The Obama Brief

Jeffrey Toobin, New Yorker, October 27, 2014

In July, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling that threatened the future of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act. By a vote of two to one, the court held, in Halbig v. Burwell, that the insurance subsidies that allow millions of Americans to buy health insurance were contrary to the text of the law and thus were illegal. If such a decision had been made earlier in Obama’s tenure, lawyers for his Administration would have been left with a single, risky option: an appeal to the politically polarized, and usually conservative, Supreme Court.

This year, the lawyers had another choice. When President Obama took office, the full D.C. Circuit had six judges appointed by Republican Presidents, three named by Democrats, and two vacancies. By the time of the Halbig decision, Obama had placed four judges on the D.C. court, which shifted its composition to seven Democratic appointees and four Republicans. In light of this realignment, the Obama Administration asked the full D.C. Circuit to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the Halbig case en banc–that is, with all the court’s active judges participating. The full court promptly agreed with the request, and the decision that would have crippled Obamacare is no longer on the books. Oral argument before the full court is now set for December.

The transformation of the D.C. Circuit has been replicated in federal courts around the country. Obama has had two hundred and eighty judges confirmed, which represents about a third of the federal judiciary. Two of his choices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were nominated to the Supreme Court; fifty-three were named to the circuit courts of appeals, two hundred and twenty-three to the district courts, and two to the Court of International Trade. When Obama took office, Republican appointees controlled ten of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals; Democratic appointees now constitute a majority in nine circuits. Because federal judges have life tenure, nearly all of Obama’s judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.

Obama’s judicial nominees look different from their predecessors. In an interview in the Oval Office, the President told me, “I think there are some particular groups that historically have been underrepresented–like Latinos and Asian-Americans–that represent a larger and larger portion of the population. And so for them to be able to see folks in robes that look like them is going to be important. When I came into office, I think there was one openly gay judge who had been appointed. We’ve appointed ten.”

The statistics affirm Obama’s boast. Sheldon Goldman, a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and a scholar of judicial appointments, said, “The majority of Obama’s appointments are women and nonwhite males.” Forty-two per cent of his judgeships have gone to women. Twenty-two per cent of George W. Bush’s judges and twenty-nine per cent of Bill Clinton’s were women. Thirty-six per cent of President Obama’s judges have been minorities, compared with eighteen per cent for Bush and twenty-four per cent for Clinton. Obama said that the new makeup of the federal bench “speaks to the larger shifts in our society, where what’s always been this great American strength–this stew that we are–is part and parcel of every institution, both in the public sector as well as in the private sector.”

{snip}

For a long time, the Court has moved toward outlawing all forms of racial preference, including affirmative action, and Obama seems accepting, even supportive, of the change. In 1978, in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the Court rejected the use of racial quotas in graduate-school admissions. Chief Justice Roberts has made the fight against the traditional civil-rights agenda a cornerstone of his tenure. He wrote nearly a decade ago, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

Specifically, Obama told me that he believes the Constitution permits the use of racial preferences, though only within carefully defined limits. “It’s legitimate to say that when the government takes race into account it should be subject to some oversight by the courts,” he said. Judicial “oversight” of affirmative action has a controversial history. For many decades, starting in the nineteen-thirties, the Court applied “strict scrutiny” to laws that discriminate against racial minorities, and struck down most of them.

Starting in 1995, though, with Adarand Constructors v. Pena, the Court, in an opinion by Sandra Day O’Connor, began applying “strict scrutiny” to laws that favor racial minorities–viewing affirmative action, in effect, as a form of racial discrimination. O’Connor’s opinion drew a stinging dissent from John Paul Stevens. “There is no moral or constitutional equivalence between a policy that is designed to perpetuate a caste system and one that seeks to eradicate racial subordination,” he wrote. “Invidious discrimination is an engine of oppression, subjugating a disfavored group to enhance or maintain the power of the majority. Remedial race-based preferences reflect the opposite impulse: a desire to foster equality in society.” In its embrace of judicial oversight of affirmative action, Obama’s view appears closer to O’Connor’s than to Stevens’s.

