Council on American Exceptionalism

The mission of the Council is to educate the broadest possible segment of our population to the attributes that continue to make our country exceptional.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Over the past decade, the utilization of the justice system for political gain has become increasingly apparent. Democrat administrations have come and gone, each with their efforts to populate the justice department with loyal supporters. However, in recent years, there's a growing perception that the Department of Justice functions as a partisan tool, an extension of the party's power. This power, unfortunately, has been wielded to target adversaries and aid allies. This trend is exemplified by figures like Eric Holder, who proudly referred to himself as Obama's "wingman" and notably became the first Attorney General to be held in contempt for disregarding a congressional subpoena.
​
Unprecedented in the annals of U.S. history, we now witness the Department of Justice, along with sympathetic state and local prosecutors, indicting a prominent opposition candidate and presumed contender from one of the major parties, all at the outset of a presidential campaign. In an extraordinary turn of events, Donald Trump currently faces nearly 100 felony charges from at least two prosecutors. Forecasts even anticipate that he could be hit with over 500 indictments from four different prosecutors, all of whom have established affiliations with left-leaning associations or Democratic affiliations.
​
Comparing this situation to the legal exposure of infamous figures like Charles Manson is startling. It's hard to deny that many of these charges, many of which pertain to incidents from years past, wouldn't have been brought against Trump if he weren't seeking the presidency.
​
Notably absent among these allegations is the charge of bribery or financial misconduct while in office, a transgression considered impeachable under the Constitution. Interestingly, this charge is pertinent to the accusations leveled against Joe Biden and his family, who have profited from foreign governments due to the questionable exploitation of his prior Vice Presidency. The perplexing question remains: Why did Joe Biden falsely claim to have never discussed his son's business affairs? What motivated Hunter to complain to his daughter about Joe's demand for a share of his dubious earnings? And can Joe's extravagant lifestyle truly be reconciled with his reported income?
This glaring asymmetry in the enforcement of the law has sowed a sense of trepidation among conservative and even non-political Americans. The fear that any semblance of political prominence might invite government scrutiny with the intent to indict or financially cripple individuals through legal battles is palpable.
​
The leadership of the FBI also raises concerns. In the past, the last four FBI Directors have either confessed to perjury, ridiculously claimed ignorance about events under their jurisdiction, or obstructed investigations through refusal to comply with subpoenas. The former CIA Director has also admitted to lying under oath on two separate occasions. Furthermore, revelations have emerged that the FBI collaborated with social media companies to suppress news during election cycles, a move perceived as benefiting the Left. The FBI, along with Democratic operatives, played a significant role in propagating the conspiracy theories of the 2015-2016 Russian-Collusion hoax and the 2020 Russian disinformation laptop hoax. This pattern continued into the 2024 elections, as both the FBI and the DOJ sought to influence the outcome.
Disturbingly, even former intelligence officials have been entangled in this web of deception. Prompted by a member of Joe Biden's campaign team (now serving as Secretary of State) and a former interim CIA director, 50 former intelligence officials misled the public by claiming that an authentic, incriminating computer belonging to Biden was likely a creation of Russian origin. It later came to light that this assertion was false, yet the FBI did not disclose its falsehood.

In this environment of political instrumentalization of justice, a complex and concerning reality unfolds, revealing the intricate ways in which the justice system can be manipulated to serve partisan interests.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Can Legislation Reinforce the Meaning of “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” to Curb Birth Tourism?
The clause 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.”
Congress can use its enforcement authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to clarify the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” thereby narrowing automatic birthright citizenship in ways that would discourage or eliminate birth tourism without formally amending the Constitution. 
Congress’s Section 5 Enforcement Power
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment grants Congress the power to “enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” This has been used historically to pass civil rights laws, voting rights protections, and measures clarifying aspects of citizenship.
This power allows Congress to define or reinforce the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for statutory and administrative purposes, particularly in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). By codifying a narrower interpretation (e.g., requiring permanent domicile, lawful permanent resident status for at least one parent, or full allegiance without competing foreign claims), Congress could:
•  Limit automatic citizenship at birth for children of temporary visitors, non-immigrants, or those present unlawfully in certain contexts.
•  Provide clearer guidance to agencies like the State Department, USCIS, and courts on citizenship determinations.
•  Reduce the incentive for birth tourism by removing the automatic citizenship “prize.”
Past and proposed legislation illustrates this approach. Bills such as versions of the Birthright Citizenship Act have sought to amend the INA to interpret the jurisdictional phrase as excluding children born to parents who are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (with possible exceptions for military service). More targeted measures, like the Ban Birth Tourism Act (S. 1812 in the 119th Congress), focus on making inadmissible those seeking entry primarily to give birth for citizenship purposes. 
Other proposals have aimed to restrict visas for pregnant non-immigrants or require proof that travel is not primarily for birth tourism.
Potential Benefits for Restricting Birth Tourism
Reinforcing the definition statutorily could make restrictions more effective in several ways:
1.  Deterrence through Citizenship Limits: If children born to temporary visitors (e.g., tourists, students, or certain visa holders) are not automatically citizens, the primary motivation for birth tourism disappears. Families would have less reason to incur the significant costs of travel, lodging, and medical care in the U.S.
2.  Administrative Clarity: Clear statutory language would reduce ambiguity for consular officers, border agents, and birth registrars, making enforcement more consistent and less reliant on case-by-case interpretations.
3.  Complementary Visa and Immigration Tools: Combined with existing or strengthened visa rules (denying entry when birth tourism is the primary intent), it creates a multi-layered barrier. Legislation could also address “maternity hotels” or facilitators of the practice through fraud or immigration violations.
4.  National Sovereignty and Policy Alignment: Supporters argue this restores what they see as the original intent—citizenship tied to meaningful allegiance rather than mere presence—while addressing modern realities like global mobility and incentives for chain migration.
The Path Forward
Congress can reinforce aspects of the jurisdictional definition through legislation, particularly by providing statutory guidance on implementation, strengthening visa enforcement against birth tourism, and clarifying eligibility in the INA. This approach has been attempted in multiple Congresses and aligns with Section 5 authority for “appropriate legislation”.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@55SweetThing @NavyVeteranMAL2 No, they did not work.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@55SweetThing @NavyVeteranMAL2 These were “Slenderizing Machines”. They were to help reduce inches without creating a muscular body. This was considered more of a beauty treatment than a gym.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Democrats’ Support for Graham Platner: Prioritizing Power Over Character?

