scott wasn't a citizen because he was black. He couldn't sue. And Lincoln rejected that. And so what they wanted to say is, wait a minute. No, you're a citizen regardless of race. And we're going to correct that injustice. That was the purpose of it. It was not to have people show up from China for two weeks, have babies, get them citizenship and then go back to China. I mean, how ridiculous has this become?”
3:23

🚨Governor DeSantis reacts to SCOTUS allowing the invasion of America to continue via “birthright citizenship” Says the purpose of the 14th Amendment is to give freed slaves citizenship, not for “birth tourism”. “The Supreme Court said Dred Scott wasn't a citizen because he was black. He couldn't sue. And Lincoln rejected that. And so what they wanted to say is, wait a minute. No, you're a citizen regardless of race. And we're going to correct that injustice. That was the purpose of it. It was not to have people show up from China for two weeks, have babies, get them citizenship and then go back to China. I mean, how ridiculous has this become?”

Chris Nelson 🏝️🇺🇸

31,551 views • 15 days ago

🚨 JUST IN: JD Vance NAILS IT on the Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling "The fact that this case was a 5-4 decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the 14th amendment, that concept is hanging by a THREAD." "And so what I take from that is, yes, we've got to fix the immigration system even more. We have to be even more aware of who's coming into our country to make sure that they're not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling, but it also means that we have to keep fighting!" "Because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision just as we reverse so many bad decisions throughout the generations."
1:28

🚨 JUST IN: JD Vance NAILS IT on the Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling "The fact that this case was a 5-4 decision effectively means that the concept of birthright citizenship, which is an absurdity to the 14th amendment, that concept is hanging by a THREAD." "And so what I take from that is, yes, we've got to fix the immigration system even more. We have to be even more aware of who's coming into our country to make sure that they're not benefiting from this atrocious Supreme Court ruling, but it also means that we have to keep fighting!" "Because we actually have an opportunity to reverse this decision just as we reverse so many bad decisions throughout the generations."

Eric Daugherty

424,834 views • 14 days ago

Trump just now on the muted mics during the debate: “We agreed to the same rules. I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. I'd rather have it probably on, but the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. In that case, it was muted. I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine. I mean, ask Biden how it worked out. It was fine, and I think it should be the same. We agreed to the same rules, same rules, and same specifications, and I think that's probably what it should be, but they're trying to change it. The truth is they're trying to get out of it because she doesn't want to debate. She's not a good debater. She's not a smart person. She doesn't want to debate.”
0:41

Trump just now on the muted mics during the debate: “We agreed to the same rules. I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. I'd rather have it probably on, but the agreement was that it would be the same as it was last time. In that case, it was muted. I didn't like it the last time, but it worked out fine. I mean, ask Biden how it worked out. It was fine, and I think it should be the same. We agreed to the same rules, same rules, and same specifications, and I think that's probably what it should be, but they're trying to change it. The truth is they're trying to get out of it because she doesn't want to debate. She's not a good debater. She's not a smart person. She doesn't want to debate.”

Yashar Ali 🐘

3,697,475 views • 1 year ago

Harry Reid’s Revenge on a Party That Has Lost Its Way After the Supreme Court blocked President Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno announced he’ll reintroduce an “identical” version of a 1993 bill that would have done exactly that. The author of that bill? None other than Democrat icon Harry Reid. Reid’s office said at the time that his Immigration Stabilization Act sought to clarify that “a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen.” “The Democrats of today are nothing like the Democrats of 1993,” Moreno said. “We have to recognize that these Democrats want to systematically destroy this country.”
1:05

Harry Reid’s Revenge on a Party That Has Lost Its Way After the Supreme Court blocked President Trump’s bid to end birthright citizenship, Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno announced he’ll reintroduce an “identical” version of a 1993 bill that would have done exactly that. The author of that bill? None other than Democrat icon Harry Reid. Reid’s office said at the time that his Immigration Stabilization Act sought to clarify that “a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen.” “The Democrats of today are nothing like the Democrats of 1993,” Moreno said. “We have to recognize that these Democrats want to systematically destroy this country.”

