Friday, July 24, 2015

Of Cruz, Vattel, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

The essential simplicity the NBC people people keep repeating is:  Why did the Founders use the "natural born citizen" language in the Constitution, if not to impose a special prerequisite for electing a President?  They then refer to Vattel. 

The problem is, any meaning in their reference to Vattel (or whatever the version of Vattel) is, at best, ambiguous.  Look beyond Vattel to what the Founders intended.  What John Jay and Washington and likely others wanted to do was to leave the meaning of natural born citizen to be fleshed out by Congress, keeping in mind the desire not to allow the kind of perpetuation of foreign princes as had been so common in Europe.  They wanted a distinction, but they left it to Congress.

Well, Congress soon did make distinctions to define a natural born citizen.   Now, that kind of authority, in itself, is unusual:  To leave the defining and limiting of a term to a mere majority of Congress, as opposed to requiring a supermajority as for an amendment.  IAE, Congress did define the term, by statute of 1790.

Where I think people often go off the rail in their logic is where they suppose that Congress, by later replacing the statute of 1790 in which it defined the term with subsequent statutes that did not define the term, thereby revoked the first definition in favor of reverting to some supposed definition under Vattel.  But neither the Founders nor Congress ever clearly or affirmatively said they intended either to adopt or to revoke any version of Vattel. 

For all we know, whatever Congress intended with whatever the discretion delegated to it under the Constitution, Congress may as well have decided that a person who would be a citizen without having to be naturalized would be sufficient, in its judgment, to reconcile the concerns of the Founders.  IAE, insofar as the Founders left the additional determination of citizenship at birth to Congress, if Congress had authority to replace its first definition under its first statute or provision on the matter, then it had authority to do so again. And again.  If so, Congress (well, the Senate) has. 

The sense of the Senate was made clear on 4-30-08, when it by resolution confirmed that McCain was eligible.  In that resolution, the Senate did not state that a person who was otherwise a citizen without needing to be naturalized could become President only if born on a Federal base.   Moreover, McCain was not born on a Federal base. 

Since all this, we have had the Obama controversy. It is clear that Obama at least CLAIMS to have had a foreign father.  Moreover, his American mother "divorced" that father (if she was ever married to him), and she then married another foreigner, whereupon Obama may have either been renounced of his American citizenship or acquired joint citizenship. 

Whatever the concern --- whether Obama ever renounced his American citizenship, had authority to renounce it, or had authority without legal process to reclaim it --- regardless:  Under the Constitution, there is neither logic nor practical reason to suppose that the dead letters of Vattel, which were never unambiguously adopted to limit the discretion of Congress, should be somehow revivified for the purpose of requiring that either Congress or Scotus must disqualify a person (like Cruz) who is a natural citizen without need of being naturalized.

Unless one simply wants to recirculate stuff that no one with power in DC is inclined to adopt, he/she will have a burden to convince some rather influential legal thinkers.  I know you and I do not like Scotus, but this is an issue that will not be won with Scotus.  Nor, in light of the history, do I believe it is an issue that would be pronounced differently by any subsequently reasoning Scotus. Among others, Dershowitz has discussed this, as has Professor Jacobson.  See below.

As to practical concerns:  Apart from law, I see no empirical justification to suppose that a person born of a longstanding American parent, who is a citizen who does not need to be naturalized, would be the kind of "foreign prince" against whom the Founders were likely concerned.  Especially since there are few, if any, European princes nowadays who have executive authority.  Rather, it seems to me that we have plenty enough of homegrown traitors without need of fearing chimeras.  The candidates I fear most nowadays tend to be natural born Americans who have sold themselves to disloyal, un-American oligarchs.

So far, the NBC argument against Cruz peters out short on logic or common sense.  NBC people need to show:

- That the Founders, by the NBC clause, intended something that was both clear and exclusionary, that would be beyond the power of Congress to expand (as opposed merely to cautioning Congress while delegating power to it to further address the concern);
- That the Founders (and the ratifying States!), by the NBC provision, intended a clear restriction on the discretion of Congress to flesh out the definition of natural born citizen and its naturalization power;
- That the Congress that closely followed the Founders failed to define "natural born citizen" in a way that would encompass the situations of Goldwater, Romney, Weicker, McCain, Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal;
- That Congress, in whatever discretion it was delegated, has affirmatively and clearly specified, and continues affirmatively and clearly to specify, that a natural citizen not born in a State or territory of the Union is ineligible to become President. 

The Sources I have read fail to do any of that. Unless and until that is done, NBC people are simply hurting some of our better candidates. Do you have other sources that add anything new to the analysis, that have not already been hashed and rehashed?

I would like to see:  Where did the Founders or Ratifiers expressly adopt Vattel, or any version of Vattel?  Where did the Founders adopt Vattel in a way that would provide the exclusive method for defining a natural born citizen?  (Yes, some of the Founders read Vattel.  They were well read people. They read a lot of stuff.  They also knew how to clearly say they intended to require that the President be born in America of parents who were both natural citizens, if they had so intended.  But they did not.) 

I see where some of the Founders recognized a concern, which they recommended for consideration, wherewith they gave to Congress power to determine who else would be a citizen at brith, who would need to be naturalized, and how.  Congress did so consider.  Never did the Founders or Congress say that any particular version of Vattel must be adopted at any time, much less for all time.  Never has anyone said that a person a citizen at birth could never be eligible to be President unless both his parents had been citizens at birth.  Never has Congress said that the President must be born in America of parents who were both natural citizens.

Unless one can address those issues, one is simply repeating routines that have been hashed and rehashed, without additional illumination.


Scotus never ruled on the eligibility of Goldwater (born in Arizona territory), George Romney (born in Mexico), Or McCain (born in off base hospital in Panama).  Yet, the Senate, by Resolution of 4-30-08, passed a resolution that McCain is a natural born citizen under Art. II, Sec. 1, of the Constitution.  Per briefing by Theodore B. Olson and Laurence H. Tribe, Obama was eligible even though one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen and would have been eligible even if he had been born while Hawaii was a territory and before it became a State.

