Racism and intolerance have worsened in Britain, Starmer says

By Reuters

March against far-right extremism, in London

LONDON, July 1 (Reuters) – Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that racism and intolerance had worsened in Britain over the past decade, warning it was ​damaging social cohesion and deterring people from public life.

He spoke ‌a day after a Reuters report found some Britons of colour fear a resurgence of racism linked to anti-migrant rhetoric and a political focus on crime, following recent unrest ​including protests in Southampton after the murder of Henry Nowak and rioting ​in Belfast after a stabbing attack.

Get a look at the day ahead in European and global markets with the Morning Bid Europe newsletter. Sign up here.

Facing questions in parliament, Starmer said “racism ⁠and intolerance is permeating everywhere.”

The British leader was responding to a lawmaker ​who said he was worried that racism and the incitement of violence linked ​to it were being normalised, including by some politicians.

“We have to deal with it, because it’s tearing our societies apart,” Starmer said, adding that “it should be called out ​by every single person who is a politician at any level in ​this country.”

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Starmer recalled the 2016 death of Labour lawmaker Jo Cox, an active supporter of ‌immigration ⁠and social cohesion, who was killed by a far-right extremist days before the Brexit referendum.

He said that when reflecting recently upon her death he felt things had got worse, not better, in the intervening decade.

Tuesday’s Reuters report ​cited warnings from ​trade unions and ⁠professional bodies about rising racist abuse in workplaces and public life, alongside heightened tensions following the unrest across the ​United Kingdom.

Nigel Farage, the leader of populist party Reform ​UK, has ⁠accused British institutions of discriminating against white people, arguing they were biased by policies aimed at supporting ethnic minorities. Starmer has rejected those claims.

Addressing the tone ⁠of ​political debate, Starmer said: “That’s on us to ​fix – every single member of this house, whatever their party is and anybody who inflames it ​should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.”

Reporting by Sam Tabahriti, Editing by William Maclean

New: Iran Hardliners Now Calling for Trump, Netanyahu Hits As Peace Talks Teeter

While it looks a lot like the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is running the show in Iran right now, it’s also very likely that the mullahs are still wielding a lot of influence, even from whatever rocks they are hiding under. Iran’s supposed civil government, or what’s left of it, is still talking about a possible peace deal, but the IRGC is still trying to hit shipping in the Strait of Hormuz as well as tossing whatever they have left at neighboring nations.

Now, at least one group of the 7th-century barbarians who have been in power in Iran since 1979 has surfaced, to call for the assassinations of America’s President Donald Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Iran’s most senior clerics have called for the assassinations of President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declaring the leaders mahdour al-dam — or deserving of death.

The 88-member Assembly of Experts issued a 10-point statement in which they said killing “the wicked prime minister of the Zionist regime” and “the criminal American president” was a religious duty that must be carried out “under any circumstances.”

The clerics — who are constitutionally tasked with choosing and supervising the supreme leader — wrote that the call for their assassinations that avenging the death of supreme leader Ali Khamenei was of “paramount” importance.

Speaking of that supreme leader, we still have no indication, no evidence that the new supreme leader is still carrying out metabolic functions. But the mullahs aren’t the only ones talking tough.

Meanwhile, Iranian newspaper Hamshahri ran a front-page story featuring Trump’s face in the crosshairs of a rifle scope with a banner headline reading “Revenge is certain.”

Now, while Iran in general has a habit of having their mouths write checks their butts can’t cash, this isn’t a warning that should be taken too lightly.

Remember, we have seen three assassination attempts against President Trump: Two during the campaign and one during his second term. These were attempts by amateurs, and yet one of them almost succeeded; the president escaped a fatal shot by a literal hair’s breadth.

Any such attempt by a nation-state, with the resources of even a failed nation-state like Iran, would be very different; the attempt would be made by trained people, well-equipped, well-prepared, almost certainly working in a team of 2-3, possibly – likely – with more than one shooter. Iran has people like that, just as we do, just as any nation-state would.

There are, right now, between 20,000 and 30,000 Iranian nationals in the country illegally, having entered, mostly, across the southern border and again, mostly, during the four years of the Biden administration’s non-enforcement of the border. If one percent of those are some kind of operative, infiltrated into the United States while the border was wide open, then that makes up 200-300 possible hostile operators.

That’s enough to cause a lot of trouble. That’s a reinforced company of infantry, more or less. This is a threat that the Secret Service, as well as PM Netanyahu’s security detail, should be taking seriously. What the mullahs don’t understand is that, should they succeed in this, and should they be able to establish that Iranian operatives successfully carried out an attack on the President of the United States, the likely outcome would be a rain of hellfire upon their country, the likes of which only the United States can deliver.

