Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Your Sunday News Assembly, for 1-25-26
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Your Sunday News Assembly, for 1-25-26
THIS IS A SPECIAL RELEASE, for Sunday, January 25, 2026
Share
Subscribe now
With the news that Border Patrol goons Saturday killed Alex Pretti, 37, of MN, a nurse who reportedly worked at the Veteran’s Admin near Minneapolis, shooting him multiple times, right on the street, after they shot him with pepper spray and pinned him to the snowy sidewalk, we want to lay out valuable, evergreen information about the multiple layers of federal malfeasance and contempt for their Constitution that led to this murder. You will find the first of two articles about the Constitution and history at the close of this Sunday News Assembly.
First, we want to offer you some of the ridiculous statements from the Trump Admin.
Statements such as this, from Noem, who, by stating that Pretti “approached”… “with a gun” implies that he was brandishing it, or had it in his hand. This is false. He was recording ICE on the streets, and an ICE goon pushed a woman beside him, so he turned to help her, and an ICE goon pepper-sprayed him and pulled him to the ground as other ICE agents piled on. Then, as they hit him and kicked him, an ICE goon stole his gun and ran, whereupon other ICE agents shot Mr. Pretti, multiple times. This besmirching of the dead man’s character and actions, this utter falsehood, is beyond vile. It is one of the most sinful things one could do to make the murder even worse. Here is Noem in video
-Here is a still from today’s Gorilla Underground, hosted by Billy Ray Valentine, who welcomed Gard (me) for a valuable assessment of Trump Admin policies and statements, video of the murder, and comments from viewers. We got to discuss her claims, which Bovino, her SS-Trooper-LARP-ING lapdog, echoed, obviously, to continue spreading the fake narrative.
Here is the program…
MORE
and…
From the camera of the “woman in the pink jacket”. Morgan Freeman asked people to be sure to get her to share that footage
And…
Look at what Stephen Miller claims. It’s evil and absurd.
MORE
The Mayor of Minneapolis must be at wits end trying to handle this madness.
MORE
The MN gov has called up the state Guard, and they are headed to “secure” a federal detention facility. Does that mean they will confront ICE goons and take control of the facility, or simply surround it in case protesters want to congregate around it and ICE might attack those people?
The Maine Gov
NOW, A SPECIAL FIRST OF MULTIPLE REPORTS, ON IMMIGRATION WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FOUNDERS’ CONCEPT…WHAT IS AND IS NOT IN THEIR US CONSTITUTION… AND WHY IT IS ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THESE FACTS FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO VOTE AND WHO BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION HAS SO-CALLED “AUTHORITY”First, as I have reported in previous MRCTV pieces, the words “immigration” and “immigrant” are not in the US Constitution.
Many American’s mistake the power in Article One, Section Eight, granting the Congress the “power” to create a rule of naturalization with the “power” to create a rule over immigration. But naturalization is how visitors become American citizens, not whether visitors can be on the soil of any US state.
The only passage of the Constitution from which one might infer a link to immigration is in Article One, Section Nine, which reads, in part:
“The Migration of Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one-thousand-eight-hundred-and-eight…”
This provision tells readers that, prior to 1808, Congress could not write laws regarding the migration into any of the original thirteen states from outside the US or from other states in the union. Such wording pertained to slave importation, and the philosophy of the Founders, as expressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, implies that, unless the Constitution were amended, Congress did not have jurisdiction over importation of slaves in the original states until after 1808, and that it had no power to control the importation of slaves into any new state.
This soon was reflected in policy. The Missouri Compromise set the standard for the process of state admission from the territories of the Louisiana Purchase. Thus, the new northern “free states” and southern “slave states” would alternate admission, keeping what many politicians in Congress believed would be a balance between “slave” and “free” states for representation.
If the federal government could block importation of slaves into states beyond the original thirteen, then there would be no need for the Missouri Compromise, because Congress could block the importation of slaves into those new “slave” states, making them de facto “free” states and shifting even more population-based “representative” power to the north.
Share
It was well understood that immigration was not a federal purview. Thomas Jefferson said so himself in his 1798 Kentucky Resolution Number Four, which was a slap at the “Alien Act” pushed by then-President, John Adams:
“IV. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people,’ the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled ‘An act concerning aliens,’ which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.”