**The Act of 1790 provided that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

***The 1790 language (natural born citizen) continues in essence to be honored by Congress under section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (citizen of the United States at birth):
SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

****Article II provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President ...." Nothing in the provision requires that a natural born citizen be other than a person who would be a natural citizen, without needing to go through naturalization.  The provision does not deprive Congress of authority to provide for the requisites of being a person who would be a natural citizen without needing to go through naturalization.

*****Dershowitz also has discussed this.  See .  Cruz is a natural born citizen, not a naturalized citizen. .

******See the Jacobson article, at natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz .

"Most of the counter-arguments are historical conjecture, at best, and rely on speculation not connected to the text of the Constitution or any demonstrable actual intent or understanding of the Framers."

"[T]he English translation of the 1758 edition [of Vattel] did not use the term “natural born Citizen.”  That term did not appear until the 1797 edition, a decade after the Constitution was ratified."

"Two of the leading attorneys challenging Obama’s eligibility admitted that the term was not in the edition available in 1787, and they make the illogical bootstrap argument that the later change in the Vattel verbiage somehow applies retroactively"

"It is, at best, highly speculative to assert that the Framers looked to Vattel for the definition of “natural born Citizen.”"

"It seems likely that the virtually contemporaneous coloration provided by the 1790 act lends support to the view that the constitutional reference to natural-born citizens was intended to include those who acquired United States citizenship by descent, at birth abroad."

"Even if there were a holding that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” were “natural born Citizen[s],” that would not exclude other situations giving rise to being a “natural born Citizen.”"

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen."

"The burden should be on those challenging otherwise eligible candidates to demonstrate through clear and convincing historical evidence and legal argument why such persons should be disqualified.  That has not happened so far, and if two hundred years of scholarship is any indication, it never will happen."

"In 1904, Frederick van Dyne (1861–1915), the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State (1900–1907) (and subsequently a diplomat), published a textbook, Citizenship of the United States, in which he said:

There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens.... The Constitution of the United States, while it recognized citizenship of the United States in prescribing the qualifications of the President, Senators, and Representatives, contained no definition of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in 1868; nor did Congress attempt to define it until the passage of the civil rights act, in 1866.... Prior to this time the subject of citizenship by birth was generally held to be regulated by the common law, by which all persons born within the limits and allegiance of the United States were deemed natural-born citizens."

"Black's Law Disctionary (9th Edition) defines "Natural Born Citizen" as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government"."

"In 2000, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), in one of its reports, wrote most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens. This same CRS report also asserts that citizens born in the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are legally defined as "natural born" citizens and are, therefore, also eligible to be elected President."

(What about line of succession of Secretary of State, if Secretary of State is a citizen only by naturalization?)

*********Bottom line:  I think those who argue the NBC clause against Cruz are trying to pour water up a string, to no good or practical purpose that is empirically demonstrable.


Anyone who expects Scotus to declare a person elected by the people to have been ineligible is going to need to show such by clear argument and authority.
Set out the links in the NBC argument, and I will show which among them are specious, i.e., unclear, hence injeffective.
Some of the Founders were in the First Congress, which legislated in 1790 to define a natural born citizen.  Although that legislation was later replaced, the understanding of natura born citizen was not refuted.  That understanding did not preclude a person born outside the limits of the U.S. to be necessarily not a natural born citizen.  During the First Congress, George Washington, the Founder who was an impetus for the natural born citizen clause, was President.  Nothing suggests he disagreed with the understanding of the First Congress.  Certainly, one should look there before one were to look at Vattel.
If the 1790 statute was indicative of the interpretation by the First Congress of the natural born citizen clause, then its subsequent replacement with statutes that defined a person who would be a citizen at birth could hardly rescind such understanding.  Nor would such replacement say anything about what the Founders intended at the time the Constitution was ratified.
IAE, given modern proclivities, to be wholly educated in America and born of two American parents seems as likely to produce anti-American attitudes as favorable attitudes.  It is hardly a safeguard for loyalty to the Constitution or the American Ideal.


Anonymous said...

Disenfranchising Felons: You may prefer limiting the proscription to felonies that entail such moral turpitude as to show that the perpetrator so lacked potential to vote responsibly as not to merit the privilege? Some people, by their conviction, show that they should not thereafter be entrusted to vote responsibly unless and until they can prove otherwise. If they meet the burden to show they have redeemed themselves, then lift the proscription.

Most car accidents (ordinary negligence) would not evidence moral turpitude (such as incorrigible inclination to commit vandalism, embezzlement, theft, robbery, rape, mayhem, human trafficking, child endangerment, identity theft, abusing the public trust).

OTOH, a society or locality that plotted how to legislate and define felonies of moral turpitude in order to save the tares and discard the wheat would likely be a society that had already tipped beyond redemption.

On balance, I think disenfranchising felons of proven moral turpitude would tend considerably more often to exclude irresponsible miscreants than responsible voters. The downside of disenfranchising some generally good people would be offset by the likelihood of winnowing a better electorate.

For those convicted of youthful indiscretions that rose to the level of adult moral turpitude, perhaps they should be afforded later opportunity to prove they had reformed themselves?

In main, I think our problem is not that too few good people vote. Our problem is that too many poorly informed, easily misled, socially irresponsible, and easily corrupted people vote.

There is a larger problem: In a highly regulated society, especially one in which the family as an institution has been made no longer effective to raise responsible children, how can miscreants with records ever get a reasonable chance to redeem themselves so employers and societies will trust them?

I suspect salvageable people tend to find ways. Were churches to get back into charity and less into pandering for gov handouts, they may become part of the solution. For example, I know there are a lot of high functioning lawyer alcoholics. Somehow, many of them learn how to cope. Same with the Salvaton Army. People who come to depend on the Salvation Army tend not to be socially responsible. Yet, the Salvation Army probably has a higher rate of successful intervention than most other charities that purport to help such people.