By 2003, O’Connor had softened her stance somewhat, writing the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the use of affirmative action as a means to achieve diversity at the University of Michigan Law School. However, she made clear that she regarded affirmative action as a stopgap. In twenty-five years, she wrote, racial preferences would be neither required nor permissible. Again, Obama seemed to agree with O’Connor, in his grudging support for racial preferences in admissions. He said, “If the University of Michigan or California decides that there is a value in making sure that folks with different experiences in a classroom will enhance the educational experience of the students, and they do it in a careful way,” the practice should be allowed. Still, he added, “most of the time the law’s principal job should be as a shield against discrimination, as opposed to a sword to advance a social agenda, because the law is a blunt instrument in these situations.”

Obama reiterated his belief that the biggest issues concerning race are “rooted in economics and the legacy of slavery,” which have created “vastly different opportunities for African-Americans and whites.” He went on, “I understand, certainly sitting in this office, that probably the single most important thing I could do for poor black kids is to make sure that they’re getting a good K-through-12 education. And, if they’re coming out of high school well prepared, then they’ll be able to compete for university slots and jobs. And that has more to do with budgets and early-childhood education and stuff that needs to be legislated.”

I asked the President whether O’Connor’s time line in the Grutter case, now about halfway expired, was accurate. He replied that Justice O’Connor would “be the first one to acknowledge that twenty-five years was sort of a ballpark figure in her mind.” In any event, he said, progress in racial justice and equality would not come principally from the courts. “And that’s where politics comes in,” he said.

The previous three Presidents who served two terms–George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan–spent their last two years in office with the Senate under the control of the opposition party. Polls suggest that Obama and the Democrats may meet the same fate. The “Thurmond rule,” which emerged when Senator Strom Thurmond, of South Carolina, blocked Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to appoint a new Chief Justice near the end of his Presidency, holds that the Senate stops acting on lifetime judicial nominations roughly six months before a Presidential election. Still, Obama’s judicial legacy is not complete. According to statistics compiled by the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy group, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all saw about twenty per cent of their total judicial appointments confirmed during their final two years in office. If the pattern holds, that would mean the confirmation of about seventy more Obama judges.

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • MekongDelta69

    First of all, the New Yorker is a leftist rag.

    Secondly, we all know who NoBama appoints (blacks, browns, feminazis, clueless blonde bimbos, gays, trannies, and on and on).

    Third – They’ve ALL failed miserably.

    Fourth –

  • This is why the right must stop being “constitutionalist.” All that means these days is letting the Clinton-Obama politically insulated hand picked kritarchs have unchecked despotic power. Once that milieu breaks through the Supreme Court, and they’re almost there, Katie bar the door.

    • connorhus

      There is nothing in the Constitution that supports Affirmative Action or race based preferences. That is simply the Liberal “Living Document” Fallacy. What really needs to happen is the other branches of government need to start following the Constitution. The House needs to actually with hold funding, The Senate needs to actually stop appointments or tie em up forever and both need to smack the judicial branch back into place like it was originally designed to do.

      • jane johnson

        The seventeenth amendment needs to go, as well, so that the states can begin reasserting the rights that have been usurped by the feds.

        • connorhus

          We ought to throw out everything numbered 15 and higher.

          • journey

            They were meant for a population which was still >85% white.

          • connorhus

            Still those from 15 on were designed to change the Republic into a Democracy for the most part. Something the Constitution was never designed for no matter what races reside under it.

          • journey

            But they are still just words on pieces of paper unless the population is at a certain level. A democracy can only exists and keep progressing depending on the quality of its citizens. I afraid this nation is heading toward a critical point as the whites become an ever increasing minority.

          • connorhus

            Except this Nation was never designed to be a Democracy. Unless we shift it back to a Republic the foundation will never be sufficient to support and contain a Democracy based system on top of it.

          • journey

            Do you really think it can be done? I do not. We have to move forward as is as like all other past advanced ancient civilizations that crashed. And we really do not know what the future will hold especially in Western societies. The break down of traditions is currently at a fast pace.

          • connorhus

            The breakdown of many traditions and institutions is in fact finished, almost finished or well underway. No argument there. What will happen is hard to say but there are two important facts shining out from our past that no other people have ever had. A Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Those two documents have the power to change the direction a massive breakdown of a civilization usually follows. I am not saying it won’t get worse before it gets better but as things do get worse people will look for a sturdy foundation once again.