It doesn’t seem likely that would deter them from the attempt, though. These are, after all, people who see death as some kind of sick reward. We should remember that, too.

The American System Rejects Europe’s Economic Suicide

What makes a nation wealthy?  It’s not just arable lands surrounded by other lands filled with water, timber, coal, gas, oil, metals, and minerals.  It’s the farmer who knows best how to cultivate those lands in order to maximize food production.  It’s the woodsman, miner, fisherman, and oilman who can extract nature’s bounty and provide the raw materials for every kind of manufacturer. 

Producing things requires knowledge and skill.  Competition between producers creates an incentive to innovate.  This motor of discovery — in which human ingenuity uses established knowledge and long-harnessed skills as inputs for creating new forms of knowledge and skill — generates increasing efficiencies in production.  Costs go down; prices go down; producers produce more; consumers consume more.  Economic freedom, therefore, is a wealth-generating feedback loop that benefits all of society.

A nation that can do all of these things on its own is a self-sufficient nation.  A nation that is capable of producing more than it consumes is an exporting nation.  A nation that exports more than it imports is a nation whose people become increasingly wealthy.  The rest of the world pays that nation for its way of life.  The world pays that nation simply for existing.

Anyone who says that a nation’s culture is irrelevant to a nation’s standard of living is a liar.  Productive cultures generate national wealth.  Lazy, reckless, or destructive cultures ensure lasting poverty.  There’s an adage so old and universally embraced that numerous cultures claim authorship: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.  People generally acknowledge these truths.  Whether you are a ninth-century Viking raider or a twenty-first-century welfare queen, if you cannot produce for yourself, you cannot feed yourself without taking from others.  Whether a Somali pirate or a Somali “l-e-a-r-i-n-g” center fraudster, you are dependent on theft from others because self-sufficiency is out of reach.

What might a nation do to encourage wealth creation?  Just as a good farmer cultivates the land to maximize a harvest, good national leaders cultivate social values that maximize personal production.  A culture that values knowledge, skill, and hard work encourages members of society to learn and labor in pursuit of productive innovation.  A legal system that prioritizes protections for private property and personal liberty encourages increased production and wealth creation.  A society that takes pride in building and manufacturing new things fosters a spirit of entrepreneurship.  An entrepreneurial society encourages a self-sufficient society.  A self-sufficient society produces a self-sufficient nation.  Therefore, the cultivation of virtue within society simultaneously cultivates a wealthy nation.

These aren’t difficult concepts to understand. 

Why, then, do most Western nations reject the proven path toward national wealth?  Why do Western politicians celebrate “multiculturalism” over the historically productive virtues of Western culture?  Why do Western pundits disparage knowledge, skill, and hard work as attributes of “white supremacy”?  Why do Western lawmakers make it more difficult for Western citizens to own land and personal property?  Why do Western bureaucrats churn out rules and regulations that limit what can be built and manufactured?  Why do Western governments make it difficult for small businesses to thrive?  Why do Western news media claim that only foreign migrants are willing to perform blue-collar jobs?  Why do Western bankers claim that only foreign slave laborers are capable of manufacturing critical goods?  Why do Western professors spend more time lecturing about racism and oppression than how to critically think, invent, and build new things?  Why do Western NGOs support open borders, “climate change” regulations, and economy-killing taxes?  Why do religious leaders praise the criminal and not the faithful Christian?  Why do cultural leaders encourage citizens and foreigners alike to become dependent on social welfare?  Why do pop culture leaders extol frivolous excess over hard work and discipline?  Why do Westerners celebrate gay “pride” for at least a month each year instead of encouraging all citizens to take pride in what they build, learn, and accomplish?  Why do Wall Street and the City of London work so hard to deprive the United States and the United Kingdom of economies that benefit Main Street businesses as much as multinational conglomerates?

Reading through the above questions should lead a rational person toward a reasonable conclusion: The people who currently maintain economic and political power in the West have no interest in making the nations that they ostensibly call “home” wealthy.  The United Kingdom and the European Union cannot produce wealth if their manufacturers are forced to use windmill-generated energy that has been exponentially outpowered by coal and steam for four centuries.  Germany cannot produce wealth if it subsidizes Chinese automakers while bankrupting its own with “green energy” regulations.  Canada cannot produce wealth if it refuses to use its abundant natural resources while importing most manufactured goods from Asia.  

