Chief Justice of the federal Supreme Court John Roberts has been accused of infidelity to the United States constitution on a number of occasions, but now he is going beyond that in two of his latest rulings.  In Trump v Cook, he attempts to subordinate the citizens of the 50 States to the banking cartels; in Trump v Barbara, he attempts to shatter the remnants of the Anglo-European culture that underlies each State by encouraging mass immigration to the US via the promise of birthright citizenship.

The privately owned Federal Reserve is one of the premiere mechanisms by which the Deep State/technocrats/globalists seek to control the peoples of the States.  Orthodox priest Fr Spyridon Bailey observes, ‘The private banks are extending their monopoly to encompass the whole world, and clearly, those who stand in their way are being removed through military force.  Banking is more profitable than any other kind of business, but is also the true source of power in the world’ (Orthodoxy and the Kingdom of Satan, 2017, FeedARead.com Publishing, p. 173).  Thus, when President Trump made a small move to re-establish government oversight of the monetary system, the Establishment reacted quickly with the ruling Trump v Cook to prevent that.

Chief Justice Roberts’s ruling for the majority in that case is particularly weak.  On the same day Trump v Cook was handed down, the justices affirmed that the president has the authority to remove any executive branch officer he wishes in Trump v Slaughter.  But Mr. Roberts tried to make an exception to that rather potent ruling with the Federal Reserve, taking a meandering, fantastical voyage through the history of banking in the United States in an attempt to prove that some wispy precedents associated with previous federal banks (whose existence was also constitutionally questionable) somehow override the clear language of Article II and the Federal Reserve Act that the president may remove Federal Reserve board members for cause without any kind of notice or hearing.

Justice Clarence Thomas sees the errors in the majority’s ruling:

‘The Court does not dispute that members of the Federal Re­serve Board exercise (a great deal of) federal executive power. It does not dispute that any person who exercises federal executive power must be freely removable by the President. And it does not dispute that its holding today contravenes those principles by preventing the President from freely removing members of the Federal Reserve Board. Instead, the Court endorses a contradiction: “the Constitution vests the whole executive power in the Presi­dent alone,” Slaughter, 609 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 21) (in­ternal quotation marks omitted), but the Board can exercise executive power “independen[t] from Presidential control,” ante, at 22.’

This isn’t the only problem with the ruling, but it is one of the most serious and thus worthy of being quoted in full.

The second ruling, Trump v Barbara, on birthright citizenship is likewise a weakly constructed case built out of an abundance of disingenuously used definitions and precedents that obfuscate the clear, original intent of the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment – that only those children born to parents domiciled in the United States are citizens.  Again, Justice Thomas dismantles the majority’s ruling:

‘The Court’s account does not make sense. To begin, the post-ratification evidence against the Court’s view begins not “nearly two decades after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification,” but immediately. Ante, at 13. Well before the Court has any explanation for a departure from its view, all three branches of the Federal Government had already re­jected it. In 1870, Congress interpreted the Citizenship Clause to require that a child born here be “not subject to any foreign power.” See 16 Stat. 144 (reenacting Act of Apr.9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27). In 1873, the Supreme Court inter­preted the Citizenship Clause to “exclude from its operation children of . . . citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall., at 72–73. And, the same year, President Grant’s At­torney General interpreted the Citizenship Clause to ex­clude the children of “[a]liens” over whom the United States had “limited” jurisdiction even though they were “born here.” 14 Op. Atty. Gen., at 300.

‘If all three branches of the Federal Government were not enough, many others concurred during these first two dec­ades. The Court cannot explain why, in the 1870s, William Robinson wrote that children “born within the territory of the United States, of alien parents” were not citizens unless “permanently domiciled within the United States,” Robin­son, Notes on Elementary Law 70; why California excluded from citizenship “children of transient aliens,” Political Code of California §51(1); why Representative Ebenezer Hoar—President Grant’s first Attorney General and one of the nation’s most eminent jurists—interpreted the Citizen­ship Clause to require domicile, 2 Cong. Rec. 3279; see 3 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 223–226 (1924); and why the Executive Branch denied citizen­ship to a child born here but domiciled abroad, see Letter from Acting Sec. of State F. Seward to H. Fish (Aug. 20, 1878), in 2 Wharton Digest 396. The Court likewise cannot explain why, in 1880, Thomas Cooley wrote that the Citizenship Clause excluded children who had any “alle­giance to some other government.” General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America 243.’

