Everyone who’s anyone knows by now that what we commonly refer to in the current vernacular as the MSM (Mainstream Media), is just one more deadly appendage of the public education system, whose entire function it is to systematically propagandize the general public from cradle to grave into collectively embracing, and therefore defending, a litany of lies detrimental to their own best interests when the truth makes much more sense and sounds way better to the minds of rational beings anyway. This is why Jews own the media, and are over-represented in positions of power and influence in the other branches of education as well; they must control the nodes that turn your brains into confused masses of mush.
That said, you will undoubtedly recall that “Step Four” of ID’s own Padraig Martin’s list of (minimal) requisites necessary to reforming government agencies such as the FBI et al, prescribes imposition of “a nearly impossible [to pass] Civic Knowledge Exam on all government employees.” “Such an exam,” writes Mr. Martin, “would immediately impact the quantity of DEI candidates who simply are unqualified to work at a Publix cash register, let alone have access to transnational budgetary allocations.” … “More importantly,” he adds, “those who pass the exam might actually learn something about the Constitutional Republic they have betrayed. …”
As a man of principle, and one who knows a little something about the Constitutional Republic I once took an oath to protect and defend, I freely admit and own that I was never in favor of the FMA (Federal Marriage Amendment) that was popularized by the Bush II administration, any more than I have ever favored the building of a border wall on our southern border for principled reasons of a similar kind. However, what I *have* favored as relates to both of those propositions and others, is the prospective positive effects that steering public discourse surrounding them in the right direction can yield. Namely, and to borrow from Mr. Martin a second time, the potential at least that a not insignificant number of those who participate in the conversation, “might actually learn something about the Constitutional Republic they have [unwittingly in many cases] betrayed,” leading such persons to repent with fear and trembling, and to turn from their traitorous ways, thus redeeming themselves at length and becoming useful citizens.
The above paragraph nicely summarizes the reason(s) for which I wholly support and cheerfully endorse President Trump’s decision recently, as well as in the future, of making a public spectacle of addressing the immigration crisis, and the so-called “birthright citizenship” issue in particular. Using the “bully pulpit” for making a public spectacle of the event – ensuring its live broadcast ‘from Dan to Beersheba’ – ensures a certain level of urgent public awareness invades the national consciousness, which in turn must necessarily result in sparking a national conversation upon the merits/lack thereof of granting birthright citizenship to American-born children of foreigners, and/or aliens, subject to some other than exclusive U.S. jurisdiction.
Don’t get me wrong, y’all, I am not at all sanguine of the prospects of overturning, short or long term, a “fundamental Constitutional principle” that is “considered settled law” by executive order or otherwise, even if we were in fact able to nudge the discussion in the right direction, thereby winning a number of converts to our side. That twenty-two (22) Attorneys General whose lives to date apparently personify Chesterton’s famous lines,
The villas and the chapels where
I learned with little labour
The way to love my fellow-man
And hate my next-door neighbour. [*]
…have already filed federal lawsuits against Trump’s birthright citizen initiative, should serve as a sober reminder that we’re already, by several, short the requisite number of states required to force the issue via the popular method of proposing Constitutional Amendments. And that is to say nothing of the even greater number of states required to secure ratification, should that “road less traveled” prove the most fruitful route to take pursuant to our overall goals and purposes.
In any case, while we’re “steering public discourse in the right direction” on these matters, due diligence dictates that we not neglect to raise closely related issues to equal levels of public awareness. In the particular case of ending birthright citizenship as we currently know it, we must also raise awareness as to the little-known method by which American-born children belonging to foreigners and/or aliens not loyal to “America,” nor subject to her full jurisdiction otherwise, commonly come to meet the “subject to U.S. jurisdiction” stipulation securing birthright citizenship in the issue. Namely, the Social Security Administration’s “enrollment at birth” program, which, as pertains or applies to the classes of persons under discussion, must necessarily cease to exist concurrent with birthright citizenship itself. Full stop.
Likewise, awareness must be raised as regards to the self-destructive nature inherent to granting, and/or allowing, dual citizenship to any person or persons “born or naturalized” a U.S. citizen, regardless of race, color, creed, or previous condition, etc. I believe it was Mel Gibson who recently lamented (on Rogan) that ‘we have American citizens dying in Gaza right now, and yet we hear no public outcry about it.’ For the whole of a millisecond I was confused by Gibson’s assertion, but then reality instantly set back in, and I realized he was talking about Jews who are “born or naturalized” citizens of both the U.S. and the state of Israel. That has to stop!
On that note and in closing, I repeat a phrase I have stated many times over the last couple of decades: “dual citizenship equals dueling loyalties,” which is just a pithy slogan I came up with twenty-five years ago or whatever, meant to highlight the self-destructive nature of any policy positing that one man can possibly “serve two masters” without hating the one and loving the other, or else holding to the one and despising the other. A notion I hold to be impracticable (Mt. 6: 24); and from this I infer that a man’s divided political loyalty, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in separate oaths respecting it, must altogether depend on the man taking the oaths, and on the devotion he feels he owes the respective societies in competition for his greater loyalty when the dueling reaches a climax, and he finds himself crashing into reality.
Press on Mr. President! Make a public spectacle of this issue as much and as often as is humanly possible, sir!
God bless and save the Southland!
[*] The World State, poem by G. K. Chesterton