Western nations that refuse to use hydrocarbon and nuclear energies are nations dependent on foreign powers for manufacturing.  Western nations that refuse to allow their farmers to grow crops and produce meat and dairy supplies for their home populations are nations dependent on foreign powers for food.  Western nations whose people lack the knowledge and skills to repair everything from small appliances to entire electric grids are nations dependent on foreign powers during crises.  Western nations that lack the cultural will to be self-sufficient are nations stuck in a permanent state of dependency.  If you hand out food stamps liberally and look down on people who insist on providing for their families without government assistance, then you will produce a nation of pirates and fraudsters who make, grow, and build nothing.

How does the United Kingdom survive when it produces next to nothing?  Right now it generates most of its revenue by acting as the economic middleman for most of the globe.  Even though its empire has collapsed and its navy has disappeared, the City of London’s army of bankers, consultants, and lawyers still take a nice cut of every economic transaction around the planet.  They collect insurance fees, regulatory fees, and investment fees like an absentee landlord still bilking old colonies with “rules-based” trade agreements that put money in the pockets of English lords who create nothing.  The Bank of England and the Secret Intelligence Service work together to game the international economy by stirring up regional conflicts and using insider knowledge to bet on the eventual market winners.  Britain’s central bank has ensured that the wealthiest members of society profit from market manipulation while the rest of society suffers from currency depreciation.  This is an economic model engineered to benefit a small cabal of “noble elites” while impoverishing the larger nation.

Ever since some of Britain’s nobles succeeded in convincing some of America’s nobles to erect a Federal Reserve central bank in the Bank of England’s image back in 1913, this funny money con game has drained America’s wealth, too.  Although Americans’ can-do spirit has buoyed economic liberty and growth, the parasitic structure of central banking has steadily deprived the United States of its once unparalleled self-sufficiency.  The gradual debasement of the U.S. dollar has led to the decoupling from the gold standard, the creation of a petrodollar dependent on forever-wars and foreign entanglements, the offshoring of industry and manufacturing, and international trade “deals” that make America more dependent on foreign powers while kicking back “service” fees to Wall Street and City of London bankers.

This is what globalization really produces: dependency.  

For the United States to be wealthy and strong, we must return to an American system that mines, grows, and builds everything.  Our people must embrace both personal and national self-sufficiency.  We must reject Europe’s economic suicide.

Image via Pxhere.

Related Topics: Globalism

icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon

View & Add Comments7

About the Author

J.B. Shurk

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.https://givebutter.com/embed/c/WhA2EO?goalBar=false&gba_gb.element.id=gkx27p

Powered by Givebutter

Advertisement

Popular Drink That’s Silently Destroying Your Brain Cells (Don’t Eat It Daily)Healthy Living Tips

The Most Stunning Bison Whiskey Decanter We’ve SeenPeoasis

Sponsored

Advertisement

null

Around the web

Advertisement

The Swarm at My Hummingbird House: What Happened After I Hung ItGlosrity

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)Health Weekly

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Honey: The Greatest Enemy of Memory Loss (See How to Use It)Health Weekly

This 7-Minute Morning Protocol May Support Baseline Clarity and FocusManifestation

My Neighbor’s Garden is Always Full of Hummingbirds. Here’s Whypeoasis

Taylor Swift, 34, Takes off Makeup, Leaves Us With No WordsYour Health Agent

This New Air Cooler is All The Ragepeoasis

Cardiologists: One Teaspoon Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try It!Health Weekly

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

If You Have Diabetes, Read This Before It’s Removed!Health Weekly

Revcontent
icon

Trending

Advertisement

After 60, Leg Strength Comes From One Simple Daily MoveApexLabs

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!Health Weekly

While Americans Use Toxic Pans, The Japanese Are Doing This InsteadPlateful

Neurologists Beg Seniors With Neuropathy: Stop Doing This NowHealth Weekly

Revcontent
icon

Most ReadLast 24hrsLast 48hrsLast 7 Days

Artículo

1

‘Citizen Vigilante’ is the wake-up call Western civilization needs

Artículo

2

Ukraine Rains The ‘Wrath of Man’ Upon Russia

Artículo

3

A Deplorable attends the birth of DEI racism

Artículo

4

The elephant in the room that is fraud

Artículo

5

The economics behind Mamdani’s rent freeze fantasy

Top ContributorsLast 7 DaysLast 30 Days

J.B. Shurk

Ron Wright

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Noel S. Williams

Bill Ponton

SponsoredX

After 60, Knee Health Comes Down to 1 Nutrient Most Doctors Miss

Goodbye AC and Expensive Bills: This New AC Cooler Cools The Room in Seconds

Surgeons: This Simple Trick Will End Knee Pain & Arthritis Quickly (Try It)

In Your State, He Installed This Hummingbird House. Then They Never Left

Cardiologists: 1/2 Cup Before Bed Burns Belly Fat Like Crazy! Try This Recipe!