Texas’s state constitution, approved in 1869, included an article establishing a “Bureau of Immigration” in it.
If the people of Texas believed Congress had the power to control immigration, why would they bother creating their own Bureau of Immigration?
The answer is that Congress DID NOT have such an enumerated power, and the only reason contemporary Americans fight over what the feds “should do” at the border is because of a corrupt 1875 Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Chy Lung v. Freeman” which was a challenge to a California statute imposing a charge on boat-owners who were facilitating ingress to Chinese women (seen as likely prostitutes by the politicians). With the ruling, the Justices simply made-up federal immigration control, saying, in part, this errant nonsense, which easily can be refuted by actually reading the Constitution:
“The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States.”
This led to federal passage of the Page Law that same year, a statute that restricted lower-price Chinese immigrant labor, and established from that point on that the states would suffer the loss of their constitutionally granted power over immigration.
In 1882, Congress became even more draconian, and passed the “Chinese Exclusion Act,” barring entrance into any state by Chinese laborers for ten years, halting Chinese non-labor immigration for SIXTY years, and prohibiting entirely all naturalization by Chinese people – all of which came as a result of heavy lobbying from higher-priced American labor interests that did not want to compete against people who might work for less…
All of which harmed American consumers who were forced to shell out more for products and services, preventing them from saving and having money left to invest in new ventures.
And all of which is unconstitutional, without any doubt.
Prior to “Chy Lung,” there had been numerous Supreme Court cases (“Miln v New York”, “Smith v Turner”, and “Norris v Boston” are examples) in which litigants challenged or cited numerous state statutes that placed restrictions on the “kinds” of people (such as those defined as “paupers”) that shipmasters could allow in the respective states. It is important to note that there was debate in these cases as to whether the states could impose TARIFFS and LEVIES on such “imports” or if such tariffs infringed on Congress’s power to impose tariffs (the Constitution does allow states to impose tariffs, but only after Congressional approval), and there also were controversies about whether such state taxes could trump federal treaties with other nations, but never in those cases was the power of states to block or admit immigrants questioned…
We will tell more, in our second part of this series…
Subscribe now
LATER, SUNDAY, PART TWO……in which we will spell out how Article Four, Section Four of the Constitution supersedes the so-called “Insurrection Act” and shows that the act is unconstitutional, and in which we will discuss the deeper moral primacy of free association. Plus, we will discuss how no political border can show “value” as to what people might want to for a border, and how only private property allows true valuations and border preferences to be reflected.
Share
That’s it for now, all! Thank you for believing in freedom!
And mark your calendar for Monday, for the paid subscribers we will have our new DAILY NEWS NOTES! It will give you a powerful look at breaking news you might want to follow, will allow you to compare notes with others, and help you to keep an eye on the statists in politics and the statists in the “commentary/reporting” realm! Remember, you can watch Liberty Conspiracy Live, each weeknight, at 6 eastern! Help others learn about all the facets of freedom, from markets, to privacy, to speech, to parental control and education, and much MORE! You can watch, listen, and join the chat for freedom as we broadcast on my X and Rumble. Hit me up at X as @gardgoldsmith there and on GAB as “GardnerGoldsmith”! And, of course, I want to mention that if you’d like to get some of my fiction, grab my current novellas at Amazon and Barnes and Noble!! As a rocking opener, I recommend “Fishing” as a dark, well-composed crime tale with some very unusual turns (this contains some scenes of dark violence, so please, be warned)…
…Or feel free to get “Bite” for a different take on vampirism, and “Wall” for a cryptoarcheological adventure set in 1960s China. And I have three novels and two more novellas in their final editing phases, soon to be on the way!
You also can donate to help the Liberty Conspiracy, itself! Just visit PayPal to help out! You also can mail GG at:
Gardner Goldsmith
PO Box 581
Amherst, NH, 03031 Be Seeing You!
Thank you for supporting the ideas and the scholarship of freedom. God bless, everyone!
