Do You Feel That Someone Is Watching You?

On Sunday, Townhall posted an article about the number of warrantless searches on American citizens.

The article reports:

In the fiscal year for the U.S. government that ended in November 2021, the FBI conducted more than 278,000 warrantless searches on U.S. citizens.

The information was unsealed in a FISA court ruling this past week.

So on average, during just that one year, the FBI was carrying out as many as 762 warrantless searches per day. That’s 32 improper searches per hour. That breaks down to a new warrantless search every 2 minutes.

These numbers do not include proper searches that used warrants and carried out the usual function of the bureau.

It also does not include the 3,400,000 times the FBI searched citizens’ data without warrants. That’s 9,315 per day, 388 per hour, and 6.5 per minute.

So in 2021–every two minutes—the FBI conducted a physical search and 13 data searches—illegally—for the entire year.

The same agency we now know tipped off that Hillary Clinton was colluding with Russia to frame Donald Trump and did nothing about it…

The same agency that lied to the FISA court to extend search warrants to surveil people that were later vindicated and cleared…

The same agency that allowed agents to conduct extra-marital relationships (an action that violates the FBI code of conduct) and feverishly work to remove a lawfully elected President…

The same agency that has held the Hunter Biden laptop in its possession has chosen to do zero in enforcement….

The same agency that knew that one political party was attempting to smear, frame, and remove an incoming President and briefed then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice-President Joe Biden as to the plans…

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Unfortunately there is more.

Our Constitution protects us from unlawful searches:

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The people engaged in this unlawful surveillance need to be arrested.

If You Had Any Doubt…

There may be (or not be) some good ideas in the current gun legislation moving through Congress. However, those of us who believe in the Second Amendment need to be very wary of what is happening. On Monday, Townhall posted an article that should give all of us pause. Public Safety may not be the goal of the Democrat Party.

The article reports:

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) praised the details of the bipartisan framework from the Senate on the issue of gun control but noted this should be used to pursue even more aggressive restrictions.

In a statement on Sunday, Murphy said the framework is a great step “in restoring sanity to our national dialogue” on firearms and “while this agreement is only a narrow first step, it is recognition that the ability of the gun lobby to block any and all common sense gun safety laws by its mere presence is waning and reform is possible. The door has cracked open. We must open it wider.”

One of my main concerns in this debate is the acceptance of ‘red flag laws.’ These laws are unconstitutional as they deny the person whose guns are confiscated his day in court. The only way I would support a ‘red flag law’ would be if it came with a promise of an appearance before a judge within 4 hours of the guns being seized. Even then, the constitutionality of the law is questionable.

Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Second Amendment is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, how can it be denied without due process?

I Hate To Be Paranoid, But This Scares Me To Death

On Friday, The American Thinker posted an article about New York State Bill A416, which would provide amazing power to the Governor of New York and members of the administrative state.

The article reports:

In roughly three weeks, the New York state legislature will vote on Bill A416, which will give the New York governor (in this case, the power-mad Kathy Hochul), as well as the governor’s delegates (i.e., New York’s administrative state) the power to indefinitely detain anyone the governor or her agencies deem a “significant threat to public health.” Despite the broad power states have, this violates the Constitution. At a practical level, it should scare the pants off every American.

There is absolutely no doubt that, under our Constitution, the states have powers that the federal government lacks. The federal government is explicitly a creature of very limited powers, while the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that those limited powers not reserved to the federal government belong to the state “or to the people.”

The Tenth Amendment, however, does not mean that states can play the dictator. Indeed, since the Civil War, states have been subject to the same constraints as the federal government when it comes to using its police power over the people within its borders. Thus, the second sentence in the Fourteenth Amendment states explicitly that

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Among the privileges Americans have is a pivotal one in the Fifth Amendment assuring us that “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….” That deprivation is precisely what New York state contemplates.

The article notes:

No matter the language in the bill, given that the New York governor has the uncontested power to declare a health emergency, people are at risk. If you’re wondering what that looks like, look to Victoria, in Australia. There, people are locked up in concentration camps for the mere suspicion of having COVID.