          • journey

            I admire your attitude, faith, and hope. A new religion will also appear. Still based on the teaching of Christ, but less fossilized and institutionalized.

          • none of your business

            It is not a democracy. It is a judicial dictatorship.

          • connorhus

            Sadly you are pretty much correct in that assessment on some levels, but that is mostly due to the fact that the other bodies refuse to use the tools provided for them to deal with an out of control judicial branch.

          • jane johnson

            If you’re going that far, take out the fourteenth for sure. No more birthright citizenship.

          • journey

            The most abused of all to increase an ever increasing white minority.

          • Alexandra1973

            The 14th was never meant to grant “anchor babies” citizenship. But what it does is turn the States into states (note capital to small letter). Instead of autonomous States, they are now just provinces.

          • jane johnson

            You are correct about what the 14th wasn’t supposed to do; it was about ensuring the rights of citizenship to the offspring of former slaves. It needs clarification because it is being misinterpreted, and abused.

          • Alexandra1973

            14 and higher.

      • Sick of it

        I agree with you, but if the people do not care enough about their constitutional rights to fight in defense of them, we have lost every vestige of the system created by the Founders already. Most people do not care enough about our old Republican system to lay down their lives for it and, therefore, I expect us to end up with a very different system or systems of government in the future. So many people talk about their love for the Constitution and then go about proving their utter ignorance of the system and their preference for Communism, if one reads between the lines.

        • connorhus

          Truer words were never spoken especially your last sentence. Too many people are trapped by the system and realize if we went back to the literal interpretation of the Constitution they would lose some of the socialist benefits they are counting on.

          • none of your business

            Last time the constitution was interpreted literally was around 1803.
            Learn about constitutional law from law school textbooks or at least read about it.

          • jane johnson

            Scalia is the only “textualist” on the current Court.

          • Sick of it

            Older folks can’t sell we younger folks on Social Security, since it won’t be there for us…we just have to pay for someone else’s benefits. I’d rather keep my money, invest it wisely, and use the proceeds to take care of my own family members.

      • journey

        Guess they can use the 14th amendment to justify, rationalize, etc.

        • none of your business

          No, Judges just make it up as they go along, like some dark ages baron evicting his tenants or taking more than his share of the harvest or creating some new fee.

          • journey

            That’s what I mean. Do as they please. Judges = dictators under the illusion of justice and fairness as sold to the public. I am always surprised when a judge actually weighs the evidence in front of him objectively and fairly.

      • none of your business

        I’ve written this before. Constitutionalists need to read about constitutional law and especially Marbury vs Madison 1804. The constitution you dream of was destroyed in Marbury vs Madison and that is exactly what the founding fathers intended. Take a course in constitutional law. Read a law school or professional book on constitutional law. I don’t like Judge made law any more than you do, but Marbury vs Madison established judicial supremacy back in 1804.

        • jane johnson

          There is a remedy: an Article V (Amendments) Convention, and quite a few states are already engaged in the process.

          • Alexandra1973

            NO.

            If we have another Con-Con, believe me, we will be CONNED. No more gun rights, for example.

            Leave it alone and actually enforce it.

        • connorhus

          Well my bachelors was in American History and my Masters focused on Early American so I have indeed taken my share of Constitutional courses and even a bit on Colonial Law. The shifting focus between Jeffersonian, Adams, later Jacksonian factions etc. brought with them ever changing opinions. One thing is clear however the opinion will change once again and what present day authors attempt to call settled Constitutional law will be out of date tomorrow. It’s just a matter of resetting the interpretation once again.

          • none of your business

            Did your books or professors ever explain that the meaning and effects of Marbury vs Madison? Or the founding fathers following Montesquie’s idea that Judges and attorneys should rule even the Kings of France?

          • connorhus

            Had the convention of 1789 not had so much delegate support for just such a ruling by the Judicial branch Marbury would have went much differently. However Congress did have a way, and still does have a way to combat such things they just chose not to do so. Most of the issues have a course to be dealt with. It isn’t a fault of the Constitution it’s the fault of those who refuse to use the tools they were given.