The reigning Elite in the West have an undeniable hatred of the Christian European peoples over whom they rule and in whose interests they are supposed to act.  They have used every means and opportunity available to them to promote immigration from non-European, non-Christian lands into Western countries, from Australia to California to Sweden, in an effort to eradicate the ancient Christian ethnic groups and reconstitute them in a form more to their liking.  The European Commission has recently affirmed this once again:

‘Campaigners behind the ‘Save Europe Act’ say the European Commission is preparing to reject their European Citizens’ Initiative after receiving a letter warning that its proposals appear to violate the European Union’s fundamental rights and values.

‘In a video published on Tuesday, June 30th, the initiators of the act—Dutch conservative commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek and Austrian identitarian activist Martin Sellner—said they had received a letter from the European Commission, warning them that the Save Europe Act appears to be “manifestly contrary” to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU’s “values.”

‘ “We’ve got news.

‘ “The European Union is threatening to reject the @SaveEuropeAct, claiming that preserving the ethnocultural continuity of Europe’s native peoples is racist and goes against “European values.”

‘ “Watch the video to see our response, sign now and join us in Brussels… pic.twitter.com/062fcwOtKY

‘ “— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) June 30, 2026”

‘The Commission also stated that the initiative’s proposed moratorium on “non-Western” immigration and its stated objective of protecting the “ethnic and cultural continuity” of Europe’s native peoples would amount to discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin.

‘According to Eva Vlaardingerbroek, the letter is “the ultimate proof that the European Union hates Europeans.”

‘ “They don’t want Europe to belong to the Europeans. They are saying that even claiming that there is such a thing as the ethnocultural identity or continuity of our peoples, that that in and of itself is racist. Our mere existence is racist to them” ’ (Zoltán Kottász, ‘Brussels Moves To Shut Down Europe’s Biggest Anti-Migration Campaign,’ europeanconservative.com).

The majority’s birthright citizenship ruling is of the same spirit as the EU’s endemic hatred of the old ethnoi of Europe.  The Great Replacement was initiated in the States with a new law in 1965 (Immigration and Nationality Act) that blew apart the old preferences for European immigrants that once guided US immigration policy.

These two rulings show the existential dangers looming over the United States:  technocratic slavery to globalist banksters; the erasure of Christian European peoples via mass immigration.  And Chief Justice John Roberts is largely responsible for increasing those dangers many fold with those very rulings that he penned.

The defining characteristic of the peoples of the States is supposed to be their resistance to governments that work against their interests, to the point of setting them aside and starting anew if the abuse gets bad enough.  Two-hundred fifty years after the Declaration of Independence was drafted, the fires of resistance have waned considerably:

‘Americans celebrating their “independence” will drink away the realization that any independence was long ago lost to the PATRIOT Act, to spying without warrants, to facial recognition street cameras, to speech crime limits on the First Amendment, . . . and it goes on forever.

‘The British colonial residents of the East Coast of the New World under British rule were more free than Americans are today.

‘So what does July 4 celebrate today?  It celebrates the subjugation of the American people to power far more onerous than that of King George III’ (Paul Craig Roberts, ‘Time out for Americans to Celebrate Not their Independence but Their Captivity,’ paulcraigroberts.org).

There has likewise been an embarrassing, groveling capitulation on the destruction of European culture:

‘I have been writing about the inability of white ethnics to defend themselves for many years.  I have never had a response to my columns reporting mass rapes of Scandinavian and British females, and sometimes little boys.  No white liberal has written:  “This is awful.  What can we do?”

‘No feminist has written: “What can we do to protect women and pre-teen girls from gang-rapes?”

‘No white liberal has written:  “Our multicultural ideology was a mistake.  How do we recover?”

‘No American conservative, no “white supremist” has asked what do we do to save ourselves.

‘Not a word.  The weak-minded, weak-willed white ethnics hide their heads in the sand.  When I speak it is like speaking to an empty room.

‘This is why I have concluded that white ethnics are doomed.  They have been too indoctrinated against themselves by their enemies to survive. Their demonization is institutionalized in the educational system and is finding its way into criminal justice systems.  There are more British citizens in prison for complaining about the rape of their children than there are immigrant-invaders who raped the children.

‘ . . . The lack of organized resistance suggests that white ethnicities have accepted their fate. The immigrant-invaders see this and grow bolder.

‘Meanwhile white ethnicities prepare their final war against themselves as the US and Europe prepare for war against Russia’ (Paul Craig Roberts, ‘The Most Endangered Species of All is White People,’ paulcraigroberts.org).

If there is still the tiniest bit of courage, the smallest amount of integrity, the faintest glimmer of Christian love in any of the leaders of any of the States or cities or counties or parishes in the South or anywhere else in the US, they must step forward now and act.  The threats we have detailed are not insurmountable.  But we will make them so by failing to confront them in a wise and substantive way.