Edema? (Swollen Feet): Do This Immediately (It’s Genius)

Ad Free / Commenting Login

EmailPasswordHOMEARCHIVESCARTOONSSUBMISSIONSABOUTRSS SYNDICATIONPRIVACY POLICYCONTACT

FOLLOW US ON

ad
ad
ad
ad
ad
ad

© American Thinker 2026null

×

Thank you for making American Thinker part of your routine

Reader support keeps American Thinker independent and accountable only to its audience. Join now and receive 25% off membership in honor of America’s 250th anniversary.

If you are alre

Trump urges acting spy chief to declassify records, including on 2020 election

Badger

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday that his acting spy chief has wide permission to declassify records, including any tied to the 2020 election, even though his close ally is only at the intelligence helm for a short time.

Trump appointed Bill Pulte as acting director ​of national intelligence last month, elevating a political loyalist with no national security experience at a ‌time of war and global tensions.

Following a political backlash over his pick, Trump subsequently nominated Jay Clayton, the top U.S. attorney for Manhattan. But he then abruptly postponed Clayton’s confirmation hearing in an effort to force Congress to pass a strict voter identification bill.

“Bill’s there, just, you know, for maybe a month or two months or something,” Trump told reporters as he departed Joint Base Andrews for ‌an event ​in North Dakota. “But while he’s there, I said, ‘You can declassify whatever you ⁠want’.”

Asked if that included any records related ⁠to the 2020 election, Trump added: “I told him you could do it, it’s fair. You got to ask him.”

Trump, who won a second White House term in the 2024 election after losing in 2020, long has falsely claimed widespread fraud in U.S. elections and continued to push debunked claims ahead of November’s midterm ​contests as part of his pressure campaign to pass a strict voter identification law.

His comments come as NBC News reported that a White House task force was gathering documents related to the 2020 election with the aim ⁠of declassifying some of them.

“As the most transparent president in history, ⁠President Trump is totally committed to sharing as much information with the public as possible,” ​said a White House official who requested anonymity.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the office of ​Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton did not respond to requests for comment on Trump’s remarks.

The ODNI ‌oversees the 18-agency U.S. intelligence community that includes the premier foreign spy service, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency, the massive agency that eavesdrops on foreign communications and helps defend the United States against cyberattacks.

It was not clear when lawmakers would act on Clayton’s nomination, but Trump told reporters there would be a hearing in ⁠two weeks.

A source familiar with the situation, on condition of anonymity, said Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, was “targeting” July 15.

Pulte currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency but will also remain as ODNI until Clayton is confirmed by the Senate. ⁠Pulte has reportedly already moved to cut ‌hundreds of intelligence jobs.

Trump has said legislation known as the SAVE Act would deliver ⁠his fellow Republicans a “guaranteed” win in November as they seek to maintain their ​slim control ‌of Congress. Democrats are hoping to capitalize on Trump’s low approval ratings to ​recapture at least ⁠the House of Representatives or the Senate.

Democrats and voting-rights advocates say the measure could hinder voter registration for millions of eligible Americans.

On Tuesday, Trump in a social media post said he had met with Tina Peters, a former county elections clerk in Colorado who was convicted of illegally tampering with voting machines in pursuit of Trump’s false claims over the 2020 race.

Representatives of Peters did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey and Jonathan Landay; editing by ​Michelle Nichols and Bill Berkrot)

Stalinist Obamaites

Paul Gottfried, Chronicles

USA Today recently offered readers an “in-depth” investigation of the life of Michelle Obama and her relationship with her famous husband. Forcing myself to read this bilge made me aware that one would have to turn to the Soviet press under Comrade Stalin to find anything quite so cloying. The fact that this national newspaper and others like it cannot discuss their puffed-up heroes and heroines without nauseating exaggeration has left me feeling even more depressed about American journalism than ever. Michelle’s life has been made “fuller,” USA Today assured me, because it’s been associated with a truly great man. And let’s not forget that a C-SPAN sponsored historians’ survey revealed Obama to be one of our 10 greatest presidents. Furthermore, he was edging toward the pantheon of the five greatest when his illustrious term came to an end.

Of course, Michelle is presented as great in her own right. She’s been married to a demigod for 33 years; and these two extraordinary luminaries just continue to enrich one another:

“He made me think more broadly about what I could do with this Harvard law degree besides be a lawyer. He gave me the courage,” she continued. “He was my ballast. He was like, ‘I got you.’ And however hard it’s been, the ups and downs, he’s got me.”

For his part, Barack Obama’s life is simply richer with Michelle in it, even three decades later.

“Just being with her made me better, and she still does. And that she would [give] our kids a foundation that would pay off for them,” he said. “That’s in fact what’s happened. And she grounds and anchors me.”