And again, it cannot be said often enough that this is a disease with an average mortality rate hovering around 1% (a rate that could be even lower if people were allowed treatment with Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine early in their diagnosis). By way of contrast, this is not AIDS, which entered the West with a 100% mortality rate but never resulted in such a draconian response.

If we don’t wake up and stand up quickly, we will lose our freedom and our country.

Undoing The Linchpin

The dictionary defines a linchpin as “something that holds the various elements of a complicated structure together.” Theoretically, if you undo the linchpin of an item, the item will fall apart. Last night I attended a presentation by a group called America’s Remedy. This is a group of people concerned about the rapid growth of government overreach in recent years. As most of you know, the federal government is currently involved in many things that have no basis in the U.S. Constitution for federal government involvement. Our union was designed to be a union of independent states working together for mutual good, but retaining their sovereignty. Somehow along the way, the states have lost that sovereignty. America’s Remedy has the goal of educating people about that sovereignty and how to regain it.

The linchpin of the loss of state sovereignty is the Reconstruction Acts put into place after the Civil War. Another aspect of the loss of state sovereignty is the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was the beginning of United States citizenship rather than state citizenship. It was a major part of taking power away from the states and giving power to the federal government.

Please follow the link to the America’s Remedy website to learn more about what has happened to the plan our Founding Fathers put in place for this nation and where and when that plan was altered.

One Side Of The Story

The has been a lot of discussion among the political class lately about the concept of birthright citizenship. At the present time, the policy seems to be that any child born in America is an American citizen, regardless of the status of the child’s parents. There are valid arguments on both sides, but I would like to present the argument that says the child’s status depends on the status of the parents.

The quotes are from an article in the Conservative Review by Daniel Horowitz. Please follow the link to read the entire article.

The article points out what we would have to accept to say that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen:

Let’s put aside everything we believe as conservatives for a moment and take the activist ruling of Wong Kim Ark [169 U.S. 649 (1898)] as impregnable constitutional law.  As such, the 14th Amendment would compel Congress and the Executive agencies to grant citizenship to all children of legal immigrants.  Although we all agree as a matter of policy that it is a good idea to grant children born to legal permanent residents citizenship, by accepting the 1898 court decision as settled law, thereby enshrining birthright citizenship into our Constitution, we’d have to swallow the following ridiculous notions:

We’d be adopting one-directional stare decisis of an activist court that overturned two previous court decisions: the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases and Elk v. Wilkins (1884).  In those cases, the Supreme Court made it clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was primarily to grant equal rights to freed black slaves and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required that the petitioner for citizenship be “completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”  These cases excluded children born to foreign diplomats and Native American Indians and were quite clear that the meaning of the 14th Amendment would not include all children of immigrants – most of whom would have been covered by less political jurisdiction than even those born on Indian reservations, which were partially under U.S. jurisdiction.

Immigration transformation pursued outside of the democratic process is even worse than having courts decide societal issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, in what Justice Scalia calls “societal transformation without representation.”  The courts have now empowered themselves to unilaterally and immutably change civil society itself – without any recourse from those the Constitution vested with making such decisions.  How far we have deviated from the Founders’ vision that even so-called conservatives support the idea of changing the civil society without the consent of its citizens.

Indeed, the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants is not just a tangential topic within immigration.  It cuts to the very core of how illegal immigrants are able to coerce their will on the American citizenry and the broader issue of sovereignty.  This runs much deeper than the 14th Amendment.  The question for policy-makers has moved beyond whether we will survive as a nation as our Founder’s envisioned.  We have already deviated so far from that vision.  It’s a question of whether we are a nation at all.       

When told that we need automatic citizenship for all children born here regardless of the status of their parents, you might want to consider what the policy is in other countries. In most countries, enforcing the border is considered a natural thing to do. It is not a matter of debate. If an American went to Mexico illegally, he would be jailed or sent home–no other options. If we are to remain a nation, we have to begin to act like one. Acting like a nation includes taking responsibility for enforcing our borders and knowing who is in our country. We do need to change our immigration system to allow for legal immigration, but before we do that, we have to end illegal immigration.