The United States becomes Latin America! By Charles Taylor

The Democrat plan is to import so many Third World voters that there will never be another Republican president or government. Thus, they see themselves maintaining power forever. But, all such plans come unstuck, even if they first succeed. Once numbers reach a critical mass, the Latin majority will replace the Democrat Party with a new Latino Party and move on without them. Already 42 million South Americans want to come to the US, and by chain migration that will expand to hundreds of millions, since the rest of the world is now entering the US via the southern border. This is the legacy of Donald Trump for allowing the stolen election to occur without any follow up after January 6. Shame on the cuck! May all his golf shots end up in the Florida swamps! May his cheese burgers be nibbled at by giant cockroaches!

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2021/03/29/rep-mo-brooks-democrats-want-illegal-immigration-amnesty-create-voter-bloc-dependent-welfare-win-elections-perpetuity/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3-PwNr1VWx7DIcHX

 

“Democrats pursue amnesty for illegal aliens to create a voting bloc dependent on government welfare, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) told special guest host Matt Boyle on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Sunday.

Brooks explained, “The socialists are opening up our borders because they know from the data that we have at the federal government level that these illegal aliens and their households are far more likely to be dependent on welfare than any other group of people in the United States.”

“These socialists know that if they can bring [illegal aliens] into the United States of America, ultimately give them amnesty and give them citizenship — as was promised by Joe Biden on October 22 at the presidential debate — then boom, they have a perpetual multimillion-vote edge in all upcoming elections because of this voter bloc that is so heavily dependent on the work of others in order to have a living in the United States of America.”

 

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/341678/million-migrate.aspx

“Here are questions every leader should be able to answer regardless of their politics: How many more people are coming to the southern border? And what is the plan?

There are 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. Roughly 450 million adults live in the region. Gallup asked them if they would like to move to another country permanently if they could.

A whopping 27% said "yes."

This means roughly 120 million would like to migrate somewhere.

Gallup then asked them where they would like to move.

Of those who want to leave their country permanently, 35% -- or 42 million -- said they want to go to the United States.

Seekers of citizenship or asylum are watching to determine exactly when and how is the best time to make their move.

In addition to finding a solution for the thousands of migrants currently at the border, let's include the bigger, harder question -- what about all of those who would like to come? What is the message to them?

What is the 10-year plan?

330 million U.S. citizens are wondering. So are 42 million Latin Americans.”

Already, American culture is moving far away from the liberalism of the past, giving us a taste of things to come:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/03/27/supreme-court-considers-fourth-amendment-exception-to-let-cops-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/?sh=371410e8189f

“A U.S. Supreme Court case that could dramatically expand the ability of police to enter homes without warrants, including to seize firearms, had a wide-ranging and freewheeling oral argument on Wednesday. In debating an exception to the Fourth Amendment, the justices managed to invoke Albert Camus, crying babies, dangerous falls by the elderly, Kojak, mask ordinances, plague rats, tree-climbing cats, and Vincent van Gogh. 

The case, Caniglia v. Strom, began with a heated argumentbetween an elderly married couple in Cranston, Rhode Island. During the squabble, Edward Caniglia grabbed an unloaded handgun and asked his wife Kim, “Why don’t you just shoot me and get me out of my misery?” 

Kim decided to spend that night at a motel. Concerned about her husband, the following morning Kim asked Cranston police to perform a “well check” on Edward. When approached by police, Edward denied he was suicidal, but officers still insisted he undergo a psychiatric evaluation at a local hospital; he was immediately discharged. 

But while Edward was gone, police seized two handguns from the couple without a warrant and refused to return them until Edward was forced to bring a civil rights lawsuit. To justify the seizure, police invoked the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, which the Supreme Court first crafted to deal with impounded cars and highway safety.  Despite its vehicle-specific origins, both a district court and the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the warrantless gun seizures, expanding the exception to encompass private homes. 

Yet during oral argument on Wednesday, the justices were more focused on crafting abstract hypotheticals than analyzing the case’s actual facts, a point not lost on Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “I think what everyone has forgotten here is that, at least in this situation, there was no immediate danger to the person threatening suicide and no immediate danger to the wife because the suicide person was removed to a hospital,” the justice noted. 

 

Nevertheless, police “decided on their own to go in and seize the gun.” Sotomayor also wondered if the officers could “have gone into the house and taken not just the gun but any bat, knife, anything else that in their judgment this man could have used to commit suicide?”

As she recounted, the case involved not one, but two, types of seizures: forcing Edward to go to the hospital and then taking his guns. When police “removed this gentleman and [took] him to the hospital,” Sotomayor explained, “that’s a seizure, because they had reason to believe that he was threatening suicide.” In Sotomayor’s view, that was “very much an exigent circumstance,” i.e. an emergency situation long exempt from the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. 

But Sotomayor was less sympathetic toward the officers’ second seizure. “Missing here,” she noted, “is the next step, which is going into the home without attempting to secure consent from the wife and seizing the gun and then keeping it indefinitely.”

Soon, it will be no guns at all, as we are reduced to a more chaotic version of Australia, no offence Aussies.

 

 

 

 

Comments

No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Guest
Sunday, 03 July 2022