This is entirely typical of the intellectual depth and objectivity of that paper’s treatment of their favorite leftist couple. Quite predictably, the article about this pair goes on to relate how magnificently they have raised their two daughters. That was followed by an announcement of the “star-studded event” that took place at the opening of the Obama Library in Chicago “on the day before Juneteenth.”

Equally revealing of USA Today’s bias was an exploration of “Obama hate” by reporter Josh Peter on June 23. In his impassioned commentary, we are told about all the untold suffering that’s been visited upon our former First Couple because of the malice pouring out of the right. Peter is particularly outraged that a UFC fighter commented on the mannishness of Mrs. Obama, a remark that supposedly shows the irrepressible cruelty of the Obamas’ enemies. But as fate would have it, I chanced upon a very unfavorable reference to Mrs. Trump in USA Today about a week before reading this fluff piece on the Obamas, a double standard that I’ve detected in the newspaper several times before. Apparently, malice is only a factor when its target is someone whom leftist journalists are trying to protect.

Being perfectly objective about this matter, it is hard to see how Melania Trump, whom USA Today invariably treats as an empty-headed mouthpiece of her demagogic husband, is less attractive or less intelligent than Michelle. In fact, one would have to be blinded by ideology to come to that bizarre conclusion. Unlike Michelle, Melania is multilingual, physically attractive, gracious, and tactful in conversation. Michelle is often irascible, accuses her opponents invariably of racism and sexism, and (not to be too blunt about this matter) noticeably plain-looking.

As I observed a few years ago, it is hard to buy the idea that Michelle is greatly honored across media because she is an outstanding role model to young black woman. Why isn’t Candy Carson, the thoroughly accomplished wife of Ben Carson, a former cabinet official and renowned neurosurgeon, a media celebrity? In fact, it is hard to find a couple of any race who seem more impressive than the Carsons. Mrs. Carson is a gifted violinist, educator, Protestant theologian, and the head of many serious philanthropies. She also speaks intelligently on many subjects and has never played the victim card. Unlike Mrs. Obama or the former president but like her husband, Ben, Mrs. Carson grew up in poverty in Detroit and worked her way up to professional distinction, without a lift from the Chicago Democratic machine.

What makes Mrs. Carson less appealing to the media and black organizations than Michelle is her lack of leftist politics. Racial and gender grievances have been Michelle’s calling card, and that is precisely why USA Today, People magazine, and other mass publications celebrate the Obama family nonstop. She fits their political narrative. I also don’t accept the notion that the Michelle-adulation gushing from the mainstream media is attributable to her being the wife of our first black (or half-black) president. Is anyone thick enough to believe that if Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson became our second black president, that person’s wife would be showered with similar Stalinoid praise? The latest puff piece about Michelle and her heavenly family is most definitely politically motivated.

Supreme Court Makes It Clear. Mass Deportations Are Mandatory To Save America

A spate of rulings from the Supreme Court couldn’t be more of a mandate if they were handed down, gift-wrapped, and sealed with a kiss by God: The mass deportation of illegal aliens is legal and imperative if there’s any hope of saving this country.

One ruling declared it within the president’s authority to interpret the word “temporary” as the opposite of “permanent” with regard to migrants who have been permitted to live within the U.S. for what is understood to be a finite period. He can order their removal. (Good!) A separate ruling, on the other hand, affirmed automatic American citizenship to babies born to migrants who have illegally entered the country. (Bad!) Yet a third ruling deemed it legal for states to count voter ballots that arrive after Election Day, thus rendering the whole concept of “Election Day” void. (Very bad!)

Taken together, if the president has expansive authority to remove illegal aliens, who otherwise might just pop out a baby immediately deemed “American” (a new Democrat voter mailing in ballots on a whim), the situation is clear. Migrants need to be sent home with haste and by any means necessary.

This country cannot survive if anyone from anywhere — China, Guatemala, India, etc. — can lock themselves inside by giving birth, securing themselves citizenship and welfare entitlements, and then vote in our corrupted elections. And yes, they’re voting. That’s not up for debate.

The Supreme Court just affirmed the possibility of a person raised for essentially his whole life in Communist China becoming president of the United States. It’s criminal.

And so, the Trump administration, and every administration that succeeds it, should recognize the only way forward is to severely restrict all forms of immigration: Ban the entry of pregnant women, reduce the duration of legal residency to less than nine months, and, of course, deport as many foreigners as possible.

By extension, our primary target for removal should no longer be “the worst criminals.” It should be women. All of them. There’s not a moment too soon. If they’re actively giving birth, hurl them into Mexico. Or, if they’re not so lucky, Canada.

