Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided a case in which an organization challenged a government policy that requires foreign organizations to articulate a public stance against prostitution and sex trafficking to receive federal funds from one of our aid programs. Cont...
The Court determined that *foreign* organizations must comply with this policy or forego the U.S. funding.
Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he made an excellent point that is good to consider in the context of this dust up about the 1776 Commission.
Thomas said: “The First Amendment does not mandate a viewpoint-neutral government.” Thus, the Government may require those who seek to carry out federally funded programs to support the Government’s objectives with regard to those programs...
"...After all, the Constitution itself 'impos[es] affirmative ideological commitments prerequisite to assisting in the government’s work.' It excludes viewpoints such as communism and anarchism, stating that those engaged in government work...
"... must swear an oath to support our Constitution’s republican form of government. See Art. VI, cl. 3." (internal citations omitted).
This makes good sense. Public schools receive federal funds. We don't have to fund seditious programs; we can mandate pro-America curricula.
And a final comment...
We've lost the idea of objective truth. People no longer think they can make a definitive judgment on what is right and what is wrong. That's a terrible error.
We have to have the courage to make real judgments again and defend our principles.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
John Eastman has articulated many times the clear argument against birthright citizenship. His argument is straight forward, it rests on history and precedent, and it avoids the absurd result we have today. Here are his basic points: 🧵
The Citizenship Clause 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.”
The first problem is redundancy. If “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means, as common parlance accepts, that one is subject to the law because of physical presence in the territory, that clause is redundant—"born in the United States” covers that base. An interpretation of a legal text that creates a redundancy is disfavored.
The @dmdiocese (Bishop Joensen) just announced a new policy for the care of those with gender dysphoria. The policy bans the use of preferred pronouns, mandates that lockers/bathrooms use must match biological sex, mandates a dress-code that reflects biological sex, and more.
Although the activists who want to permanently mutilate children are up in arms, the policy does go to some length trying to explain the Church's stance of compassionate care *without* compromising truth and morality.
The policy itself bans the use of preferred pronouns...
The Supreme Court of the State of New York (which is the trial/lowest level of the state court system there) has excellently ruled that the COVID vaccine mandate for public and private employees is arbitrary and capricious.
I think the courts have been too timid generally, but it has been my hope and prayer that as the lies were exposed more to the mainstream, truth would finally get some traction in court. That seems to be the case here. 👏🏻
The court found, among other things, that the vaccine mandate was not just about safety and public health, “it was about compliance.”
If you are Catholic, I encourage you to watch this short film on the necessity of lay involvement in society. It is time for people of faith to get involved more militantly in our communities to save our culture and nation. I also want to stress that in my personal opinion...
...it is the duty of faithful Catholics in this "age of the laity" to hold the Catholic Church itself accountable. We must ask to see our parish school's curriculum, demand that our children are taught the fullness of the faith, and encourage our priests to actually teach the...
...truth from the pulpit on Sundays. You have only to look at the numbers of Catholics who do not know their faith, or attend the many parish Masses where the homily is without substance week after week, to understand that greater vigor is required from the Church itself.
This op-ed in the WSJ today is a real gem. In the wake of the McCarthy audio, the author argues that the "top brass" of the GOP secretly want Trump gone (no, really?), and that they should just come out and speak the truth. But don't get confused. This is not about Trump...
It is us v. them. The author and the "top brass" can't see how successful Trump's policies were, because those policies benefited regular America (the America that globalism is crushing) while endangering "business as usual" in Washington, D.C.
The majority of Republican leadership is globalist. They are weak men and women looking to advance personally, without thought for middle America beyond the need for our votes. T wasn't perfect, but when you see how much the "top brass" privately despise him, understand they...
The @EpochTimes ran a great piece by @bhweingarten this last week explaining how “Trump attorneys” (aka MAGA) are being targeted. The Left wants to destroy good legal counsel for the America First movement.
There is a push to get the ABA to make challenging a “legitimate election” an ethics violation.
This right here is the tactic, but the man quoted is wrong that the “littler fish” are the most vulnerable. It’s the “conservative elite” lawyers who fear the most for their reputations and squirm away from the possibility they’d be mocked or shamed by mainstream society.