Democratic leaders have rallied behind Graham Platner. Despite a string of personal controversies, including sexting multiple women early in his marriage, a NAZI tattoo (he idolizes the NAZIs and often expressed his belief that he is one of them), Reddit posts with inflammatory or misogynistic content, Democrat leaders stand firmly behind him.

Democrats are willing to back a candidate with documented personal lapses precisely because the role demands someone unburdened by a “moral compass.” Loyalty to the party agenda can matter more than personal ethics. A figure with a clean moral record will hesitate or resist when asked to advance policies that clash with broader societal norms or constitutional principles.

Platner’s platform aligns strong support for abortion access without any restrictions, aggressive gun control confiscation, taxpayer funding for gender transition procedures for children, and steep tax hikes on all Americans and businesses (with some proposals floating effective rates approaching or exceeding 85%.

Democratic goals include expansive regulatory takings that erode private property rights, and using federal power against political opponents.

Installing a candidate whose moral personal boundaries could prove useful for enacting an agenda that requires setting aside any restraints. Issues like open borders human trafficking concerns, or cultural policies touching on youth and explicit materials become easier to navigate with someone less prone to internal moral conflict. A principled individual would balk at the horse-trading, or ethical areas needed to advance their agenda.

Democrats need reliable operators who will deliver results on abortion-on-demand, wealth redistribution, firearms confiscation, and using government levers against political enemies.

For the Democrats this moral failing is not something to be overcome, it’s by design.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

OJ Simpson’s vote came in for Karen Bass. 😳

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@GrimzyNews Love your stuff Grimzy. Keep up the amazing work. 🇺🇸

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Los Angeles City Clerk Patrice Lattimore Reportedly in Panic Mode as Spencer Pratt Surges in Mayoral Race.

In the final days before the June 2, 2026, Los Angeles primary election, whispers of alarm are emanating from City Hall as reality TV star and mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt continues his improbable climb in the polls. According to sources close to the situation, City Clerk Patrice Lattimore, the official responsible for overseeing election processes, is said to be in full damage-control mode, determined to prevent the Hills alum from advancing to the November runoff.

Lattimore, who was appointed City Clerk in September 2025, allegedly told insiders: “We have to stop this at all costs.” The statement reflects deep Democrat establishment anxiety over Pratt’s outsider campaign, which has capitalized on voter frustration with homelessness, crime, wildfires, and perceived government incompetence under incumbent Mayor Karen Bass.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@Jellenne @KTAR923 Fallen from what? They have always been a left wing propaganda machine.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@BasedMikeLee I think the obligation would be to name the baby after me and pay for the carpet cleaning. That’s about it.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@ferrara4az

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Council on American Exceptionalism Celebrates Momentum in Arizona as Timothy Ferrara Advances Conservative Leadership in LD 2 Senate Race.

In an era where the principles that have defined America’s greatness—individual liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional fidelity—are under constant challenge, organizations like the Council on American Exceptionalism stand as beacons of education and advocacy. The Council, a federation of individuals dedicated to illuminating the unique attributes that make the United States exceptional, is highlighting the promising campaign of Timothy Ferrara for Arizona State Senate in Legislative District 2.