Leave a comment
Share
Subscribe now
View all episodes
By Gardner GoldsmithTHIS IS A SPECIAL RELEASE, for Sunday, January 25, 2026
Share
Subscribe now
With the news that Border Patrol goons Saturday killed Alex Pretti, 37, of MN, a nurse who reportedly worked at the Veteran’s Admin near Minneapolis, shooting him multiple times, right on the street, after they shot him with pepper spray and pinned him to the snowy sidewalk, we want to lay out valuable, evergreen information about the multiple layers of federal malfeasance and contempt for their Constitution that led to this murder. You will find the first of two articles about the Constitution and history at the close of this Sunday News Assembly.
First, we want to offer you some of the ridiculous statements from the Trump Admin.
Statements such as this, from Noem, who, by stating that Pretti “approached”… “with a gun” implies that he was brandishing it, or had it in his hand. This is false. He was recording ICE on the streets, and an ICE goon pushed a woman beside him, so he turned to help her, and an ICE goon pepper-sprayed him and pulled him to the ground as other ICE agents piled on. Then, as they hit him and kicked him, an ICE goon stole his gun and ran, whereupon other ICE agents shot Mr. Pretti, multiple times. This besmirching of the dead man’s character and actions, this utter falsehood, is beyond vile. It is one of the most sinful things one could do to make the murder even worse. Here is Noem in video
-Here is a still from today’s Gorilla Underground, hosted by Billy Ray Valentine, who welcomed Gard (me) for a valuable assessment of Trump Admin policies and statements, video of the murder, and comments from viewers. We got to discuss her claims, which Bovino, her SS-Trooper-LARP-ING lapdog, echoed, obviously, to continue spreading the fake narrative.
Here is the program…
MORE
and…
From the camera of the “woman in the pink jacket”. Morgan Freeman asked people to be sure to get her to share that footage
And…
Look at what Stephen Miller claims. It’s evil and absurd.
MORE
The Mayor of Minneapolis must be at wits end trying to handle this madness.
MORE
The MN gov has called up the state Guard, and they are headed to “secure” a federal detention facility. Does that mean they will confront ICE goons and take control of the facility, or simply surround it in case protesters want to congregate around it and ICE might attack those people?
The Maine Gov
NOW, A SPECIAL FIRST OF MULTIPLE REPORTS, ON IMMIGRATION WITHIN THE ORIGINAL FOUNDERS’ CONCEPT…WHAT IS AND IS NOT IN THEIR US CONSTITUTION… AND WHY IT IS ESSENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THESE FACTS FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO VOTE AND WHO BELIEVE THE CONSTITUTION HAS SO-CALLED “AUTHORITY”First, as I have reported in previous MRCTV pieces, the words “immigration” and “immigrant” are not in the US Constitution.
Many American’s mistake the power in Article One, Section Eight, granting the Congress the “power” to create a rule of naturalization with the “power” to create a rule over immigration. But naturalization is how visitors become American citizens, not whether visitors can be on the soil of any US state.
The only passage of the Constitution from which one might infer a link to immigration is in Article One, Section Nine, which reads, in part:
“The Migration of Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one-thousand-eight-hundred-and-eight…”
This provision tells readers that, prior to 1808, Congress could not write laws regarding the migration into any of the original thirteen states from outside the US or from other states in the union. Such wording pertained to slave importation, and the philosophy of the Founders, as expressed in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, implies that, unless the Constitution were amended, Congress did not have jurisdiction over importation of slaves in the original states until after 1808, and that it had no power to control the importation of slaves into any new state.
This soon was reflected in policy. The Missouri Compromise set the standard for the process of state admission from the territories of the Louisiana Purchase. Thus, the new northern “free states” and southern “slave states” would alternate admission, keeping what many politicians in Congress believed would be a balance between “slave” and “free” states for representation.
If the federal government could block importation of slaves into states beyond the original thirteen, then there would be no need for the Missouri Compromise, because Congress could block the importation of slaves into those new “slave” states, making them de facto “free” states and shifting even more population-based “representative” power to the north.
Share
It was well understood that immigration was not a federal purview. Thomas Jefferson said so himself in his 1798 Kentucky Resolution Number Four, which was a slap at the “Alien Act” pushed by then-President, John Adams:
“IV. Resolved, that alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people,’ the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled ‘An act concerning aliens,’ which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.”