Tony Seruga

59,685 views • 13 days ago

CNN analyst/infamous Clinton toadie Andrew McCabe blasts Scott Jennings for bringing up #OperationArcticFrost, arguing NONE of it — including taping the phone records of Senate Republicans — was illegal compared to President Trump wanting Democrats to face punishment for their video encouraging the military to openly disobey order... “It doesn’t compare at all I think to the — I think — if I’m — if I’m listening to Scott correctly, the reference to the invest — the subpoenas that were issued by a grand jury to retrieve telephone related information on members of Congress. Those were not — those are — that was not an investigation initiated into members of Congress. It was an investigation of a — an insurrection at the Capitol. And, in an effort to try to determine who may have been in contact with the person who the investigators thought was the ringleader of the plan, which was, at that time, the President, still the President. So, yeah, that was that’s not accurate. I think it’s really fascinating that we are talking about this in terms of like, what is the President mad about? And should these members of congress have made this statement? I totally agree with the with the perspective that there’s clearly no violation of law here.” “They’re simply amplifying a message that soldiers get all the time that they are obligated to not follow illegal — illegal orders. But so even if you think what they said was irresponsible or indiscreet, or maybe unnecessary, you can say that. How about the Republicans go out and release their own video? You know, this is what political speech is. This is the way we’re supposed to have these conversations in this country. We shouldn’t be resorting to deploying the FBI out to police everybody’s political perspectives. So yeah, I think there’s absolutely — it’s a controversial. And should we have a good, you know, vigorous argument about it? Sure. But the use of federal resources to try to criminalize this behavior, to me, seems absurd and baseless.”
1:52

CNN analyst/infamous Clinton toadie Andrew McCabe blasts Scott Jennings for bringing up #OperationArcticFrost, arguing NONE of it — including taping the phone records of Senate Republicans — was illegal compared to President Trump wanting Democrats to face punishment for their video encouraging the military to openly disobey order... “It doesn’t compare at all I think to the — I think — if I’m — if I’m listening to Scott correctly, the reference to the invest — the subpoenas that were issued by a grand jury to retrieve telephone related information on members of Congress. Those were not — those are — that was not an investigation initiated into members of Congress. It was an investigation of a — an insurrection at the Capitol. And, in an effort to try to determine who may have been in contact with the person who the investigators thought was the ringleader of the plan, which was, at that time, the President, still the President. So, yeah, that was that’s not accurate. I think it’s really fascinating that we are talking about this in terms of like, what is the President mad about? And should these members of congress have made this statement? I totally agree with the with the perspective that there’s clearly no violation of law here.” “They’re simply amplifying a message that soldiers get all the time that they are obligated to not follow illegal — illegal orders. But so even if you think what they said was irresponsible or indiscreet, or maybe unnecessary, you can say that. How about the Republicans go out and release their own video? You know, this is what political speech is. This is the way we’re supposed to have these conversations in this country. We shouldn’t be resorting to deploying the FBI out to police everybody’s political perspectives. So yeah, I think there’s absolutely — it’s a controversial. And should we have a good, you know, vigorous argument about it? Sure. But the use of federal resources to try to criminalize this behavior, to me, seems absurd and baseless.”

Curtis Houck

33,728 views • 7 months ago

Congressman Brandon Gill “The American people do not have any obligation, constitutionally or otherwise to import people from foreign cultures” Read that, and then read it again Constitutionally we do not have any obligation to accept any immigration “Our immigrate, the purpose of our immigration policy is to benefit the American people. There's no other reason it exists. We do not have any obligation to allow anybody to come into our country. We do so on our own terms and for the benefit of our own people, and to the extent that that is not benefiting the American people, I think it ought to be immigration policy ought to be reformed or scrapped.” I vote to completely scrap it. End immigration, unless it’s the very best. The only reason this mass immigration has happened is because we’ve been sold out
0:30

Congressman Brandon Gill “The American people do not have any obligation, constitutionally or otherwise to import people from foreign cultures” Read that, and then read it again Constitutionally we do not have any obligation to accept any immigration “Our immigrate, the purpose of our immigration policy is to benefit the American people. There's no other reason it exists. We do not have any obligation to allow anybody to come into our country. We do so on our own terms and for the benefit of our own people, and to the extent that that is not benefiting the American people, I think it ought to be immigration policy ought to be reformed or scrapped.” I vote to completely scrap it. End immigration, unless it’s the very best. The only reason this mass immigration has happened is because we’ve been sold out