That’s the position the court has put us in with this series of rulings. Mass deportations or bust.


Eddie Scarry is the D.C. columnist at The Federalist and author of “Traitors: The Democrat Party’s Collapse into Anti-American Filth.”

Justice Alito: Birthright Citizenship Is ‘Grotesque

“This is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to insert birthright citizenship into Americans’ Constitution.

He continued in plain language to show how the decision endorses birth tourism, which would automatically grant full citizenship to foreign adults who have never lived a full day in the United States:

The Court’s interpretation is not only contrary to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, it produces grotesque results. While foreigners who wish to immigrate lawfully must sometimes wait for many years, a child born here to a birth tourist is automatically a citizen.

The Court’s interpretation also has national-security implications… Suppose that a person’s only connection to this country is that he was born here to a mother who was present just long enough to give birth and then quickly returned to her native country. Suppose that country is a strategic adversary or enemy of the United States. Suppose the child never visited the United States while growing up and was inculcated with hatred of this country. According to the Court, that person is a citizen of the United States. He can enter and leave the country as he pleases. He can travel the world on a United States passport. Even if he plots to harm this country, he cannot be deprived of his status as a citizen, at least under current precedent.

“We should not adopt an erroneous interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply out of fear of the consequences of ‘rocking the boat’ or as a reaction to current immigration policy,” he wrote.

Many children are born to foreign parents who are “subject to a foreign power,” which should make their children ineligible for citizenship, Alito noted:

A great many persons who are born here to illegal immigrant parents fail this [subject to foreign power] test because at birth they are automatically made nationals of their parents’ native country and, as a result, incur duties to that country. This means that they are “subject to a foreign power” and are thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This is illustrated by the laws of countries on the list of those from which the greatest number of illegal immigrants come. Mexico is at the top of that list, and under Mexico’s constitution, the child of a Mexican parent can become a Mexican national at birth and acquires certain duties to the government. See Political Constitution of the United Mexican States… Among these are the obligation to receive military training and to join the National Guard.

Alito explained his views:

Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.

Respecting this interpretation would not require uprooting the millions of children who were born here to mothers who entered or remained in this country illegally. Those children are not responsible for their parents’ violation of our immigration laws, and their plight is the result of a long period during which a coterie of actors — Executive Branch officials, States and cities, and a variety of private groups — sent the message to would-be immigrants that our dissenting immigration laws should not be taken too seriously.

Alito’s dissent echoed the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued that the court’s majority’s imposition is a “political project” built on medieval feudal laws from pre-modern Europe. Alito similarly wrote:

United States citizenship is precious. Anyone who has attended a ceremony where citizens are naturalized can see that message on the faces of those who take the citizenship oath. Before saddling the Nation with a medieval rule, we had better be certain the Constitution requires it.

This theory of monarchical power and the status of the people provided the foundation on which the rule of birthright subjecthood stood. Just as a person automatically acquires at birth all that is entailed by the relationship between parent and child, a person born within the King’s dominion automatically became the King’s subject.

The Court does not confront these problems because it pays little attention to the constitutional text. Instead of performing its own textual analysis, the Court leans on precedent that glosses the text.

Recent U.S. governments have allowed mass illegal migration and abuse of the birthright citizenship clause by refusing to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, Alito said, adding:

Congress’s failure to act, the Executive Branch’s enforcement policies and frequent opposition to state solutions, and some jurisdictions’ policies have resulted in a massive increase in the number of illegal immigrants living in this country… Between July 2023 and March 2024, the overall foreign-born population of the United States increased from 48.5 million to 51.6 million — “an unprecedented increase of 3 million immigrants in nine months. Much of this growth was driven by the admission of unauthorized immigrants with temporary deportation protections.”

As a result of the events of the past 50 years, the United States now has a huge contingent of people who entered or remained in this country illegally, as well as a large group of people who were born here to such parents. The Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment makes all the members of this latter group citizens.

“The Fourteenth Amendment does not include the rule the Court now imposes on the country,” Alito wrote, adding, “In my judgment, the Court has made a mistake that will seriously affect the country’s future.”

Breitbart

Vance: Democrats Run By Academic Elites That Want Communism Not To Make Life Better, But Purely Out Of Resentment

In an interview with FOX News host Laura Ingraham, Vice President J.D. Vance said communism is the result of the Democratic Party being run by universities and professors.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS: You’ve been following what’s going on with the Democrat party and the rise of socialism. The president calls it communism and says this is this is really the biggest threat to the country now, an internal threat, and you’ve seen what happens when the base of the party, a party, turns on its establishment beginning with the Tea Party in 2009, ultimately resulting in President Trump’s election twice. So my question to you is are these DSA types really in your estimation going to dominate the entire party?

