Tucker Carlson Calls 1965 Immigration Act a Worse Attack on Democracy Than Jan. 6 Cap
Tucker Carlson Calls 1965 Immigration Act a Worse Attack on Democracy Than Jan. 6 Capitol Protest
Fox News host Tucker Carlson snapped back at President-imposed Joe Biden over his suggestion that the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol demonstration was the worst attack on U.S. democracy since the Civil War.
Carlson suggested that the 1965 Immigration Act, which allowed the third world to flood in and changed the historical demographics of the American nation, may be a worse attack on U.S. Democracy than what happened on Jan. 6.
“How about the immigration act of 1965? That law completely changed the composition of America’s voter rolls to purely benefit the Democratic Party. It seems like kind of an assault on democracy, a permanent one, but no, that was a good thing because in the end it helped Joe Biden,” he said.
The clip can be seen here:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1387921663904272392
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/based-...pitol-protest/
Actually, Tucker is an uniformed individual when it comes to "democracy".
Tucker is wrong.
The 1965 Immigration Act was a major steppingstone to alter our system from a Constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of our Constitution, and invites the devastating characteristics of democracy into our system of government.
Tucker Carlson needs to do a little research with regard to our founders rejection of "democracy" and its adoption of a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government.
And just what did our Founding Fathers think of “democracy”? Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they
"…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."
And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."
And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"
And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."
And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."
And finally, our Constitution, in crystal clear languages declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . "
Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced directly by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.
JWK
Historical documentation and the 1965 Civil Rights Act . . . a usurpation of power
.
As we shall see, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution,
In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing:
“Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.”
Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations ___ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind ___ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act.
In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.
Now, let us review some historical facts proving there is no authority granted to Congress in our Constitution to forbid discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”.
In 1866 Congress passes a “Civil Rights Act under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment. The purpose of the Act, as stated by its author, Senator Trumbull, was to "break down all discrimination between black and white men."
The Act goes on to declare:
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.” Keep in mind there is no mention of “sex” in the Act.
In 1870 the Fifteenth Amendment is passed prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. Once again, “sex” is not mentioned in our Constitution.
After the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which begins:
“An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil and Legal Rights.
Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore …”
Up to this point in time there is no constitutional protection afforded based upon “sex”. But in 1920, the American People decide to provide protection based upon “sex”, but specifically limit that protection to women so they may vote because of the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment.
And in 1957 Congress passes another Civil Rights Act creating a Commission on Civil Rights. Its duties include investigating allegations that "certain citizens of the United States are being deprived of their right to vote and have that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin."
Then, in 1964, without any constitutionally authorized power, Congress decides to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon “sex”. In fact, not only did Congress act without Constitutional authority to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon sex, but the American People, for generations, refuse to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, the first appearing in the 1920s, and in the 1980s, the people specifically and purposely reject the Equal Rights Amendment, which was intended to prohibit discrimination based upon “sex”. One reason for its rejection by the American people was that it would lead to and grant particular rights to homosexuals, such as homosexual marriage.
So, here we are today, in a situation where a majority on our Supreme Court ignore historical facts when rendering an opinion; embrace Congress’ usurpation of power; perpetuate a fraud being perpetrated upon the American People; and even add to the fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most certainly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act ___ an Act which in its first instance violated our Constitution in that no authority had been granted to Congress by our Constitution to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex.
Justice Gorsuch and the Majority, in doing for the people what they have refused to do for themselves under Article Five of our Constitution, have not only used and abused their judicial power, but usurped legislative power as well, and this borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
The bottom line is, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act has helped to destroy our constitutionally limited system of government, Section 5, of the 1965 Civil Rights Act is another fraud being perpetuated upon the people and allows federal elections to be manipulated by our federal government, e.g., dissolving voter I.D. laws which helps to allow illegal entrants to vote in the name of "democracy".
JWK
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin
The 1965 Immigration Act was also an attack on our system of government
For a great article on the 1965 immigration act see:
The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act (cis.org)
JWK