      • LHathaway

        None of their tinkering, as of yet, effects private affirmative action policies. Even in states that have ‘banned affirmative action’ private companies are free to use affirmative action to their hearts content. In fact, as things sit now, companies need iron-clad incontrovertible proof they are discriminating against white men in order to reduce the number discrimination complaints they face.

      • none of your business

        Maybe Henry 7 and 8’s method. Just tell the Judges what their verdict will be and threaten them and their families with death if they do not comply. Ever since Kaiser vs weber and Griggs vs Duke Power upheld affirmative action I have known the Judges are our most effective enemy.

      • archer

        The congress is useless, they can close down any leftist court they want except the supreme court, the 9th circuit should have been gone years ago.

    • Breaker Morant

      Hell, I live in Mississippi. I get agitated over leftists all the time. At the end of the day, though–I live in Mississippi. Ain’t none of this sh^t ever going to affect me. Sorry for y’all that live up north. Ain’t nothing hillary or obama can ever do that will affect us here in Mississippi. They can cut off all of the federal funds that they wish–won’t affect anyone but methhead white trash and welfare “democrats.” They can’t take our guns here, they won’t even try. Yeah, it’s humid and miserable in the summer, but…they won’t ever really screw with us down here.

      • Ain’t nothing hillary or obama can ever do that will affect us here in Mississippi

        For your sake, I wish that was true. But then I remember Ole Miss in 1962.

        However, by the time the Communist Party USA is done painting the rest of the country blue, even if they can’t break Alabama and Mississippi and a few other states, they’ll have such thorough control that they won’t care about Alabama or Mississippi.

      • journey

        You guys are the fifth column. Hang in there! Wish the whites would lay off the drugs. That’s the other plan – wasted/fry the white brain power.

      • none of your business

        What is it, 60 percent blacks? How can you stand to listen to them yammering or even to look at them?

        • Breaker Morant

          I work for a multinational company that brews and distributes beverages…I will leave it at that. My workplace is probably 50/50 black and white. The blacks that work with me are named Chris, Steve, etc.–no Martavious’ or Davantes in residence. They are good Christians, they are smart, and they work hard, and we all get along. They are a small percentage of the blacks that reside in MS, but they are the ones that I deal with on a daily basis. As for the others…I ignore them, same as I ignore the white trash.

    • WR_the_realist

      You’re wrong. We should demand that all judges be strict original intent constitutionalists. In practice that would mean they’d almost all be conservative whites, but it’s not our fault that the left hates the constitution.

      • If you have a way to make Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer and people like them adhere to constructionalism, be my guest.

        I’m not so optimistic about your chances, though.

        • WR_the_realist

          I don’t know what your point is. I would never approve the appointment of any of the people you listed (or numerous others) because none of them care about actually upholding the constitution. Robert Bork did. That’s why he was vilified by the Democrats (fellow Catholic Ted Kennedy chief among them) and his nomination was quashed. That was a turning point for me, I realized that I could no longer be in the Democratic Party.

  • dd121

    This is just another example why our political system doesn’t work anymore. There aren’t any constitutional solutions to the problem.

    • connorhus

      Oh it there is it’s just thought of as politically unseemly these days because the Republicans listen to the Femocrats BS.

    • Sick of it

      If we executed those who commit treason, it would be rather easy. The Constitution never created special classes of people with magical protection from prosecution or punishment.

      • none of your business

        No but the Judges did. The 14th amendment’s equal protection clause is excellent. But the Judges interpreted it to mean Whites have no rights.
        Andrew Jackson was the only President to object to Judicial tyranny. He said “Justice Taney has ruled, now let him enforce his ruling.” But Jackson caved and enforced the Supreme court’s ruling. So has every President since Madison.

        • journey

          Jackson was brave. He also took on the international central bankers. Also, got killed for that.

  • journey

    The very institutions that were created to safeguard the survival of this nation are now being used to destroy it. How clever of them.

    “where what’s always been this great American strength–this stew that we are” One very important missing piece in that statement, how good the stew is depends greatly on the quality of the ingredients.

    • none of your business

      Old French proverb: Society is like a stew. The scum rises to the top. The dregs fall to the bottom. In between is the middle class, the meat and vegetables.
      But our government and Judges are bent on a society of scum at the top dregs at the bottom and nothing in between. Being at the top, Judges are total scum.

      • journey

        You have no respect for judges. Believe we are on the same page.