VICE PRESIDENT J.D. VANCE: I unfortunately fear that’s the direction the Democrats are headed, and it is communism, Laura. This is not, you know, this is not raising taxes a little bit, however much we might disagree with that. This is abolishing the police.

This is let criminals run amok in your cities. This is flood your country with low-wage third-world immigrants, and importantly it’s confiscating wealth, not because we want to make anybody’s life better, but purely out of resentment, out of an attack on the people who have that wealth to begin with. It really is something we haven’t seen in the United States of America in the history of our politics, and Laura, I think that it actually is a consequence of the fact that the Democrat party has become run by the universities and by the professors.

This is not working-class Union Democrats. This is not socially conservative people who just want a fair shake at life. This is fundamentally a view that the United States is an evil country that must be dismantled from the ground and then built back up.

That’s communism at its core, and you see more and more momentum in that direction from the Democrat Party. Frankly, Laura, I would love it if Democrats were willing, you know, not that they are going to agree with Republicans all the time, but if they were willing to work with us on lowering housing prices, on lowering gas prices, on actually making the lives of American citizens better, you know, we could have some real bipartisan compromise. That’s not what they’re talking about.

They’re talking about abolishing the police and letting criminals rule our cities. That is a fundamental transformation of the Democrat Party. It’s very bad for our country.

It’s bad for Democrats, and it just drives home why we have to keep these people from getting close to power.

Fetterman: The ‘Dirtbag Left’ Is Clearly Anti-America

Sunday at the Kennedy Center’s Mark Twain Prize event, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) told Fox News that the “dirtbag left” are “clearly anti-America,” referring to the two members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who won primaries in New York and Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner.

Fetterman said, “And in like it. It was a really it was a really big night for the dirtbag left. You know, last week, without a doubt. And some of the crazy things that they’ve said. You know, like clearly anti-America, you know, anti Western civilization. And they actually one of them was even part of the groups they wanted to end all Western civilization.”

He added, “So, overall, that is a wing of the party without a doubt. But they’re not Democrats. They’re not socialists, several of them, many of them have actually are an avowed communist. So between P hustle in Maine and some of the other winners, you know, in New York, that’s, you know, they should form their own party and run on all the things that they’ve had to do on, on social media.”

Comedian and host of HBO’s “Real Time,” Bill Maher, received the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor in a star-studded ceremony.

Follow Pam Key on X @pamkeyNEN

Colorado Democrats Increasingly Think They Could be Next

The insurgent left just shook New York. Colorado Democrats increasingly think they could be next.

Democrats in the Centennial State are bracing for an anti-establishment earthquake of their own. Tuesday’s primary election will test the left’s momentum beyond the five boroughs — and whether the anti-incumbent fever will topple Sen. Michael Bennet and Rep. Diana DeGette, a pair of longtime fixtures of state Democratic politics.

Bennet allies acknowledge his primary for governor race is far closer than they expected, a startling position for one of the state’s best-known Democrats, while DeGette is facing similar anti-Washington headwinds, as internal polling in recent days has set off alarm bells for the 30-year incumbent.

The primaries come after several Democratic incumbents and establishment-backed candidates have already fallen this year, including in New York City last week, where Reps. Adriano Espaillat and Dan Goldman lost to challengers from the left, as well as in Maine, where Gov. Janet Mills was forced from her Senate race by controversial progressive Graham Platner.

“There’s a lot of anti-establishment momentum because voters are so angry,” said Doug Friednash, a longtime Colorado Democratic strategist and former gubernatorial chief of staff to moderate-leaning Sen. John Hickenlooper, who’s facing a progressive challenge of his own from state Sen. Julie Gonzales. “They want to take it out on someone. They want fighters.”

Bennet, a two-term senator and one-time presidential candidate, faces Attorney General Phil Weiser in an unusually volatile contest.

While Bennet allies maintain they still believe he has the slight edge, two Democratic strategists familiar with his campaign said internal polling has shown a tighter contest than they expected, raising concerns that voter anger toward any close association with Washington has made even the well-known statewide figure vulnerable. A recent public survey conducted by the liberal pollster PPP showed him trailing outside the margin of error.

“There may be only a slight Bennet advantage at this point,” said a Democratic strategist close to the Colorado governor’s race, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the campaign, adding that private polling has been “all over the place.”

Despite serving as attorney general for eight years, Weiser has increasingly worked to cast himself as the anti-establishment alternative by portraying Bennet as the Washington insider, a message several Democratic strategists close to the Bennet campaign said has found traction.