I suspect paths to redemption tend to be available to people who are really willing to get with a redemptive program. Likely, more paths would become available if gov were to get out of the business of funding, esteeming, celebrating, or preventing the "bullying" of, bad behavior.

Anonymous said...

I emphatically agree that mere making of more laws and regulations cannot salvage a nation whose electorate has tipped into utter depravity! Obama and most of DC are likely beyond redemption. The Gay Groomers who are addling our youth are the sure omens of flailing depravity. Once depraved Progs rule the electorate, more rule making will just twist into more Progism. We will have to deploy more extreme measures to heal an extreme situation.

Call evil what it is. Judge evil acts. Revival. Disobedience. Nullification. Secession. As needed.

As things disintegrate further, intelligent profiling will become indispensable. Metrosexuals can mollycoddle depravity only so long. Then, nature sends its harsh reminder to all: Grow up! Mother nature is a "bully" against which FemiProgs are nothing but whineybutts. If the public pee-ers were removed tomorrow, who would miss them?

Anonymous said...

Everyday brings more evidence that the regime is sicker and more disgusting than imagined possible.
"One thing that’s rarely reported about Kerry is his link to Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s minister of foreign affairs. Among other things, Zarif’s son was the best man at John Kerry’s daughter’s wedding."
How many highly placed Muslims and Marxists does it take to demolish a republic? Not very many. ValJar. Huma. Now Zarif. The cuts keep coming. Obama keeps grinning. The devil keeps growing.

Anonymous said...

Depopulation is likely the reason for the carbon bank idea. Anything to fool the people to consenting to ever more controls. The real concern is probably how to manage a soft landing with limited resources when the inevitable ice age comes. Our neo-Nazi "scientists of morality" are thinking about how to achieve the next great reich during a time of artificially intelligent management of limited resources. They don't want to have to be concerned with an excess of "useless eaters."

If population reduction is a good idea, then the decent approach would be to sell it to consenting electorates and deploy general incentives -- not so-called expert regulators and elite death panels.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that a republic needs youth to volunteer for its military. How to recruit the muscle needed, while denying it political representation? Solution: No right to vote until fully emancipated. No full emancipation unless at least 25. Exception: Emancipation automatic upon and during good conduct military service. Emancipation lost during period of bad conduct in military. Right to vote permanently lost upon conviction of felony. Right to vote lost during period of drawing welfare benefits.

A more matured electorate would perhaps check against the depraved plundering of future generations. Letting depraved oligarchs deceive and mislead maleducated youth into voting for their debt enslavement and the demolition of the republic by many thousands of cuts has not been good for any decent living thing. People who reach old age who need to draw welfare ought not be entitled to vote to plunder more from coming generations.

Anonymous said...

Obama is a Marxist Muslim sympathizer and hater of the West. I cannot tell whether he is a Marxist with Muslim sympathies or a Muslim with Marxist sympathies. But, by his fruits, it's obvious he hates the American Ideal. The man has the set character of a monster. He was raised to be what he is. The people who helped mold and fund him find his middle finger against America to be attractive. However, they evidently explained to him the need for deceit. Hence, he now wears a flag on his lapel and puts his hand over his heart. The Rinos in Congress who fund and empower him are dung of the devil.

Anonymous said...

There are many moral cretins who believe if one nation has nukes, fairness requires that all nations have nukes. They believe if law abiding citizens have guns, then psycho felons should have guns. They do not believe that a republic that facilitates ordered liberty for a civilized electorate should use power when it has it to prevent Nazis, Jihadis, and Sociopathic Despots from acquiring power to set the world on fire. Indeed, they believe rule under elite "scientists of morality" (Marxists) tends to be better and fairer. To disagree is to act, in Obama's terms, "stupidly and poorly."

So, yes, Americans need to wake up to the fact that, under Obama's "calculus," fairness requires that leading Islamic rulers acquire nukes. Obama is a sociopathic moral criminal! -- now heading a nation whose electorate consists largely of fellow travelers and sheeple. If our electorate cannot wake up to smell the monster, then a path of monstrous default will become irresistible.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Why nearly three-quarters of Asian voters and, especially, 69% of Jews supported Obama in 2012 is one of life’s great mysteries."

Perhaps their culture is such that they believe more in centrally empowered and elitist "scientists of fairness" than they do in decentralized, rough and tumble, freedom among Americans? If so, those 3/4 Asians and 69% Jews are a big part of the problem confronting us, if we are to preserve any semblance of a representative republic. The kind of "diversity" we have been trying to absorb is simply not working for the American Ideal. Too many non-American minded elitists are now running all of our institutions. They are farming the silent majority as if they were mere sheeple, against whose pursuit of freedom these cultural devotees of elitists are grimly warring.

The ideal of a free republic was mainly a Northern European construct -- not an Oriental, Jewish, Hispanic, Arab, or African construct. So, what does the breakdown among modern immigrants say about the likelihood of preserving a Northern European (British Enlightenment) model for a free-thinking republic? We have been funding and driving our own destruction. We have been allowing cultural collectivists to come to America to get away from their hell holes, then they immediately set about recreating a hell hole ("noble lies") here.

Anonymous said...

Obama's DOJ won't indict. And the Rinos will think hard before they seek a special prosecutor. That tends to backfire to hurt Republicans. See Iran-Contra and Watergate.

Dems can appoint special prosecutors and get results. They can get an Assistant to the Veep indicted and convicted. (See Patrick Fitzgerald** and Plame affair.) In effect, they can force a Repub President to resign. (See Leon Jaworski.)

As for effectively investigating Dem wrongdoing, not as much.* See Ken Starr (Whitewater and Bubba-Monica-Gate). Repubs tend to get burned when they seek special prosecutors of Dems. Slick Willie is more popular today than many pols. (Thanks --s/o -- Maureen Dowd.) If anything, the investigation by Ken Starr made Slick more popular. It helped make his serial rapine seem like playful Bubba Love. Instead of stinging, it took the sting out. If anything, it shaped the culture to admire perversion. How else to explain where our culture is today?