Timothy Ferrara’s bid for the Arizona State Senate embodies American Exceptionalism. A longtime Arizona resident since 2006 with strong community ties, Ferrara is campaigning as a champion of conservative values. He is challenging incumbent Shawnna Bolick, who has fallen out of favor with the Republican Party, in the Republican primary scheduled for July 21, 2026, in a competitive district encompassing parts of Maricopa County and Phoenix. https://t.co/wNrptmPaIg https://t.co/wefsaM5B8U
Ferrara’s emphasis on conservative leadership for Arizona’s future resonates with calls for limited government, accountability, and policies that prioritize individual freedom over expansive state control. In a state grappling with issues like border security, education, economic growth, and government efficiency, Ferrara represents the type of principled candidate the Council seeks to uplift through its candidate analysis, vetting, and advocacy efforts. https://t.co/wefsaM5B8U
Why LD 2 Matters for American Exceptionalism
Arizona’s Legislative District 2 is a battleground where the future of state-level governance will influence national trends. With multiple candidates in both parties vying for the seat, the race underscores the importance of electing leaders committed to local sovereignty and resisting top-down mandates. The Council’s work in promoting “Reconstitute Local Government over Federal Government” finds a natural home in supporting figures like Ferrara, who aim to deliver results for working families, businesses, and communities rather than entrenched interests.

The Council’s non-partisan yet values-driven approach—refusing government funding to preserve independence—mirrors the independent spirit Ferrara brings to the campaign. As a community leader, he focuses on practical conservatism: protecting freedoms, ensuring fiscal responsibility, and fostering an environment where Arizona thrives as a model for the nation.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Minnesota Medicare/Medicaid Fraud: $90M Scam Just Announced — It will immediately return If Dems Regain Power.

DOJ just charged 15 in record $90M Minnesota Medicaid fraud schemes: fake autism diagnoses at sham clinics, kickbacks to parents, billing for services never provided in Housing Stabilization, child care & EIDBI programs. Robbing taxpayers & needy families.

Trump admin’s crackdown (deferrals, freezes, AI detection) is exposing & stopping this.
If the democrats regain control? Loose oversight, “access over integrity,” minimal checks will return overnight, fraud explodes again.
Seniors & taxpayers deserve real protection, not revolving-door grift.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

Redistricting:
Redistricting is simply the constitutional process of adjusting the boundaries of congressional, state legislative, or local voting districts to reflect the latest census data on population changes. It is not a partisan weapon, a racial quota system, or a tool to rig outcomes. It is designed to be based solely on population. It ensures that every American’s vote carries equal weight, no more and no less.
Redistricting is a neutral, numbers-driven exercise required every ten years after the U.S. Census. The goal is straightforward: each district must contain roughly the same number of people so that representation remains proportional. This adjustment does not, and legally cannot, impose any restrictions on who can run for office or who can vote for the candidate of their choice. There are no barriers preventing Black Americans, Democrats, Latinos, Republicans, Independents, or anyone else from seeking elected office in any district. Voters of every background remain completely free to support whichever candidate best represents their views, values, and priorities. Redistricting changes nothing about eligibility, candidacy, or ballot access. It simply draws new lines on a map using population figures alone.
Democrats claim that redistricting is an opportunity to “pack” or “crack” voters along racial or partisan lines. When boundaries are drawn with population as the only criterion, respecting traditional districting, neighborhood’s stay intact where possible, and communities of interest are preserved through shared geography rather than engineered demographics. The result is districts that reflect where people actually live, not where political consultants wish they lived.
This population-only approach delivers a deeper benefit: neighborhoods vote for the issues that matter most to them. A suburban family concerned about school quality, property taxes, and traffic congestion can elect representatives focused on those exact priorities. An urban block focused on public safety, small-business growth, and housing affordability can do the same. A rural community worried about agriculture, infrastructure, and healthcare access gets its own voice. When boundaries follow population, not identity politics, elected officials are accountable to the people who live in their districts—not to distant party strategists or racial bean-counters. Voters choose candidates based on ideas, records, and solutions, not skin color or party label.
The beauty of this system lies in its simplicity and fairness. No one is disenfranchised. No group is favored or disfavored. Black voters, Latino voters, Democrat voters, and every other demographic retain the full, unrestricted right to run for office and to cast their ballots for any candidate on the ballot. The only thing that changes is the map—adjusted to keep one person, one vote a living reality rather than an empty slogan.
In an era when trust in institutions is low, transparent, population-based redistricting rebuilds confidence. It reminds Americans that our republic works best when it treats every citizen as an individual with equal dignity and equal say, not as a member of a demographic category to be moved around like pieces on a chessboard. Neighborhoods know their own challenges best. When redistricting respects that truth, democracy grows stronger, representation becomes more responsive, and every American—regardless of background—can see their vote count exactly as it should.
The next time you hear redistricting described as sinister, remember the facts: it is nothing more than adjusting boundaries based on population. It protects the fundamental right of every citizen to vote freely and to run for office freely. It ensures that the people who live together, work together, and raise families together get to decide together what issues matter most in their neighborhoods. That is not partisan. That is American exceptionalism.

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@SaltyGoat17 @ReallyBadPanda1 💯and rightly so

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@ThrillaRilla369 @WillMcGinnis2 Cayenne pepper

[Council on American Exceptionalism @AmExcepCouncil]

@RightScopee Greg Gutfeld is an American treasure