NYT - Lies, Misdirection and Corruption
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Another reason the overwrought ‘dictator’ charges keep falling flat is because Trump keeps following the law. On Saturday, no less than the New York Times ran a narrative-smashing op-ed headlined, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship.” The Democrats’ first ‘win’ against Trump is already crumbling—and even the Gray Lady is sounding the retreat. Like Napoleon at Waterloo, they confidently stormed into battle, realizing too late they marched straight into a legal ambush.
On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order ending so-called birthright citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants. Democrats sued, wailing that his EO violated the 14th Amendment, which provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The key issue, intentionally provoked by the executive order, is what exactly does the Constitution mean by “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Federal judges in four states promptly enjoined Trump’s order. One of the judges claimed it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”
But, the article advised, “Not necessarily.”
The Supreme Court has never held that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens — never. But thanks to decades of judicial hand-waving and bureaucratic indifference, citizenship has been quietly doled out with all the discretion of Social Security numbers.
The 14th Amendment’s well-known purpose was to convey citizenship to children of freed slaves. At the time it passed, Lincoln’s administration had rejected the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, and had already recognized free African Americans as citizens. The 14th Amendment resolved the Constitutional crisis in Lincoln’s favor.
The carefully considered article delved into the history of citizenship through the centuries. Then it noted the Supreme Court’s awareness of that storied common law history, which has long provided that only those born “in amity” receive the sovereign blessings of citizenship status:
This isn’t just some obscure legal technicality—the principle was common knowledge at the time the 14th passed. Citizenship was for people who owed allegiance to the U.S., not just anyone who happened to be born here. As our forefathers never fought for millions of imaginary Social Security recipients, the 14th Amendment wasn’t written to pass out citizenship to millions of undocumented invaders lacking loyalty to the country.
This editorial’s publication was a massive shift in the Overton Window, preparing the Times’ readers for bad news. The left’s sacred cow of birthright citizenship is finally getting serious legal scrutiny, and the fact that the New York Times is already conceding ground means they know their side’s legal foundation is much shakier than they’ve previously pretended.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order ending so-called birthright citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants. Democrats sued, wailing that his EO violated the 14th Amendment, which provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The key issue, intentionally provoked by the executive order, is what exactly does the Constitution mean by “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Federal judges in four states promptly enjoined Trump’s order. One of the judges claimed it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”
But, the article advised, “Not necessarily.”
The Supreme Court has never held that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens — never. But thanks to decades of judicial hand-waving and bureaucratic indifference, citizenship has been quietly doled out with all the discretion of Social Security numbers.
The 14th Amendment’s well-known purpose was to convey citizenship to children of freed slaves. At the time it passed, Lincoln’s administration had rejected the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, and had already recognized free African Americans as citizens. The 14th Amendment resolved the Constitutional crisis in Lincoln’s favor.
The carefully considered article delved into the history of citizenship through the centuries. Then it noted the Supreme Court’s awareness of that storied common law history, which has long provided that only those born “in amity” receive the sovereign blessings of citizenship status:
This isn’t just some obscure legal technicality—the principle was common knowledge at the time the 14th passed. Citizenship was for people who owed allegiance to the U.S., not just anyone who happened to be born here. As our forefathers never fought for millions of imaginary Social Security recipients, the 14th Amendment wasn’t written to pass out citizenship to millions of undocumented invaders lacking loyalty to the country.
This editorial’s publication was a massive shift in the Overton Window, preparing the Times’ readers for bad news. The left’s sacred cow of birthright citizenship is finally getting serious legal scrutiny, and the fact that the New York Times is already conceding ground means they know their side’s legal foundation is much shakier than they’ve previously pretended.
☕️ WATERLOO ☙ Monday, February 17, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Deep State's Waterloo moment as DOGE dishes biggest scandal in human history; media's Napoleonic meltdown over Trump tweet; NYT op-ed signals massive win; funemployment in the Swamp; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Hahahaha! Behold, the most side-splitting headline since they had to figure out how to climb down from mandatory outdoor masking. Yesterday, the New York Times ran a story headlined, and I am not making this up, “Trump Team Finds Loophole to Defy Spirit of Court Orders Blocking Spending Freezes. The sub-headline explained, “Officials cite other legal authorities — not Mr. Trump’s court-blocked directives — to keep withholding foreign aid and domestic grant money.”