Wall Street Apes

163,396 views • 2 months ago

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump is going HARD against the Supreme Court, getting visibly angry at the thought they'd allow birthright citizenship for foreign invaders "We're a LAUGHING STOCK! And if the Supreme Court approves that decision, they have done a GREAT disservice to the United States of America, just like they did a great disservice by costing us $149 billion on tariffs by saying do it a different way!" "We have another one coming up, birthright citizenship. It would be a DISGRACE, it would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen." "Remember when I said 20 to 25 percent of the people coming into our country will come in through birthright citizenship. They'll become citizens through birthright citizenship, and it'll cost us numbers that are – I don't even think they're doable!" "And it's all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what's right. Birthright citizenship is a disgrace, the fact that – look at the people that are bringing this suit. Study the people that are bringing this suit. These are not people that love our country. I can tell you that."
1:44

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump is going HARD against the Supreme Court, getting visibly angry at the thought they'd allow birthright citizenship for foreign invaders "We're a LAUGHING STOCK! And if the Supreme Court approves that decision, they have done a GREAT disservice to the United States of America, just like they did a great disservice by costing us $149 billion on tariffs by saying do it a different way!" "We have another one coming up, birthright citizenship. It would be a DISGRACE, it would be a disgrace if the Supreme Court of the United States allows that to happen." "Remember when I said 20 to 25 percent of the people coming into our country will come in through birthright citizenship. They'll become citizens through birthright citizenship, and it'll cost us numbers that are – I don't even think they're doable!" "And it's all up to a couple of people, and I hope they do what's right. Birthright citizenship is a disgrace, the fact that – look at the people that are bringing this suit. Study the people that are bringing this suit. These are not people that love our country. I can tell you that."

Eric Daugherty

15,227 views • 1 month ago

🔥 Confirmation: UAPDA to be Reintroduced 🔥 Rounds: "I've been informed that Senator Schumer would like to partner once again, and that we would offer it again this year in the [NDAA]. I have no objections to submitting the legislation in its current form, but I would also work with my House counterparts to allay any concerns." Ross Coulthart: "Are we going to see a reintroduction of the UAP Disclosure Act? Are you going to try and get it through the Congress once again this year?" Senator Mike Rounds: "I've been informed that Senator Schumer would like to partner once again, and that we would offer it again this year in the National Defense Authorization Act, which we'll begin working on here in the next few weeks. So the answer is yes, we intend to move forward once again. "And we modeled this originally after the Kennedy assassination reports and the committee that was established to release the timely information that we had available. But to make a decision on when to release information based on its not only its need, but its appropriateness. We thought the same type of approach that successfully released a huge amount of information on the Kennedy assassination would be the appropriate way to look at any information that was available on the issue of what was at that time, UFOs." Ross: "Perhaps the most significant thing about that original legislation was that, as well as it being an incredible 64 pages of proposed UAP disclosure legislation, it was an incredibly powerful piece of legislation, if it had gone through in the form, in the original form that was proposed. It mentioned Non-Human Intelligence - NHI - 24 times. It's a very bold statement - isn't it - by the Senate and by the Congress, of intention. You seem to be suggesting there, that there is a there, there to be found." Rounds: "You know, our intent was to make sure that there wasn't an assumption by folks who were following it that we were trying to hide anything. And our goal was to say, look, if there is any of this, which, you know, a lot of folks out there have questioned whether or not, after all these years, there was contact that we had with entities, intelligence that was not of this Earth and so forth, we just thought, rather than beating around the bush, let's just say, 'Look, if there's any of that out there, then let's disclose it. Let's make that available, or at least collect it. And then at some point, based upon a commission's review of it, to determine any national security concerns, to be able to share that information at the appropriate time.' It was not put in there because of any evidence that I had, or that I believe Senator Schumer had, that would suggest that we had a smoking gun. But rather, let's have clarity. Let's lay this thing out and make sure that the American public would know, that if there was such information that existed, we were directing that it be preserved and then it be delivered for appropriate persons and for review by this select committee." Ross: "Senator, would you like to see the original legislation passed in its original, proposed form? Is that a possibility, or are you looking at changing that legislation in any way from what was originally proposed, I think in July 2023?" Rounds:"I have no objections to submitting the legislation in its current form, but I would also work with my House counterparts to allay any concerns that they may have. And once again, look, my background on this is working on the Senate Intel Committee, the Intelligence Committee, but also on the Armed Services Committee. And I can tell you that that we do a lot of research, and we've got advanced projects going on all the time,. And what we didn't want to have happen was a demand for exposure on weapon-systems capabilities and so forth, that that might otherwise be found or reported out or disclosed in an inappropriate way. "Many people have talked now about the development of stealth, and I think now there's more and more discussion on the fact that there were some plans out there that allowed some of these stealth weapons to be unidentified for an extended period of time, on purpose. And the reason for it was, is because for national-defense purposes. In those particular cases where we have items out there that might very well be ours, we may very well not wanna be able...we may not wanna disclose that information, and it's appropriate to keep it private. The same if we know of other weapon systems by other countries. We may not want to disclose it, but we wanted a place where it could at least be collected, and an independent organization could look at it and be able to disclose that which was not subject to. National Defense concerns." (We're not asking for OUR secret tech to be revealed and I'm tired of hearing that. However, what if there's a technological breakthrough that will make our lives better on this planet and be better for the environment? Then what?)
5:02