The Sequence: The oligarchs who own media bought Dems. Media poisoned attempts by special prosecutors to go after Dems. Now, oligarchs own Rinos. Rinos have been burned when they "shut down the gov" and when they seek a special prosecutor to go after Dems.

In effect, the Republic (and its unrepresented silent majority) has no adequate means by which to check, balance, or restrain the Dino-Rino Oligarch-Corporatist NWO from its agenda for demolishing the American Ideal. A special investigation law and prosecutor would not fix what ails us. It would not cure a nation that is capable of electing a depraved, perverted, homosexual, America hating, Marxist-Muslim, malignant narcissist -- who was recruited to service a depraved oligarchy.

Even if a check were possible, the Donor Class and its Useful Idiots do not want a republic of free thinking and acting citizens. They want a sheeple farm, to be owned and operated by the Donor Class and its shills, which include SJW "Scientists of Morality."

Checks against the continuing fall to despotism are possible. They would require coordination across various fronts: A revivial of spiritual purposefulness. The Liberty Amendments. A Churchill for the Age. Legal and economic measures for inoculating representative republics from disloyal, dung of the devil international oligarchic corporatists.


*See Scalia worried that an overzealous, unaccountable independent counsel could pick his or her targets, and then prosecute them for even the most minor or technical offenses. Moreover, Scalia wrote, a partisan Special Division might appoint a committed foe of the administration or the individual under investigation. "Nothing is so politically effective," he wrote, "as the ability to charge that one's opponent and his associates are not merely wrongheaded, naive, ineffective, but, in all probability, `crooks'."

**See Fitzgerald's prosecution against Lewis "Scooter" Libby attracted criticism. On August 28, 2006, Christopher Hitchens asserted that Richard Armitage was the primary source of the Valerie Plame leak and that Fitzgerald knew this at the beginning of his investigation. A month later Armitage claimed that Fitzgerald had instructed him not to go public with this information.
Investor's Business Daily ran an editorial, which stated: "From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country's history... The Plame case proves [Fitzgerald] can bend the truth with the proficiency of the slickest of pols."

Anonymous said...

Booker T. Washington should be on anyone's short list of influential exemplars for Blacks. As should Clarence Thomas' grandfather (recommend the book). But he is not on the Progs' list, either. They have taken anti-White-acting (being perpetual, adolescent children) to astronomical levels. Their guiding meme seems to be, "Better to be Whiney than to be Whitey." We are now a nation many of whose Blacks have set their character in permanent narcissistic concrete. All our children, of every race, will be gravely taxed because of this.

Anonymous said...

The Black problem is worse than ever. Why? Because, when you reliably make excuses for criminality, you reliably get more criminality. Because Blacks disparage the good leaders they have. Lloyd Marcus, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain.

Look at an online list of 25 black leaders. You won't find those names on it. They are too smart, successful, conservative, and American -- without needing to make excuses, blame Whitey, or demand unending reparations.

So, who is keeping Blacks from adopting better role models? Well, people like Sharpton, Jackson, the Black Caucus. But it must be more than that. Who benefits by feeding divisiveness? Who is deliberately seeking the demolition and cannibalization of America? I suspect a lot of godless, corrupt oligarchs and Aino "Liberals" (sheeple farmers) of all colors see this unreaveling of decent society as being to their financial benefit and self interest.

Marshmallow Chooming Huffers. Like Obama. See "[G]etting kids to be better at waiting—in the lab and in life—is a matter of persuading them that there’s something worth waiting for."

I would say it must also be a matter of learning to have confidence in one's own powers, without needing to depend on "the man." The role of two parents is to teach boys to grow up to become men and girls to grow up to become independent adults. So, who among the Obamanites is teaching that to Black kids?

Anonymous said...

I don't believe it is a conspiracy. But there does seem to be a cultural aspect. That is, some cultures, not necessarily or primarily Jewish, trust more in rule under elitist (faux scientific) management than under representative republicanism. Some people are culturally disposed to trust pretending elites more than the independent judgment of themselves and their countrymen. When such cultures gain control or the majority, representative republicanism dies.

The culture that inspired the American success via representative republicanism arose with the British Enlightenment and out of Northern Europe. It did not arise out of Africa, Hispania, Arabia, Russia, India, China, or the Middle East. The more America waters down its freedom loving culture with immigrants from cultures steeped in elitist and Marxist ("socially scientific") collectivism, the more America forfeits its ideals. This is probably not primarily a white thing, a genetic thing, or a religious thing. More likely, it is a custom and culture thing. That is what Progs and Ainos want to drown with swamploads of "diversity." "Acting American" is the last thing Progs want to promote. No, what they promote is "Eating America." But first they have to drown us.

Anonymous said...

Dlanor an hour ago

"I saw a new born babe with wild wolves all around it." -- Bob Dylan

Republicans are besmirched as the party of the rich, even though both parties, and ESPECIALLY the Dems, are the parties of the rich. The difference is, the Dems are of the party of the rich who fool the monkeys. And the Dem monkeys are without the intellect to see through it. It's the Dem billionaires who are most practiced in getting the monkeys to fling p o o. So, how can a Republican combat this? Well, not by calling the Dems monkeys. Even though establishmentarians can call Conservative Republicans whacko birds. Evidently, Dems mean to push this technique until the Republic is collapsed or Conservatives at last take to the streets. Either way, it's a hard rain a gonna fall.

Anonymous said...

The cover-up was worse than the crime only in the days before the oligarchy consolidated its power. Now, bucking the oligarchy is worse than the cover-up. Justice Roberts understands.

The cover-up was worse than the crime only in the days before the oligarchy consolidated its power. Now, bucking the oligarchy is worse than the cover-up. Justice Roberts understands.

Anonymous said...