Speaking as a litigator, try as hard as you like, but it is literally impossible to “defy” the “spirit” of an order—because a court doesn’t issue a “spirit.” It issues orders. Not spirits. Parties aren’t required to hold séances asking spirits what the judge really meant. ‘Spirit of the Injunction, speak to us!’
The phrase “defying the spirit” is semantic skullduggery. It hints darkly at malfeasance without actually alleging any particular violation. It’s how journalists (or robed activists) smear someone even when they are following the rules. If a judge wanted to prohibit a specific action, they could —arguably, they are duty bound to— do so clearly. If they didn’t, but wished they had done, that’s on them.
The Times isn’t even accusing the Trump Team of malicious compliance. It should know the difference too, since the Times lovingly reported Biden’s childlike efforts to skirt the Supreme Court’s slamdown of his criminal student loan forgiveness programs. Oh, Biden’s lawyers are so creative! So brave! So persistent! But I guess when Democrats actually defy the express terms of orders, that’s okay. Just not spirits.
The Times’s knickers are twisted. It wasn’t supposed to be this way! Things were going so swimmingly. Last week, Judge Amir H. Ali —the country’s first Muslim-Canadian federal judge— ordered the Trump Administration’s foreign payments freeze to itself be frozen. In other words, get out your Ouija boards and reopen the money gates!
Biden appointed Judge Ali, 39, to the DC District Court last year based on his experience practicing as a civil rights activist lawyer. (He was confirmed 50-49.) In other words, Ali had never been a judge, not even a county judge, not even a traffic ticket magistrate. But now, he’s a brand-new federal court justice. Ta-da! And he is conjuring up restraining orders against the President of the United States faster than a drive-thru medium reading palms at an interstate travel plaza.
This week, after the payments gusher failed to resume gushing (it resumed only a flaccid trickle) as per the spirits of Judge Ali’s order, the plaintiffs complained in court they still hadn’t gotten their checks. The judge summoned the parties into court, and the Trump Team explained that they were complying, they were ignoring Trump’s instructions, as ordered, but they were still withholding payments under various other statutes, contractual and grant provisions, and other rules that have been around for a long time. The judge never ordered them to ignore other laws.
Young Judge Ali is discovering what a more seasoned benchholder might have foreseen: the vexing difficulty of micromanaging the federal bureaucracy. The bureaucrats know the byzantine laws and regulations and contract rules— and he doesn’t. So one simple order won’t resurrect USAID. He’ll need an entire team of Ghostbusters.
The New York Times needs a new Tarot deck.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Speaking as a litigator, try as hard as you like, but it is literally impossible to “defy” the “spirit” of an order—because a court doesn’t issue a “spirit.” It issues orders. Not spirits. Parties aren’t required to hold séances asking spirits what the judge really meant. ‘Spirit of the Injunction, speak to us!’
The phrase “defying the spirit” is semantic skullduggery. It hints darkly at malfeasance without actually alleging any particular violation. It’s how journalists (or robed activists) smear someone even when they are following the rules. If a judge wanted to prohibit a specific action, they could —arguably, they are duty bound to— do so clearly. If they didn’t, but wished they had done, that’s on them.
The Times isn’t even accusing the Trump Team of malicious compliance. It should know the difference too, since the Times lovingly reported Biden’s childlike efforts to skirt the Supreme Court’s slamdown of his criminal student loan forgiveness programs. Oh, Biden’s lawyers are so creative! So brave! So persistent! But I guess when Democrats actually defy the express terms of orders, that’s okay. Just not spirits.
The Times’s knickers are twisted. It wasn’t supposed to be this way! Things were going so swimmingly. Last week, Judge Amir H. Ali —the country’s first Muslim-Canadian federal judge— ordered the Trump Administration’s foreign payments freeze to itself be frozen. In other words, get out your Ouija boards and reopen the money gates!
