Why hasn’t anyone pointed this out yet??! ‼️🍼 On birthright citizenship..

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to
‼️children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation! ‼️

We have been illegally invaded with hostility.

Based on the first sentence of Section 1, the Court has held that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible to be naturalized themselves is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.' The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation,

The requirement that a person be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," however, excludes its application to children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation!

About a week after Donald Trump was elected to a second term, the president-elect spoke at a House Republican conference meeting and made a comment that raised a few eyebrows. “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say, ‘He’s so good, we’ve got to figure something else out,’” Trump said, presumably as some kind of joke.

He might very well have been kidding, though the Republican has made similar comments several times in recent years, and he’s not alone. Last month, Steve Bannon talked up the idea of Trump running again in 2028 — he suggested it might be constitutionally permissible, despite the plain language of the 22nd Amendment — and Fox News host Trey Gowdy, a former Republican member of Congress, had similar comments on the air.

It’s against this backdrop that NBC News reported on the third day of the president’s final term.

Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., introduced a resolution that would amend the Constitution and allow Trump to seek a third term in office. ‘This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs,’ Ogles said in a statement [Thursday].

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear at the outset: Ogles proposed constitutional amendment will not go anywhere. In every Congress, plenty of lawmakers unveil silly proposals, knowing full well that they stand no chance of success, and this measure from the Tennessee Republican clearly falls into that category.....

Given everything we’re seeing about the state of Republican Party politics in 2025, this race to the bottom is likely to get worse before it gets better.

A federal judge has barred Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes — who was freed from prison by President Donald Trump earlier this week — and several top allies from entering the Capitol without permission.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta’s order appeared to be a response to Rhodes’ decision to hold court in the Capitol Wednesday, just days after Trump commuted his 18-year prison sentence for seditious conspiracy, related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

“You must not knowingly enter the United States Capitol Building or onto surrounding grounds known as Capitol Square … without first obtaining the permission from the court,” Mehta wrote in his order, which he also said applied to the other Oath Keepers whose sentences were commuted by Trump.

For several hours at the Capitol, Rhodes interviewed with numerous reporters, met with allies in a Dunkin’ Donuts and visited Republican lawmakers. A jury in 2022 convicted Rhodes of seditious conspiracy, finding that he orchestrated an attempt to violently prevent the transfer of presidential power from Trump to Joe Biden. Witnesses testified that Rhodes and other Oath Keepers leaders assembled a massive arsenal of firearms at a hotel in Arlington, Virginia, that they were prepared to shuttle into Washington if the fighting at the Capitol escalated further.

During the trial, prosecutors revealed a Jan. 10, 2021, recording of Rhodes in which he said “My only regret is they should have brought rifles” to the Capitol.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) lashed out at the United Kingdom after officials clarified that the Gulf of Mexico would not be labeled "Gulf of America" on British maps.

The Telegraph reported Thursday that "Britain will continue to call the body of water by its current name unless the new title ordered by Mr Trump gains widespread usage in English."

"The Telegraph understands the name will not change on official maps in Britain unless' Gulf of America' becomes the most commonly used name for it by English speakers. Officials believe that is not likely for some time, if at all."....

https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1882441538590195785

No one was especially surprised when Donald Trump gave his first post-inaugural interview to Fox News’ Sean Hannity, since the two are longtime political partners. What did raise some eyebrows, however, were the parts of the interview related to federal disaster aid. The Washington Post reported:

President Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal aid from California as it works to recover from devastating wildfires, recycling several baseless claims and attacks against California’s Democratic leaders during his first sit-down interview since his inauguration. ‘I don’t think we should give California anything until they let water flow down,’ he told Sean Hannity during a Fox News interview that aired Wednesday night.

As the president really ought to understand by now, his comments didn’t make substantive sense. What’s more, he was presenting a threat without precedent in the American tradition: The federal government has never told an American community devastated by a natural disaster that its disaster relief funding would be conditional.

But that was not the only relevant exchange related to federal responses to disasters in the interview. USA Today took note of the Republican’s related comments about the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA.

‘FEMA is a whole ‘nother discussion, because all it does is complicate everything. FEMA has not done their job for the last four years,’ he said. ‘But unless you have certain types of leadership, it’s really, it gets in the way. And FEMA is going to be a whole big discussion very shortly, because I’d rather see the states take care of their own problems.’

In fact, the new president suggested that if a state suffers in the wake of a tornado, he envisions a model in which the federal government doesn’t respond much at all. “FEMA is getting in the way of everything,” Trump added.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3lgeslfcv3v2r?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fiframe.nbcnews.com%252FpE4xlrW
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1882249757193609615

......But if the president is serious about states “taking care of their own problems” in the wake of devastating natural disasters, it will create a new test for Republican officials. Are they prepared to go along with the elimination of FEMA? Even in red states like Florida, Texas and Louisiana, which tend to get hit by deadly hurricanes?