🔥 Confirmation: UAPDA to be Reintroduced 🔥 Rounds: "I've been informed that Senator Schumer would like to partner once again, and that we would offer it again this year in the [NDAA]. I have no objections to submitting the legislation in its current form, but I would also work with my House counterparts to allay any concerns." Ross Coulthart: "Are we going to see a reintroduction of the UAP Disclosure Act? Are you going to try and get it through the Congress once again this year?" Senator Mike Rounds: "I've been informed that Senator Schumer would like to partner once again, and that we would offer it again this year in the National Defense Authorization Act, which we'll begin working on here in the next few weeks. So the answer is yes, we intend to move forward once again. "And we modeled this originally after the Kennedy assassination reports and the committee that was established to release the timely information that we had available. But to make a decision on when to release information based on its not only its need, but its appropriateness. We thought the same type of approach that successfully released a huge amount of information on the Kennedy assassination would be the appropriate way to look at any information that was available on the issue of what was at that time, UFOs." Ross: "Perhaps the most significant thing about that original legislation was that, as well as it being an incredible 64 pages of proposed UAP disclosure legislation, it was an incredibly powerful piece of legislation, if it had gone through in the form, in the original form that was proposed. It mentioned Non-Human Intelligence - NHI - 24 times. It's a very bold statement - isn't it - by the Senate and by the Congress, of intention. You seem to be suggesting there, that there is a there, there to be found." Rounds: "You know, our intent was to make sure that there wasn't an assumption by folks who were following it that we were trying to hide anything. And our goal was to say, look, if there is any of this, which, you know, a lot of folks out there have questioned whether or not, after all these years, there was contact that we had with entities, intelligence that was not of this Earth and so forth, we just thought, rather than beating around the bush, let's just say, 'Look, if there's any of that out there, then let's disclose it. Let's make that available, or at least collect it. And then at some point, based upon a commission's review of it, to determine any national security concerns, to be able to share that information at the appropriate time.' It was not put in there because of any evidence that I had, or that I believe Senator Schumer had, that would suggest that we had a smoking gun. But rather, let's have clarity. Let's lay this thing out and make sure that the American public would know, that if there was such information that existed, we were directing that it be preserved and then it be delivered for appropriate persons and for review by this select committee." Ross: "Senator, would you like to see the original legislation passed in its original, proposed form? Is that a possibility, or are you looking at changing that legislation in any way from what was originally proposed, I think in July 2023?" Rounds:"I have no objections to submitting the legislation in its current form, but I would also work with my House counterparts to allay any concerns that they may have. And once again, look, my background on this is working on the Senate Intel Committee, the Intelligence Committee, but also on the Armed Services Committee. And I can tell you that that we do a lot of research, and we've got advanced projects going on all the time,. And what we didn't want to have happen was a demand for exposure on weapon-systems capabilities and so forth, that that might otherwise be found or reported out or disclosed in an inappropriate way. "Many people have talked now about the development of stealth, and I think now there's more and more discussion on the fact that there were some plans out there that allowed some of these stealth weapons to be unidentified for an extended period of time, on purpose. And the reason for it was, is because for national-defense purposes. In those particular cases where we have items out there that might very well be ours, we may very well not wanna be able...we may not wanna disclose that information, and it's appropriate to keep it private. The same if we know of other weapon systems by other countries. We may not want to disclose it, but we wanted a place where it could at least be collected, and an independent organization could look at it and be able to disclose that which was not subject to. National Defense concerns." (We're not asking for OUR secret tech to be revealed and I'm tired of hearing that. However, what if there's a technological breakthrough that will make our lives better on this planet and be better for the environment? Then what?)