Biden appointed Judge Ali, 39, to the DC District Court last year based on his experience practicing as a civil rights activist lawyer. (He was confirmed 50-49.) In other words, Ali had never been a judge, not even a county judge, not even a traffic ticket magistrate. But now, he’s a brand-new federal court justice. Ta-da! And he is conjuring up restraining orders against the President of the United States faster than a drive-thru medium reading palms at an interstate travel plaza.
This week, after the payments gusher failed to resume gushing (it resumed only a flaccid trickle) as per the spirits of Judge Ali’s order, the plaintiffs complained in court they still hadn’t gotten their checks. The judge summoned the parties into court, and the Trump Team explained that they were complying, they were ignoring Trump’s instructions, as ordered, but they were still withholding payments under various other statutes, contractual and grant provisions, and other rules that have been around for a long time. The judge never ordered them to ignore other laws.
Young Judge Ali is discovering what a more seasoned benchholder might have foreseen: the vexing difficulty of micromanaging the federal bureaucracy. The bureaucrats know the byzantine laws and regulations and contract rules— and he doesn’t. So one simple order won’t resurrect USAID. He’ll need an entire team of Ghostbusters.
The New York Times needs a new Tarot deck.
☕️ TRIGGERING ☙ Thursday, February 20, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Yesterday was a triggering massacre; Trump runs rings around TROs; Zelensky tries to out-troll the President; EU counter-summit 2.0 fails; NYC 15-min city falls; kingly rhetoric; big teases; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
In a stunning admission, the Times wrote:
This wasn’t even buried; it was right up in the opening paragraphs of the article. The Times is practically screaming that Trump's efficiency initiatives might expose how Democrats have been feeding at the taxpayer trough for decades.
The article reads like a confession, validating what conservatives have been saying for years about systemic abuse of public funds. Democrats aren't just worried about losing some funding—they're terrified of voters discovering just how deep this taxpayer-funded scheme goes. Maybe the writers of the article thought they were making Trump and DOGE look evil and vindictive against the left. The problem is that they couldn’t do that without confirming something that Democrats really didn’t want us to know.
And get this: the narrative the New York Times pushes is that Trump could (or should) be impeached for trying to root out waste and fraud.
This is really what it’s come to. The entire left-wing machine, from local grassroots activists at the bottom all the way to the left-wing law firms, nonprofits, and more at the top, is funded by your tax dollars, and the New York Times is saying in a not-so-subtle way that Trump is committing an impeachable offense for ending that gravy train.
pjmedia.com
This wasn’t even buried; it was right up in the opening paragraphs of the article. The Times is practically screaming that Trump's efficiency initiatives might expose how Democrats have been feeding at the taxpayer trough for decades.
The article reads like a confession, validating what conservatives have been saying for years about systemic abuse of public funds. Democrats aren't just worried about losing some funding—they're terrified of voters discovering just how deep this taxpayer-funded scheme goes. Maybe the writers of the article thought they were making Trump and DOGE look evil and vindictive against the left. The problem is that they couldn’t do that without confirming something that Democrats really didn’t want us to know.
And get this: the narrative the New York Times pushes is that Trump could (or should) be impeached for trying to root out waste and fraud.
This is really what it’s come to. The entire left-wing machine, from local grassroots activists at the bottom all the way to the left-wing law firms, nonprofits, and more at the top, is funded by your tax dollars, and the New York Times is saying in a not-so-subtle way that Trump is committing an impeachable offense for ending that gravy train.
The New York Times Makes a Stunning Admission About the Democrats
Liberals are in full-blown panic mode over President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DO
The media has swooped in to defend the South African government after President Donald Trump's "ambush" in the Oval Office on Wednesday. Trump's claims of a white genocide are "unfounded" and "misleading" — it's actually just the disproportionate murder of white farmers that gives the impression. People really lost their minds when Trump allowed a whole 59 Afrikaners to, as Sen. Chris Van Hollen put it, "jump the line" by coming here legally while 10 million illegals crossed over the Southern border, including his wife-beating, human trafficking, gang member man crush.