Minority groups are all over, opportunizing for more treats. And none of the dead people who vote would stand for going back to the days of individual responsibility. "Whitey Farming" is here to stay until the republic collapses. It's like a "last days panic." People are stocking up, hustling supplies and bennies while they can. Social trust is social capital, and the depraved people puppeting Obama are collapsing it because they are selling short. They are locking down the decks on the Titanic.

Anonymous said...

Re: "the CIA and other intelligence agencies have ways to cause a head crash"

Or, special-special agents of proven discretion for the oligarchy.

Why has the oligarchy been so brazenly confident for so long about brushing aside the will of the people at large? They see us as being of no more threat than whacko monkeys in a cage. Indeed, many Dems WANT the security of a cage. Double double boil and trouble. Interpret, scheme, smuggle and bubble. How many of the hearings shown for popular consumption by our demented Congress are choreographed?

Anonymous said...

Compare Obama's hatchet goons to those of Henry II.

Per Wikipedia, "Becket's assassins fled north to Knaresborough Castle, which was held by Hugh de Morville, where they remained for about a year. De Morville held property in Cumbria and this may also have provided a convenient bolt-hole, as the men prepared for a longer stay in the separate kingdom of Scotland. They were not arrested and neither did Henry confiscate their lands, but he failed to help them when they sought his advice in August 1171. Pope Alexander excommunicated all four. Seeking forgiveness, the assassins travelled to Rome and were ordered by the Pope to serve as knights in the Holy Lands for a period of fourteen years."

So, will Lerner and her accomplices be excommunicated and induced to do penance? Or will they be rewarded? Well, it appears Lerner will draw a nice retirement. The Obama regime will likely follow the example of Henry II and decline to arrest her. It will be interesting to see whether Obama "pre-pardons" anyone during his last days. Under the pretense of helping the nation to heal and move on.

Modern regimes have measures to monitor, terrorize, and guarantee the discretion of underlings that are more effective than the inquisitional tools of the middle ages. They have the goods on every potential squealer. Such a nice life you have. Be a shame if anything happened to it.

Anonymous said...

The irreligious often claim to be objectively indifferent to metaphysics. Except, for some inexplicably meta reason, they are very diffident about their indifference. To say their minds are possessed is on the mark. Many are as mouth foaming as any zealot. They are out to "save the planet." They have seen the light and take their version of saving the planet to be "objectively settled science." They don't often go door to door. But they are relentless in trying to control everything you read. And do. Very vexatious and small minded people electing themselves to rule. Think Obama. And Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Americans will preserve their participatory freedom to pursue their own happiness, or their pursuits will be determined by bureaucratic tools of scientists of centralized redistributive fairness. If Americans fail to act to preserve their freedom, they will be defaulted to fascist despotism that goes by Newspeak under the label of enlightened fairness. For Malignant Obamanites, fairly shared misery is better than individual responsibility and generally increased wealth.

Regardless, all minorities are at risk for being targeted for despotism. They will be instructed that despotism is necessary to achieve fairness. They will be misled to believe the despotism will be applied only against those who have more than they should. This will reduce the engine of productiveness, so that despotism will soon enough constrict its claws into everyone.

No one who is a minority, who is led to believe he has less than a fair share, will be supported in any belief that he can improve his situation without taking, under force of gov, from those who have more than they should. There are some highly admirable and successful Blacks. However, if you look online at lists for the 25 most influential or admirable Blacks, you will likely not find the name of any conservative, independent, freedom loving person. This is because minorities are being relentlessly indoctrinated to disrespect "acting white." That is the deceitful message that is deployed by those who prefer centralized despotism to individual freedom. This is the method by which they mean to eradicate individual freedom and every republic that promotes it.

Freedom is not simply a choice. It is a commitment. Without vigilant commitment, it is soon lost. When adults become weak willed metrosexual collectivists, freedom is doomed. That is when hell breaks out.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Can you think of any other reason a person might support illegal immigration and the global warming myth at the same time?"

Yes. The establishment is contriving myths masquerading as science and tailored for demolishing every representative republic. The depraved purpose is to replace each and every republic with a collective under the rule of a satrap for the oligarchy. We can uncover evil, kick its ass, and preserve freedom within our republic. Or we can take pretty beads, faux-saving the planet, false promises of security, and "fairness." This will reduce the masses of humanity to new serfdom (if not farm animals).

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much of this 2.3% expansion in growth is in any way real? What are we really producing more of? Given the regime's mindset for increased regulation, collective redistribution, and divisive race baiting preliminary to inventive new modes for making reparations, it would be surprising if any real expansion actually occurred. If the economy is really improving, then why are the projections being moved forward for when cuts in social security payments will be necessary?

It is counterintuitive that the economy can be expanding in any real sense during a period of relentless centralization of gov power, increasing regulation, redistribution, social unrest, and collectivization at the expense of individual liberty. I suppose the illusion of an improving economy is necessary if the Fed is to hope ever to pull quantitative easing out of a nosedive.

I don't believe the regime wants to improve the American economy. I suspect it wants to reduce the comparative wealth and power of America. So the world can be made more equal in shared misery. So Western Nations can be taxed for their white-privileged colonial histories. So oligarchic cannibals and crony socialists can feast. If the regime wants any improvement, it is likely only to make the reduction of America a managed retreat rather than a sudden collapse. It wants first to secure the election of an establishmentarian, like JEB or Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Elitists should not be entrusted to decide whether or how to favor or disfavor a domestic race. Nor should they be entrusted to decide whether or how to establish a domestic code for speaking about opinions. Not so long as participatory freedom within a republic is valued over rule under fascist despots. Instead of liberally progressing towards liberty, much of the West is trading one form of fascism for another form of fascism. Liberty is being crushed by knowitall do-gooders of redistributive fairness, who are paving the way for a depraved NWO. Busybody "scientists of settled morality" who seek to situate themselves over govs in replacement of God need to be roundly mocked.

Anonymous said...