Joe Murgia

109,300 views • 1 year ago

American law firm expertly explains why The Supreme Court will likely strike down Birthright Citizenship “The Supreme Court is going to decide one of the most important cases in history, the case of birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that all persons born here subject to the jurisdiction thereof become citizens. Paraphrasing. The key term there is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If you take out that sentence, the clause of the 14th Amendment still works. That sentence is there for a reason. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, and it was meant to make black slaves become citizens, but you still had to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning you still had to be in the United States legally. Your allegiance still had to be to one country, to one flag. The whole controversy is that you have people literally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. They're here illegally. They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof because the United States terminated your jurisdiction. You don't have any access here, but you're having a child here, and now that child becomes a lifelong citizen. Then that child is able to bring his entire family from the country that he's in, and all of them can become citizens as well. I think that's insane. I don't think that's been working. I don't think the people of America want that. They didn't vote for that, and I think that it's not the original intent of the 14th Amendment. There's a good chance that if the justices stick to the original intent of the statute, that this is going to get struck down in its current form”
1:17

American law firm expertly explains why The Supreme Court will likely strike down Birthright Citizenship “The Supreme Court is going to decide one of the most important cases in history, the case of birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment states that all persons born here subject to the jurisdiction thereof become citizens. Paraphrasing. The key term there is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If you take out that sentence, the clause of the 14th Amendment still works. That sentence is there for a reason. The 14th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, and it was meant to make black slaves become citizens, but you still had to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, meaning you still had to be in the United States legally. Your allegiance still had to be to one country, to one flag. The whole controversy is that you have people literally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. They're here illegally. They're not subject to the jurisdiction thereof because the United States terminated your jurisdiction. You don't have any access here, but you're having a child here, and now that child becomes a lifelong citizen. Then that child is able to bring his entire family from the country that he's in, and all of them can become citizens as well. I think that's insane. I don't think that's been working. I don't think the people of America want that. They didn't vote for that, and I think that it's not the original intent of the 14th Amendment. There's a good chance that if the justices stick to the original intent of the statute, that this is going to get struck down in its current form”

Wall Street Apes

57,953 views • 3 months ago

The Supreme Court just ruled that, apparently, immigration IS a suicide pact. It has struck down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order and chose to distort the single most important phrase in the 14th Amendment: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." When the Republican Congress drafted this amendment after the Civil War to protect freed slaves from the Democrat Party's terror campaign, they inserted that phrase for a definitive reason. It was meant to cover people who owed FULL ALLEGIANCE to this country. It was never written to create automatic citizenship for children born to people who enter our country illegally, or who come here on tourist visas just to give birth, or are part of a mass surrogate campaign run by the Chinese Communist Party to increase its influence over America. The authors of the 14th Amendment would never recognize what the Court did today. They have taken our constitutional compassion, born of justice and mercy, and twisted it into a weapon against us. It makes absolutely no sense.
5:03

The Supreme Court just ruled that, apparently, immigration IS a suicide pact. It has struck down Trump's birthright citizenship executive order and chose to distort the single most important phrase in the 14th Amendment: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." When the Republican Congress drafted this amendment after the Civil War to protect freed slaves from the Democrat Party's terror campaign, they inserted that phrase for a definitive reason. It was meant to cover people who owed FULL ALLEGIANCE to this country. It was never written to create automatic citizenship for children born to people who enter our country illegally, or who come here on tourist visas just to give birth, or are part of a mass surrogate campaign run by the Chinese Communist Party to increase its influence over America. The authors of the 14th Amendment would never recognize what the Court did today. They have taken our constitutional compassion, born of justice and mercy, and twisted it into a weapon against us. It makes absolutely no sense.