Earlier, we told you how the New York Times explained that there was no confiscation of land in South Africa, only a measure that would allow the government to take land without compensation.
The Times immediately jumped into a defensive position and published its newsletter about the time Trump was the one taking land from farmers to build his big, beautiful wall.
Earlier, we told you how the New York Times explained that there was no confiscation of land in South Africa, only a measure that would allow the government to take land without compensation.
The Times immediately jumped into a defensive position and published its newsletter about the time Trump was the one taking land from farmers to build his big, beautiful wall.
Kyle
Beloved Misanthrope
He must be related to SMC 79.
New York Times Obtains Internal FSB Report Highlighting Russian Govt Concerns About Chinese Influence
In a very downplayed statement earlier this year hidden by media, the former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and current Secretary of State -also National Security Advisor- Marco Rubio, said “Ukraine was a proxy war for the United States against Russia.” Despite the U.S. media intentionally hiding the statement, Moscow immediately noticed and affirmed the accuracy.
Ukraine launched a covert attack against Russian air force bases last Sunday June 1st. President Trump was not informed of the attack in advance and was unaware it was going to take place. In the aftermath, President Trump and Secretary Rubio stayed quiet.
Three days after the attack, Wednesday, June 4, President Trump held a 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Last week the New York Times received “an eight-page internal F.S.B. planning document” … “that sets priorities for fending off Chinese espionage.”
[…] Ares Leaks, a cybercrime group, obtained the document but did not say how it did so. That makes definitive authentication impossible, but The Times shared the report with six Western intelligence agencies, all of which assessed it to be authentic. The document gives the most detailed behind-the-scenes view to date of Russian counterintelligence’s thinking about China.
[…] Russia has survived years of Western financial sanctions following the invasion, proving wrong the many politicians and experts who predicted the collapse of the country’s economy.
[…] The Russian document describes a “tense and dynamically developing” intelligence battle in the shadows between the two outwardly friendly nations.
[…] Read one way, the F.S.B. document lends credence to the theory that, with the right approach, Russia can be cleaved away from China. The document describes mistrust and suspicion on both sides of the relationship. (more)
CTH will repeat prior outlines based on available public data as well as my research trip into the current disposition of Russia. The Russian Federation and the Russian people do not want deepening ties with China.
Despite people from the Eastern side of Russia often being called Asians, even within Russia they are known as Asian-Russians, they do not align with a Chinese worldview. One of the key positive characteristics of Russia is the lack of pretending both in government and in the people. Russians do not describe China as the panda; they have very clear eyes and see the dragon behind the panda mask.
From the Southeast Russia has Chinese espionage pressure points; from the Southwest Russia has Arab terrorist pressure points; from the West Russia has EU/Nazi NATO pressure points, and the CIA has activated strategies to stimulate all these agitations.
All of my political instincts tell me that President Putin and President Trump are in alignment. The challenge for President Trump is to overcome the opposition forces from within Western government (NATO) and Western media.
When President Trump and President Putin come into open alignment, the entire world changes.
Their opposition knows this.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/President-Trump-1.jpg
NY Times: There Really Was a Gang Problem in Aurora, Colorado
Today, the Times published a rebuttal of sorts about the same incidents. The tone of this one is very different. It's headline reads, "Democrats Denied This City Had a Gang Problem. The Truth Is Complicated."
Cindy Romero is the person who recorded the video above. That was the view from her doorway. And what that camera could not show is what happened minutes later.
Police arrived and found the victim in an alley. He was the person living in that apartment across the hall. He died from his injuries. Romero gave the doorbell video to a local news outlet and then a Republican city councilwoman named Danielle Jurinsky started sharing it.
Remember that ‘conspiracy theory’ Trump was peddling about Venezualan gangs ‘taking over’ Colorado apartment buildings. Welp. This week, the New York Times ran a long-form story headlined, “Democrats Denied This City Had a Gang Problem. The Truth Is Complicated.” So complicated.
“The presence of young men with guns in the apartment complex, called the Edge at Lowry,” the Times admitted, “was not a rarity.” In other words, it was bursting with gang members. The article nonchalantly detailed shootouts and assassinations in the hallways— just regular Tuesday night activities in Aurora, apparently. Complicated ones.