Texas’s state constitution, approved in 1869, included an article establishing a “Bureau of Immigration” in it.
If the people of Texas believed Congress had the power to control immigration, why would they bother creating their own Bureau of Immigration?
The answer is that Congress DID NOT have such an enumerated power, and the only reason contemporary Americans fight over what the feds “should do” at the border is because of a corrupt 1875 Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Chy Lung v. Freeman” which was a challenge to a California statute imposing a charge on boat-owners who were facilitating ingress to Chinese women (seen as likely prostitutes by the politicians). With the ruling, the Justices simply made-up federal immigration control, saying, in part, this errant nonsense, which easily can be refuted by actually reading the Constitution:
“The passage of laws which concern the admission of citizens and subjects of foreign nations to our shores belongs to Congress, and not to the States.”
This led to federal passage of the Page Law that same year, a statute that restricted lower-price Chinese immigrant labor, and established from that point on that the states would suffer the loss of their constitutionally granted power over immigration.
In 1882, Congress became even more draconian, and passed the “Chinese Exclusion Act,” barring entrance into any state by Chinese laborers for ten years, halting Chinese non-labor immigration for SIXTY years, and prohibiting entirely all naturalization by Chinese people – all of which came as a result of heavy lobbying from higher-priced American labor interests that did not want to compete against people who might work for less…
All of which harmed American consumers who were forced to shell out more for products and services, preventing them from saving and having money left to invest in new ventures.
And all of which is unconstitutional, without any doubt.
Prior to “Chy Lung,” there had been numerous Supreme Court cases (“Miln v New York”, “Smith v Turner”, and “Norris v Boston” are examples) in which litigants challenged or cited numerous state statutes that placed restrictions on the “kinds” of people (such as those defined as “paupers”) that shipmasters could allow in the respective states. It is important to note that there was debate in these cases as to whether the states could impose TARIFFS and LEVIES on such “imports” or if such tariffs infringed on Congress’s power to impose tariffs (the Constitution does allow states to impose tariffs, but only after Congressional approval), and there also were controversies about whether such state taxes could trump federal treaties with other nations, but never in those cases was the power of states to block or admit immigrants questioned…
We will tell more, in our second part of this series…
Subscribe now
LATER, SUNDAY, PART TWO……in which we will spell out how Article Four, Section Four of the Constitution supersedes the so-called “Insurrection Act” and shows that the act is unconstitutional, and in which we will discuss the deeper moral primacy of free association. Plus, we will discuss how no political border can show “value” as to what people might want to for a border, and how only private property allows true valuations and border preferences to be reflected.
Share
That’s it for now, all! Thank you for believing in freedom!
And mark your calendar for Monday, for the paid subscribers we will have our new DAILY NEWS NOTES! It will give you a powerful look at breaking news you might want to follow, will allow you to compare notes with others, and help you to keep an eye on the statists in politics and the statists in the “commentary/reporting” realm! Remember, you can watch Liberty Conspiracy Live, each weeknight, at 6 eastern! Help others learn about all the facets of freedom, from markets, to privacy, to speech, to parental control and education, and much MORE! You can watch, listen, and join the chat for freedom as we broadcast on my X and Rumble. Hit me up at X as @gardgoldsmith there and on GAB as “GardnerGoldsmith”! And, of course, I want to mention that if you’d like to get some of my fiction, grab my current novellas at Amazon and Barnes and Noble!! As a rocking opener, I recommend “Fishing” as a dark, well-composed crime tale with some very unusual turns (this contains some scenes of dark violence, so please, be warned)…
…Or feel free to get “Bite” for a different take on vampirism, and “Wall” for a cryptoarcheological adventure set in 1960s China. And I have three novels and two more novellas in their final editing phases, soon to be on the way!
You also can donate to help the Liberty Conspiracy, itself! Just visit PayPal to help out! You also can mail GG at:
Gardner Goldsmith
PO Box 581
Amherst, NH, 03031 Be Seeing You!
Thank you for supporting the ideas and the scholarship of freedom. God bless, everyone!
Leave a comment
Share
Subscribe now