"WND reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only “a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists” still protecting life as sacrosanct.
To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth."


Evidently, this "intelligent bioethicist" has gleaned from some meta fount of "moral science" that a being that is so far unable or unlikely to formulate plans for the future has no right or expectation to exist. So, its parents (or perhaps anyone with vested concerns in the child -- such as a licensed death panel or death agent) should have a legal right to terminate. I wonder how this calculus might apply to a being that was asleep and not dreaming? Or to a being whose "plans" were likely unagreeable (precrime)?

Unfortunately, Proggies tend to get drunk on the "wisdom" of such "elite moral scientists." This passes for "Prog Thinking." Trying to reason with someone who has little insight or intuition of any meta-moral Reconciler tends to be a waste. Without the Great Commandment, the Golden Rule, and the Ten Commandments, these people are about as moral minded as snowflakes blowing in the wind. It must require a lot of work for someone as smart as Singer to remain as morally depraved and stupid as Singer.

Anonymous said...

Do you suppose there is something more to the prosecution of political thieves than random bad luck? There seem to be rules above the law that are well communicated among corrupted political insiders. It's like the Mob. An operator soon learns whose ring to kiss, whose favorite charity to contribute to, and what kabuki show to choreograph. If he doesn't dance to the liking of mama mantis or head speaker, his head gets eaten. If he does dance properly, he gets some run of the place.

To prosper among political thieves, it helps to know where bodies are buried and to prove you can be trusted not to squeal. If you want to squeal, you'd better have higher permission and protection. Like a game of nerves among killers, with fingers ready to assure mutual destruction. Only the people who don't dance reliably and properly end up dead, marked, stripped, banished, or imprisoned.

Holder carried an aura of executive protection. Reid stunk of physical vulnerability. The mob is thick in Vegas. Probably also in Hollywood and DC. If you have approval and protection from Soros, Obama, or ValJar, then opponents likely assume you would not be investigated, or would be pardoned, and that antagonizing you to excess would bring down the proverbial ton of bricks. Seeing how weapoonized various fed agencies have become (IRS, DOJ, FBI, NSA), people try to avoid getting caught between territorial lines of fire.

What saved Bush the Younger from being investigated for so called war crimes? Probably fear by Obama that a subsequent regime might do the same to him. The Syndicate tries to avoid turf wars. After all, there are enough unrepresented, middle-class pigeons for everyone to plunder.

I doubt DC insiders who are bought and stay bought and who keep their corruption within approved zones get prosecuted. It's just that the zones for Dems are wider than for Repubs. Dems have to screw up big time to get prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

The idea of the U.S. as a nation of laws is largely a mask for the reality of the U.S. as a territory of oligarchs. When an oligarch is punished under pretense of law, it's likely because he has been voted unworthy of defense by the oligarchy. For the little people, there are hard laws. For the oligarchs, there are fluxing rules of engagement.


For analogical instruction, perhaps study how opposing silverback gorillas confront one another. Or how "alpha" females may confront one another in competing wolfpacks.

See "Wolves do not have an innate sense of rank; they are not born leaders or born followers. The "alphas" are simply what we would call in any other social group "parents." The offspring follow the parents as naturally as they would in any other species. No one has "won" a role as leader of the pack; the parents may assert dominance over the offspring by virtue of being the parents."

"Wolves (and other animals, including humans), display social dominance, he notes; it just isn't always easy to boil dominant behavior down to simple explanations. Dominant behavior and dominance relationships can be highly situational, and can vary greatly from individual to individual even within the same species. It's not the entire concept of wolves displaying social dominance that was dispelled, just the simple hierarchical pack structure."

Observe how, when Trump is criticized, he fires back, twice as hard and twice as fast.

Anonymous said...

Once Rome became an empire, no one dared confront any Caesar or Augustus before the Senate to seek to take power back from the regime. Our Congress is tumbling over itself to surrender power to the regime. A few years ago, Chris Matthews essentially begged Obama to just tell us what to do.

If Scotus has not become a rubber stamp for the regime, it is on the edge. In this state of affairs, a convention that tried to enact anything like Levin's Liberty Amendments would face a formidable series of monsters, concocted by the oligarchy, its puppet pols, banks, media, think tanks, and academia. The push will accelerate to control speech and the internet. Behind all this, the iron fist in the velvet glove will be the destroyers and killers who follow the intimidators. Division will be used to wag the dog and create emergencies to justify emergency disregard of every constitutional provision that has not yet been soiled.

I hope an Article V Convention can fix this short of civil war. But I have seen only a few signs of hope. Much seems to hang by threads. Oligarchs and their idiots are destroying liberty and spirituality, expecting to secure material rule and moral science. Seeking to reap the wind, they are likely Instead to reap for themselves and everyone else the whirlwind.

The goal of the establishment is not just to make the electorate incompetent, but to make even the best of the thinkers among the middle class realize they have been buried by liberty-illiterate immigrants and dumbed-down youth. The goal is to make the people, as in the days of Saul, beg for a ruler. That is, a mask for the oligarchy.

Anonymous said...

People who are hollow in spiritual idealism fall to dialectic materialism. That is, Marxism posing as social science. They have learned no other way to stand for anything. They hate spiritual idealism. They call it bafflegab, they believe they have proved that it is all bafflegab, and they believe all that is left is this: He who dies with the most toys wins.

These hollow people mean to push all who espouse spiritual idealism into the mud. On that account, they will sue you for not baking them a cake. And they will try to take your kids for not letting them be their groomers. They consider themselves to be elite redistributors, whose security rests only in material goods. They are at war with spiritual idealists, whose main love resides with liberty.

Security versus liberty. Collectivist (communist and corporatist) security is at war with republican liberty. The Rino-Dino establishment is at war with the main body of the American people, who have in main not been politically represented.

Anonymous said...

When Obama says he happens to believe in his own bs, he means that he feels no regrets in targeting white males to take their stuff to redistribute to his rainbow supporters.