When Trump held a rally in Aurora, Democrats sneeringly dismissed it as racist fearmongering. But it backfired. A legal immigrant —described by the Times as a “lifelong Democrat”— showed up, heard Trump out, and promptly switched parties, saying Democrat denials turned her against the party. She lives there. She knows.
According to a story from the Denver Gazette, local police began requesting information about the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TDA) from federal agencies as early as 2023. Locals say police routinely ignored reports of gunfire and violence.
The apartment management company even informed police through its lawyers that TDA was using the complexes for prostitution, sex trafficking, and that gang members were extorting half the tenants’ rent. The same day, the Times reported, “the mayor brushed the report off.”
The story is significant because President Trump specifically identified TDA as a rationale for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a law allowing him to summarily deport foreign nationals linked to an international cartel. Democrats laughed like meth-addled donkeys at the idea that gangs were “invading” American towns. But “the truth is more complicated.” Meaning, it’s true.
It also seems significant that the Times is, however belatedly and ham-handedly, finally admitting that Trump was right. Is it a limited hangout now that the election is over, trying to claw back a shred of credibility? Or could it be that the Times is finally getting that people are sick and tired of the gaslighting?
One thing is clear. The Democrats lied about TDA, and everybody knows it. It’s making their situation very … complicated.
☕️ COMPLICATIONS ☙ Saturday, July 5, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
More OBBBA wins: states now own welfare costs; Ivy League gravy train derailed; green energy chopped; judges dodge SCOTUS; Powell on the spit; the Times admits Trump was right about the gangs; more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
The Wall Street Journal’s hit piece was headlined, “Exclusive - Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.” Allegedly, the letter was included in a leather-bound scrapbook of birthday wishes that Ghislaine Maxwell collected for Epstein in 2003.To say the letter was ‘thinly sourced’ is like saying the Titanic had a slight moisture problem.
First, the Journal has neither the Birthday Scrapbook nor the letter. It said it “reviewed” the letter. When? Where? How? Was it just read to them over the phone? What does “reviewed” even mean? For sure, it means they don’t have it. The Journal described the letter as being “among documents examined by Justice Department officials” —what officials?— “according to people who have reviewed the pages.” People? The Village People? Psychics?
“I’m sensing the letter was typed… I’m seeing small arcs… there’s… a signature? Yes! It’s forming… it’s… Donald!”
In other words: the whole Scrapbook story is double anonymous hearsay. Some unnamed “people” said some unidentified “officials” reviewed the birthday binder and the original letter. Even bad lawyers wouldn’t consider trying to admit that in court. “Um, your Honor, someone told us that some government officials may have seen a letter, which someone else described to us… and we’d like to enter that into evidence.” Okay.
Next, the Journal’s future defendants admitted they know nothing about the letter’s provenance. “It isn’t clear,” the Journal admitted, “how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.” Great. And there’s no chain of custody. Nobody’s ever even heard of this Birthday Scrapbook before. “The existence of the album and the contents of the birthday letters,” the Journal conceded, “haven’t previously been reported.”
No leaks, no mention in any of the court cases, nothing, in over twenty years.
It’s just too much. Biden’s DOJ raided Mar-a-Lago for newspaper clippings, indicted Trump four separate times, subpoenaed everyone but Barron, surveilled campaign officials, and criminalized memes. They even leaked photos from the Mar-a-Lago raid. But we’re supposed to believe Democrats sat on a perfectly gift-wrapped, visually grotesque, plausibly deniable Trump–Epstein letter since 2019 or earlier— and just … what? Forgot to use it? Even during impeachment one and two?
They leaked this, but not the Birthday Scrapbook?
Notwithstanding all those problems, the Journal glowingly described the “bawdy” letter. It waited till about three pages in, and then set out a very non-Trumpian, odd, quippy typed (not handwritten) fake dialogue between Trump and Epstein that sounds just like a scripted confession. “Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey,” the letter gushed. “Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.”