The race has increasingly become a contest over who has fought President Donald Trump harder, reflecting what many Democrats describe as the defining mood of this year’s primary electorate: anger with Washington, frustration with Democratic leadership and a desire for candidates who project an ability to fight.

“Coloradans trust Phil’s people-powered campaign — not Michael Bennet’s establishment, Washington-style campaign backed by out-of-state billionaires, corporations, and special interests,” Weiser spokesperson Nate Jackson said.

Bennet’s campaign has sought the change mantle, as well.

“Michael has a track record of rejecting the status quo and delivering real results for Coloradans — and that’s exactly why he’s running for Governor,” Bennet campaign spokesperson Jordan Fuja said. “As we close out this campaign, the difference between the candidates couldn’t be more clear: Michael’s offering a vision for a bolder, stronger Colorado and his opponent is relying on the same, tired politics-as-usual.”

The anxiety may be even greater around DeGette. The 68-year-old is facing her most serious primary challenge of her three decades in Congress from democratic socialist Melat Kiros, who at 29 years old was born just a few months after DeGette first won her seat.

People close to DeGette’s campaign say the warning signs have been there for months. But her team’s concern ratcheted up in recent weeks as the campaign’s internal polling found the race also narrowing to within the margin of error, according to two political strategists close to DeGette’s campaign. The tightening, coupled with New York’s insurgent sweep that took out a pair of congressmen, set off a panic and helped to finally convince skeptical donors and allied groups that the threat was real after DeGette’s team had spent weeks warning national Democrats they were facing a far more competitive race than many appreciated. National groups have poured in money in the race’s final week in a desperate attempt to save the Congress member, even as some DeGette allies privately grumble that she had not done nearly enough to stave off her challenger.

“It’s not looking great,” said one prominent Colorado Democratic strategist familiar with DeGette’s polling and granted anonymity to discuss private campaign data. “It’s very tough when you’re fighting against a wave.”

That strategist said they’d also seen a recent private survey that showed Hickenlooper in a dead heat with Gonzales in Denver. The most recent public poll of the race, conducted in late May, Hickenlooper led Gonzales by 41 percent to 34 percent, though it had an unusually high number of undecided voters.

DeGette and her allies are racing to blunt Kiros’ momentum. Outside groups have poured roughly $3 million into the race over the past month, including about $2.3 million backing DeGette or opposing Kiros, including $1.3 million in spending since just Monday, mostly for DeGette. Her side has had a nearly 3-to-1 spending advantage down the final stretch.

DeGette has also rolled out a last-minute endorsement video from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a move that drew quick backlash from some progressives given Kiros’ support from Sen. Bernie Sanders and other national progressive leaders.

“It’s been hard, I would say, to get outside groups and funders, as well as even within the city, to understand this was a real race, because people like [DeGette] always won,” the Colorado Democratic strategist close to the campaign added.

Kiros told POLITICO last week that she had more than 5,000 volunteers. Her campaign said she’s seen a surge of support since New York’s results, including more attention, donations and volunteers and is trying to capitalize on that momentum with more than 60 canvasses planned across the city in the lead up to Tuesday, an endorsement from Progressive Change Campaign Committee and planned march in Denver’s Pride parade this weekend.

“We feel very confident that the program that we’ve built, the movement that we’ve built, is going to be able to combat any amount of money that they throw at us in this final week,” Kiros said in an interview. “This is the people organizing and making it abundantly clear that they are no longer accepting the status quo and are demanding the change.”

Kiros’ supporters say they’re trying to recreate the organizing model that helped propel democratic socialists to sweeping victories in New York. National DSA chapters are hosting phone banks for Kiros nearly every day through Tuesday, while Denver organizers say they expect to knock on just shy of 100,000 doors before polls close.

The effort has accelerated since Tuesday’s victories. Denver DSA has added hundreds of members this month.

Popular Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, who became one of the most visible outside organizers in New York by hosting marathon livestream phone banks and campaigning alongside DSA candidates on primary day, told POLITICO he plans to try to replicate that effort in Colorado and intends to host another phone-bank marathon for Kiros. He is also aiming to campaign in the state on primary day.

Several Colorado Democrats cautioned Denver is not New York. The city is not as liberal, its DSA infrastructure is significantly smaller, and DeGette still benefits from decades of name recognition and relationships across the district. But they also acknowledge Denver has become younger, more progressive and increasingly receptive to anti-establishment candidates.

“Everybody now knows this is a race. This is no longer sneaking up on everybody,” one longtime Democratic strategist close to the DeGette campaign said. “I think DeGette should be very concerned.”

Friednash said he still believes DeGette has a chance.

But if Kiros wins, Friednash said, “that’s a massive game changer in Colorado politics.”