But Republicans cannot say the same thing. Republicans in power do not represent Whitey. Neither do they represent fairness. What they represent is this: Him that gots and pays should get more. IOW, Rino Republicans have neither a natural majority nor a claim of morality.

Dino Dems are about consolidating power by redistributing plunder. Crony Rinos are about consolidating wealth --- by seeking to buy and control Dems. Neither Dinos nor Rinos are about preserving a representative republic or any decent middle class that plays by rules.

Anonymous said...

Depraved oligarchs have hired enough shills to throw the race and nomination into a smoke filled room. They will decide who is electable that they like, regardless of whether he or she be Rino or Dino. If Dems have no adequate horse, the oligarchy will nominate the most establishmentarian Rino that they calculate can be elected, hook or crook. The upshot will almost certainly be unpalatable to all decent Americans.

Good people will not prevail against depraved people merely by being good. True grit will be required, which tends not to be bountiful among the modern metrosexualized citizenry. This is why oligarchs and jihadis see America as ripe for the taking.

Anonymous said...

Complications seem biblical. The "Deal" that is needed in Iran is a territorial understanding among silverback gorillas, all of whom need access to the common oiling holes. But one that does not put nukes in the hands of jihadis.

Jimmy Carter was so set on fairness that he put in play the eventual surrender to complex forces of both the Panama Canal and Iran. In the case of Iran, the oil considerations and a review of the Eastern Front during WWII should have focused his mind more on real politic.

The geography would be politically complex even without the Islamic jihadis. With Obama as "our silverback," and Europe being militarily weak, a fatal miscalculation seems quite probable. Meanwhile, the focus of the U.S. seems to be on fairness for metrosexualized troops.

Netflix has an interesting 2 hour summary of WWII (and the jockying for oil on the Eastern Front) as visualized from space.

Anonymous said...

If depraved international billionaires want to make money while empowering Iran with nukes, they will do so regardless of what any one state may prefer. The U.S. is perhaps the only republic that can stop Iran and those who are depraved enough to enable Iran.

Obama seems to think the choices with Iran are deal or war. If so, Obama has worked to make it so. But what if the U.S. were to give Israel the resources and/or green light to take out Iran's nuclear facilities? If Reagan or Trump were to do so, would any other nation really protest in any meaningful way? Why does it seem that Obama wants to enable Iran to acquire the means to set the world afire? How can any sensible person trust this regime?

If Trump were to say he will do what is necessary to ensure Iran's nuclear ambitions are shut down, then both Obama and Iran will be working feverishly before the next election to ensure it is too late! There are no words adequate to describe how evil the occupant of the WH is. If there were any adults in Congress, this spawn of satan, together with Biden, Boehner, Kerry, McConnell, and every gay metrosexual 4 star appointed by Prezy would be impeached this week. Is there no adult in Congress or our military who recognizes the urgency?

Anonymous said...

The only candidate who could forsake funding from the establishmentarian cannibalizers of America in order to stand with Americans was Trump. To get the money to broadcast their messages, most of the other candidates had to sell out to the depraved oligarchy --- even though many of them try to lie about it.

Those candidates cannot likely beat the Dems, because the Dems have had so much more practice lying. The reason all institutions have come to be owned by Progs fronting for oligarchs is because Dems have been better liars for a considerably longer time.

Anonymous said...

The Bishops, like the Chamber of Commerce and establishment oligarchs, would destroy the republic to inflate their empires. What kind of Baal and Borgdom do they really serve, if they are making up for de-defining their religion and the republic by importing illiterates and illegals? Why not take their message to the places of origin of the people?

Anonymous said...

I have some concern with regard to Trump's directly donating against at least one Tea Party candidate in what appeared for awhile to be a close election.

All the candidates have their defects. Going into debate season, my order of presidential preference would be: Cruz, Walker, Trump, Fiorina, Huckabee, Carson, Jindal, Paul, Kasich, Perry, Rubio, Bush, Graham, Christie ///
Warren, Hillary, Sanders.

We face grave challenges on jihad, Iran, immigration, deficit spending. We need a decisive president who can deliver and enforce some better deals. I like Cruz on argumentation. I like Trump on executive experience. Obama has pushed America into a lot of bankrupt ideas. If Trump knows anything, it's how to recognize and when to declare a bankruptcy. Our central gov needs a lot of fat slicing. Let the slicing begin.

Anonymous said...

Progs, using minorities, are doing everything they can to centralize and collectivize power by justifying a national force to police an unarmed citizenry. Youth don't see this because they lack historical experience and their minds are filled in the present by educators who have been selected to shill for the establishment. Progs are hell bent to use every means at hand, including our youth, to demolish the republic.

Anonymous said...

Bernie Sanders thinks we're ready for full socialism. Gov ownership of ALL means of production. Leading to one world gov. With gov being owned and directed by elite oligarchs and socialists. Like Soros.

Gov itself is a fiction. It has no tangible body, except through human enforcers. The human actors who will decide the distribution of goods and services, who will assign quotas based on looney categorizations (race, orientation, corporate and tribal territories, reliability as stooges and goons, etc.) will be the enforcers and fascist rulers.

The gov forcers will not be fair, effective, or efficient. They certainly will not be able or inclined "to take from each as he is able and give to each as he needs." They will, however, impose much misery and kill a lot of people. Sanders and Soros are two sides of a nasty coin that buys the same hellhole.

Sanders and Soros are fraternally oxymoronic twins. They are both moral-scientists-who-don't-believe-in-morality, except as deceit to loosen idiots up for plunder. Obama and his regime are usefully idiotic, but they are also well fed puppets. They were too much spared the rod as kids, but they are working Americans up to give them a thorough thrashing. At least, one can hope.

Anonymous said...