Glenn Beck

305,550 views • 15 days ago

Chris Cuomo unexpectedly SHUTS DOWN young liberal pushing false claims about Charlie Kirk. “You’re about to make the AOC mistake.” Adam Mockler claimed Kirk believed the Civil Rights Act NEVER should have been passed. But to his dismay, Cuomo immediately pushed back and set the record straight on what Kirk really believed. MOCKLER: “This is a dude who repeatedly said the Civil Rights Act shouldn’t have been passed.” CUOMO: “No, not at the same time. Two things. You’re about to make the AOC mistake… Charlie Kirk never said the Civil Rights Act [shouldn’t have been passed]… What he said was, Civil Rights Act: good. Needed it. Great.” MOCKLER: “No.” CUOMO: “Was then used to inculcate DEI and do these other things by extension of that law that he was against, and that it should have never been used for those purposes… to make it as an extension of a welfare program for blacks in every manifestation that he was against.” MOCKLER: “No, I’ve heard him make that argument.” CUOMO: “He didn’t say get rid of it.” MOCKLER: “He said they never should have passed it. He said that, right?” CUOMO: “No. I don’t think he did say that. I think what he said was what they did with it made it a mistake.”
1:12

Chris Cuomo unexpectedly SHUTS DOWN young liberal pushing false claims about Charlie Kirk. “You’re about to make the AOC mistake.” Adam Mockler claimed Kirk believed the Civil Rights Act NEVER should have been passed. But to his dismay, Cuomo immediately pushed back and set the record straight on what Kirk really believed. MOCKLER: “This is a dude who repeatedly said the Civil Rights Act shouldn’t have been passed.” CUOMO: “No, not at the same time. Two things. You’re about to make the AOC mistake… Charlie Kirk never said the Civil Rights Act [shouldn’t have been passed]… What he said was, Civil Rights Act: good. Needed it. Great.” MOCKLER: “No.” CUOMO: “Was then used to inculcate DEI and do these other things by extension of that law that he was against, and that it should have never been used for those purposes… to make it as an extension of a welfare program for blacks in every manifestation that he was against.” MOCKLER: “No, I’ve heard him make that argument.” CUOMO: “He didn’t say get rid of it.” MOCKLER: “He said they never should have passed it. He said that, right?” CUOMO: “No. I don’t think he did say that. I think what he said was what they did with it made it a mistake.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

1,682,457 views • 9 months ago

.AAGHarmeetDhillon responds to people, like the women of The View, who say the Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision is a step back towards the Jim Crow era: “I’m a woman who grew up in the deep south and there was the Ku Klux Klan in my county. That was scary, but guess what? It isn’t there anymore. It is not mainstream. It is fringe. Our country has come so far. We have a diverse and beautiful society, and we should be proud of that. [But] we should stop putting our thumb on the scale. It’s not fair to all Americans and it is simply perpetuating a racist history that we should be proud to be able to have moved past in our country. Gerrymandered districts have consequences on both sides... [Now] what you're going to have is more competitive districts, eventually, for everybody."
2:14

.AAGHarmeetDhillon responds to people, like the women of The View, who say the Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision is a step back towards the Jim Crow era: “I’m a woman who grew up in the deep south and there was the Ku Klux Klan in my county. That was scary, but guess what? It isn’t there anymore. It is not mainstream. It is fringe. Our country has come so far. We have a diverse and beautiful society, and we should be proud of that. [But] we should stop putting our thumb on the scale. It’s not fair to all Americans and it is simply perpetuating a racist history that we should be proud to be able to have moved past in our country. Gerrymandered districts have consequences on both sides... [Now] what you're going to have is more competitive districts, eventually, for everybody."

Glenn Beck

82,524 views • 2 months ago