        • none of your business

          It’s a lot more than disrespect. I can’t say more because my feelings about the American Judiciary illegal.

          • journey

            I know what you mean. This is the home of the free?

    • Max

      -and it only takes a small amount of $#!+ to ruin an otherwise good stew.

  • none of your business

    This is a mass of lies. Affirmative action is the law of the land. Every 5 years or so some Judge writes a sentence or 2 that is not just absolutely laudatory about affirmative action and both liberals conservatives jump on it. Liberals moan and groan that the statement is racist and the end of affirmative action. Conservatives do the same. Just look at Ca.’s Prop 209 and other anti affirmative action initiatives. All they do is give a discriminated against White person who has a $50,000 retainer and another half million in reserve to pay an attorney the means to file an anti affirmative action lawsuit he or she will probably lose.
    I hope Jeffrey Toobin lives to see his pension and social security and every investment taken away because he is White and homeless and eating out of garbage cans in his old age.

  • Obama is not a constitutional expert nor does he care about that document.

    • journey

      You are correct. Another delusion created by the media. He was filling in time while in Chicago.

    • WR_the_realist

      Obama is a constitutional expert. He knows exactly what’s in the constitution and wants to subvert it. That is why, as he stated in an interview, he favors a “living constitution”. That’s a code word for letting leftist judges pretend the constitution requires whatever law he wants to have, and forbids any law he doesn’t like.

    • mikekingjr

      Trust me, I saved this picture. Thank You. The DEVIL, incarnate. That’s no joke.

  • IstvanIN

    When did we become a nation ruled by judges?

    • journey

      You are correct. They have too much power whether on the state or national levels. Some of them will do anything to occupy a judgeship seat. Once they occupy that
      seat, extremely difficult to get unglued. Forget about the make believe story that judges can be held accountable, only if it’s extremely egregious and too blatantly to ignore.

      Judges have their own associations that increase their powers.

      • jane johnson

        You made a great point, maybe unintentionally, but still great: Obola’s appointees aren’t esteemed jurists, but affirmative action occupiers. Sotomayor even admits that she’d have never even gotten into law school without a.a. Wise latina, indeed.

        • journey

          No not unintentionally at all, unfortunately.

    • none of your business

      1804, Marbury vs Madison, exactly what the founding fathers intended.

      • journey

        Have to read up on that case again. But the Judiciary Branch was never taken seriously initially. Believe that’s one of the reasons for the smallness of the Supreme Courtroom.

  • JInSanD

    “this stew that we are”

    So now we’re a stew instead of a melting pot? Can I have mine without dark meat?

    • journey

      Actually, the dark chicken meat is juicier and more tender (just kidding).

      • mikekingjr

        I actually cook only boneless, skinless chicken thighs. To my mind they add the most chicken taste to any dish. For Romance, however, I insist on White meat only.

        • journey

          Have you tried putting honey on chicken skin before baking? The end product is deciduous and it keeps the moisture in. Okay, end of all this kidding. But what else do we have left, except humor?

    • M.

      He sure has a special way of using words.

      “And so for them to be able to see folks in robes that look like them is going to be important.”

      “And that has more to do with budgets and early-childhood education and stuff that needs to be legislated.”

      – Barack H. Obama

      • journey

        He’s trying to be black and folksy. Truly doubt his white side speaks as such.

    • mikekingjr

      Guess I’m going to be EATEN on top of everything else diversity has achieved. Good Grief! See ya’ll inside the pot. Don’t be late for dinner, ya’ hear?

  • Obola… change we cannot survive.

    White people need a country of their own.
    Northwestfront(dot)org

    • We have our countries. It is on us to take them back. And while I admire those who want to see a white ethnostate carved out of such beautiful and rugged land, it’s inconceivable to me that concentrating our people into one, easily destroyed location is a good long-term strategy. No, we must form strong enclaves throughout our lands and slowly take them back as single cells working toward a common goal.