To make sure we got the message, the carefully scripted, incriminating-sounding typed dialogue was allegedly placed inside a hand-drawn cartoon of a naked woman, with “breasts denoted by small arcs” (small breasts? pre-pubescent ones?) above “Donald,” scrawled as a signature in the sketch’s pubic region.
Get this— despite the obvious, explosive, salacious potential, the Journal did not publish a picture of the actual letter. It did not even explain the letter’s absence. Why not show the letter? Is it sealed? Confidential? Restricted? If so, why not just say that? Or is it possible the Journal never actually saw the letter but just “reviewed” an oral description?
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Journal did not mention any forensic analysis. The convenient fact the incredibly suspicious ‘dialogue’ was typed eliminates handwriting analysis of that part, but what about the signature? The drawing? You’d think they’d have cited six forensic handwriting analyses before going to print with something like this.
Only the original letter with the wet ink signature could be subjected to forensic analysis. Anything else could be copy-pasta. Stroke direction, pen pressure, ink composition, paper age and source— none of these things can be analyzed from a PDF or cell phone snap.
In other words, it’s thinner than Shell station toilet paper. It’s so thin, if you held it up to the light, you’d see the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover shaking his head. So, the alleged letter is a stinking pile of hot garbage, and Trump is about to get another fat settlement to fund the “Golden Defamation Wing” of his presidential library.
☕️ HONEYPOT ☙ Friday, July 18, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
C&C Special Edition: Trump cracks the Epstein vault; Bondi moves to unseal grand jury files; Dems panic as trap backfires; media chaos begins; Disclosure Phase 1 is live—expect flares and fangs.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Clem72
Well-Known Member
The main point here is that if everyone born in the US is automatically subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then as written the amendment makes no sense. If they specifically mention being born in the US AND subject to US jurisdiction, that means there are people who are born here and not subject to US jurisdiction. So not they need to argue over who those people are, but by plain definition just being born here isn't enough.Another reason the overwrought ‘dictator’ charges keep falling flat is because Trump keeps following the law. On Saturday, no less than the New York Times ran a narrative-smashing op-ed headlined, “Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship.” The Democrats’ first ‘win’ against Trump is already crumbling—and even the Gray Lady is sounding the retreat. Like Napoleon at Waterloo, they confidently stormed into battle, realizing too late they marched straight into a legal ambush.
On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order ending so-called birthright citizenship for certain children of illegal immigrants. Democrats sued, wailing that his EO violated the 14th Amendment, which provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The key issue, intentionally provoked by the executive order, is what exactly does the Constitution mean by “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Federal judges in four states promptly enjoined Trump’s order. One of the judges claimed it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”
But, the article advised, “Not necessarily.”
The Supreme Court has never held that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens — never. But thanks to decades of judicial hand-waving and bureaucratic indifference, citizenship has been quietly doled out with all the discretion of Social Security numbers.
The 14th Amendment’s well-known purpose was to convey citizenship to children of freed slaves. At the time it passed, Lincoln’s administration had rejected the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision, and had already recognized free African Americans as citizens. The 14th Amendment resolved the Constitutional crisis in Lincoln’s favor.
The carefully considered article delved into the history of citizenship through the centuries. Then it noted the Supreme Court’s awareness of that storied common law history, which has long provided that only those born “in amity” receive the sovereign blessings of citizenship status:
This isn’t just some obscure legal technicality—the principle was common knowledge at the time the 14th passed. Citizenship was for people who owed allegiance to the U.S., not just anyone who happened to be born here. As our forefathers never fought for millions of imaginary Social Security recipients, the 14th Amendment wasn’t written to pass out citizenship to millions of undocumented invaders lacking loyalty to the country.
This editorial’s publication was a massive shift in the Overton Window, preparing the Times’ readers for bad news. The left’s sacred cow of birthright citizenship is finally getting serious legal scrutiny, and the fact that the New York Times is already conceding ground means they know their side’s legal foundation is much shakier than they’ve previously pretended.
☕️ WATERLOO ☙ Monday, February 17, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Deep State's Waterloo moment as DOGE dishes biggest scandal in human history; media's Napoleonic meltdown over Trump tweet; NYT op-ed signals massive win; funemployment in the Swamp; more.