What’s more, it's worth appreciating where this idea comes from. An Axios report noted, Project 2025 suggests “reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities instead of the federal government.”

Evidently, Trump is inclined to agree

Trump struggles badly to defend his scandalous Jan. 6 pardons: Donald Trump's Jan. 6 pardons are not popular, and his efforts to change Americans' minds are off to a ridiculous start

Donald Trump might think he had a mandate to pardon Jan. 6 criminals, including violent felons who assaulted police officers, because he ran on the idea and won his bid for a second term. But if the president is thinking along those lines, he’s making a serious mistake — because the evidence suggests he was elected despite his pardon vows, not because of them......

A day later, while sitting down with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in the Oval Office, the president gave it another try.

“Most of the people were absolutely innocent, OK?” Trump claimed, ignoring the fact that many of the people he pardoned had pleaded guilty and that many more were found guilty by jurors who considered detailed and overwhelming evidence.

As for the violent assaults on police officers, the new president added, “They were very minor incidents, OK? You know that they get built up by that couple of fake guys that are on CNN all the time. They were very minor incidents.”

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3lgeungqsha2e
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1882259068082893005

.......There were “incidents,” but they were not “very minor.” If the Republican president intends to change public attitudes, he’ll have to do far better.

As for how and why Trump decided to take such a step, NBC News reported that he settled on a maximalist approach just two days before being sworn in for a second term, to the surprise of members of his team.

NOTUS published a related report, which has not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, that said Trump saw the far-right backlash against Vice President JD Vance, who said a week earlier that violent felons “obviously” didn’t deserve presidential pardons, and it influenced his decision.

All of which helped create an avoidable and unpopular fiasco to start the president’s second term.

Judge: Jan. 6 pardons ‘will not change the truth of what happened’
“No ‘process of national reconciliation’ can begin when poor losers, whose preferred candidate loses an election, are glorified," Judge Beryl Howell wrote.

Within hours of his presidential inauguration, Donald Trump issued roughly 1,500 pardons and commuted the sentences of 14 Jan. 6 criminals — including violent felons who were in prison for assaulting police officers — sparking ample conversation among elected officials, pundits, prosecutors and other law enforcement personnel.

But they’re not the only ones with notable perspectives. As The New York Times reported, some members of the judiciary shared some thoughts of their own.

No one knows more about the hundreds of criminal cases filed against rioters who took part in the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol than the federal judges in Washington who oversaw their trials and guilty pleas, watched thousands of hours of surveillance videos and heard hundreds of witnesses deliver firsthand accounts of the attack. On Wednesday, two days after President Trump granted sweeping reprieves to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in connection with the Capitol attack, some of the judges started to push back against his moves, declaring that nothing — not even a presidential decree — could alter the reality of what happened that day.

Of particular interest was U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell, who was responding to Trump’s Justice Department moving to dismiss indictments against two admitted Jan. 6 criminals. In fact, the defendants in the case freely acknowledged that they threw smoke bombs at police officers, breached the U.S. Capitol, defaced the building, and even stole equipment from law enforcement personnel during the riot.....

Howell made clear that she knew better.

“No ‘national injustice’ occurred here, just as no outcome-determinative election fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election,” she explained. “No ‘process of national reconciliation’ can begin when poor losers, whose preferred candidate loses an election, are glorified for disrupting a constitutionally mandated proceeding in Congress and doing so with impunity. That merely raises the dangerous specter of future lawless conduct by other poor losers and undermines the rule of law. Yet, this presidential pronouncement of a ‘national injustice’ is the sole justification provided in the government’s motion to dismiss the pending indictment.

“Having presided over scores of criminal cases charging defendants for their criminal conduct both outside and inside the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, which charges were fully supported by evidence in the form of extensive videotapes and photographs, admissions by defendants in the course of plea hearings and in testimony at trials, and the testimony of law enforcement officers and congressional staff present at the Capitol on that day, this Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement. The prosecutions in this case and others charging defendants for their criminal conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, present no injustice, but instead reflect the diligent work of conscientious public servants, including prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and dedicated defense attorneys, to defend our democracy and rights and preserve our long tradition of peaceful transfers of power — which, until January 6, 2021, served as a model to the world — all while affording those charged every protection guaranteed by our Constitution and the criminal justice system.

“As to these two defendants specifically, both admitted their criminal conduct under oath, after consultation with their attorneys, and pursuant to plea agreements to which they agreed. Bluntly put, the assertion offered in the presidential pronouncement for the pending motion to dismiss is flatly wrong.”.....

In recent years, a great many federal jurists — U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, among others — have addressed the insurrectionist attack on the Capitol with great eloquence and historical weight. The criminal cases are ending, but that recent tradition continues