      • But they’re not in truth our countries anymore. We are there. But they are not ours. Ours would imply a certain measure of control, over our own destiny and that of “our” nation. We have neither. On the other hand, what might work in Europe to take back countries and truly make them ours again would be to have whites heap themselves into one EU country at a time, making full use of the EU’s free mobility policy that they use to flood us with third worlders. We take over one country at a time without the need to fire a shot, at the ballot box, kick out all the non-Europeans, and then once we pass laws that will sustain the order we want to impose, we move on to the next country, leaving behind enough of us in the previous lands to make certain it does not revert. This would work in Europe but it is less clear if it would be helpful in America.

      • Trying to take back multiple countries or even the entire USA is not feasible at this point.

  • none of your business

    This just came on Fox news. Obama and ICE have just issued an executive order that; children created from the eggs and sperm of foreign nationals living in their own countries
    the fertilized eggs implanted in a surrogate Mother living in the United States will be American citizens since they are born in the United States.
    The eggs and sperm will be harvested? obtained? in their own countries, frozen and sent to fertility clinics in the United States where the eggs and sperm will fertilize each other in a petri dish. Then the egg will be implanted in a woman and delivered in America and thus a citizen. Hope I managed to explain it clearly.
    Invitro fertilization is very expensive. So are surrogates as they can charge a lot for living expenses and demand more money when the baby is born. The fertility clinic that manage this will charge enormous fees.
    Obviously this is all for the benefit of already rich Asians and Indians who can afford it. Of course the children will have all the benefits of America especially in state tuition at Michigan, U of Ill, California Wisconsin University of Pennsylvania and other top 50 state universities.
    The children can of course bring dozens of relatives in legally when they turn 21. Even more can come in on tourist visas for “family visits” and never go back.
    I wonder if the fertility clinics will abort the girl babies on demand as sex can’t determined until the babies are about 4 months along. Asians and Indians demand boys so the girls will be aborted.
    Obama intends to go out with a bang.

    • M.

      “I wonder if the fertility clinics will abort the girl babies on demand as sex can’t determined until the babies are about 4 months along.”

      Many fertility clinics today can determine the sex of the baby (among other traits, like eye color, avoid passing disease-prone genes, etc.) before the in-vitro fertilization. It’s a bit costly though.

      Here’s one of them: http://www(dot)fertility-docs(dot)com/about-us/clinics-and-staff(dot)php

  • RacialRay

    I thought that in the Ebama era we had ‘moved beyond race’. Seems like we are instead stuck right in the thick of it.

    I want judges and appointed officials to be selected from among ‘my people’, too. But not ones whose sole qualification is pale skin.

  • fgbrunner3

    Eliminate the lower federal courts.

  • fgbrunner3

    Obama is a clueless Marxist and a professional racist. Impeach Obama now.

  • John R

    It all started in 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that segregated public schools were “unconstitutional.” Huh? How could that be? They didn’t even HAVE “free” public education when the Constitution was first written. Since when does a person even have a right to a free education? And how can segregation violate that supposed right? If I were segregated into an all White school, I would be very happy, thank you!

  • American needs a Nationalist party.

  • white man did not start slavery nor did it trade in the world markets in slavery, White man ended it. Most to seem to be too ignorant to this fact.

  • Mark Hillyard

    The prophet Joel told us that the “heathen” would rule over us. The only other “heathen” to rule over God’s people “Christian” Israel was Jezzebel. She persecuted Israelites who worshipped the true God and introduced Baal worship. Israel was conquered by the Assyrians approx. 125 years before the Judah Nation was conquered by Babylon.
    Israel’s God given law stated that no foreigner was ever to be selected to rule over the people. Today we are ruled over by every form of heathenism and they tell us this is a good thing. They bring in their gods (communism is a religion and man is the god) and demand to be equal with us. It’s true we are supposed to render them justice and treat them well but we should not allow them to rule over us simply because they have different characteristics than we do. That has been argued plenty on this site.
    Some argue that we all came from Adam and Eve but that would be contrary to God’s law against miscegenation and the natural law that a white person married to a white woman cannot have a Chinese child naturally. Kind after kind.
    Anyway the point is that this was prophesied to happen and as we continue to disregard our God the problem of the “heathen” ruling over us will continue. However there is hope and we are told to pray for deliverance, it won’t come from them and their ways. See Joel 2:17. Google Biblos for a free and easy Bible with all the dictionary’s, concordance’s, and Lexicon available. It’s worth a bit of your time for you, your children, your country and for the soon coming King of Kings. When is the big question.