My preference is for a Prez candidate to offer executive immunity to all who reclaim their freedom of association. Just appoint the right AG. After all, Obama has accomplished much the same with his invitations to illegal immigrants. Such a pronouncement may surprise the establishment by its popularity. If such a candidate truly believes Scotus has trampled beyond its domain, he may remain qualified, perhaps better qualified, to take the oath to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Anonymous said...

The moral scientists will no doubt provide brain wave helmets to measure whether the animal is feeling enough pleasure to signify and document consent. After that, they will contrive brain wave helmets to force the animals to feel pleasure. Before that, they will contrive brain wave media to mindwash the sheeple so they will demand to be sheared, and so they will rampage against anyone who dares to interfere. Ain't it good to know our superiors are looking out for us?

BTW, will babies made by human-robot conjugations be natural born citizens?

Anonymous said...

Fed encroachments relentlessly take away individual rights. Individuals will need to join and nullify, all at once, as nullifiers. To take down GovZilla, we will need nullification at all levels -- state and individual. We need a new Declaration of Non-Consent for like minded individuals. Soros can organize and fund demonstrations against common decency with no fear of fed prosecution. But mere individuals, unless joined, would be prosecuted, harassed, and jailed.

Anonymous said...

Fascists (Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, Islamists, International Crony Corporatists) believe in one world ruled by elites. They don't value your freedom or dignity. They think you must trust them to look out for you. Eat your peas and say thank you.

We are at a crossroads. We can have Sorosonian One Worldism. Or we can have Trumpian Representative Republicanism. We have a problem much like Rome's. We want to be a republic. But the world cries for empire. If we denounce colonialism, then how do we run an empire, give outsiders their say, and still preserve a republic at home?

One path leads to the fascist boot stomped on human faces, worldwide. The other path leads to competing colonizers.

Our preference would be for the West to establish and preserve representative republicanism. However, there are many problems. Many countries lack enough raw materials to preserve independence. Many countries are subject to invasions by primitive, psychopathic, psychotic and depraved pagans, Marxists, Materialists, and Muslims. Many have citizenries that are liberty illiterate. And even the U.S. Is being dumbed down by a relentlessly liberty-illiterate professoriate and oligarchy. So, to save ourselves, we do empire to stave off the psycho-materialists abroad. Which makes us attractive targets for internal cannibals. We badly need spiritual insight.

Anonymous said...

Crony Oligarchs seem to think they won't need people to buy or defend their stuff if they acquire enough land, resources, robots, and gov influence. The rub comes if or when the robots come to share the sentiment. We're going to need to nurture and assimilate some deeper understandings concerning spiritual empathies. That's hard to do so long as that topic is vaulted away.

Anonymous said...

Ideally, companies are in competiton both for consumers and workers. As robots take over more work, it's going to become more complicated for markets to distribute rewards based on "merit." I don't know the answer. But simplistic slogans like "free trade" aren't going to suffice in an age of gross oligarchies and currency manipulation.

Gov could help make workers more in demand by providing for publicly paid for and contracted out jobs for building and maintaining infrastructure. Things will really get interesting if or when AI "workers" demand a "living wage."

Anonymous said...

If we can trust our senses, Trump wants to save the republic (make it great again). Soros wants to destroy nations to make their peoples easy animals to shear and farm.

We can work to establish a city on a hill, to be a beacon for freedom and dignity. Or we can take a position on the great redistributing and manipulating borgdom and surrender all decency. NWA Progs are always good at arresting decency.

Anonymous said...

It would make for a good laugh to watch a young attorney in the DOJ try to make a case for investigating Soros with a view to prosecution. Why no Congressional Committee to investigate him and his network? Well, because it would be investigating itself.

Anonymous said...

Under Soros' perverse interpretation of Karl Popper, "open society" seems to mean keeping your options open until the time is made ripe to strike. It's paid-for gov putting crony corn out to attract deer to prime them for open season. It's destroying nations, republics, and borders, which produces one worldism -- all the better for farming lowest-common-denominator sheeple.

Soros made billions by currency manipulation. No doubt, China has studied the art. It will be interesting to see if or how Trump, if he really means to save the republic, proposes to counter such manipulations by international oligarchic princelings.

Some interesting stuff is found at It is rabidly anti-semitic and shows pronounced biases, so it can be read only while holding your nose and with big helpings of salt. It does, however, suggest some interesting takes, such as:

It was Soros who saved George W. Bush's bacon when his management of an oil exploration company was ending in failure. Soros was the owner of Harken Energy Corporation, and it was he who bought the rapidly depreciating stocks just prior to the company's collapse. The future president cashed out at almost one million dollars. Soros said he did it to buy "political influence."
The goal of the Agency [CIA] was exactly the same as that of the Open Society Fund: to dismantle socialism.
Soros has actually stated that he considers his philanthropy moral and his money management business amoral. Yet those in charge of Soros-funded NGOs have a clear and consistent agenda. One of Soros' most influential institutions is the International Crisis Group, founded in 1986. ICG is headed by individuals from the very center of political and corporate power. Its board includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, Morton Abramowitz, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State; Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe; and Richard Allen, former U.S. National Security Adviser.
His pose as a philanthropist gives Soros the power to shape international public opinion when social conflict raises the question of who are the victims and who are the malefactors.
The CFR report set out to make the case for a war on terrorism. George Soros' fingerprints were all over the campaign.
He proposes that the "democracies of the world ought to take the lead and forge a global network of alliances that could work with or without the United Nations."
[W]hat Soros himself has to say: "In old Rome, the Romans only voted. In the modern global capitalism, the Americans only vote. The Brazilians do not vote."

Anonymous said...

Given Soros' promotion of Obama and Hillary, why is it W who is shouldered with the blame for the WOT? Insofar as Slick is W's "brother from another mother," it would be refreshing if JEB were to admit that he and Hillary work for essentially the same establishment.

Behind the plunder and deceit, do Soros and the establishment he fronts want the American republic to serve as a façade, to appear to respect world law and to appear to give the world votes to run the empire -- but for the empire really to be run by corporate oligarchs? How should the world empire be empirically led, while still preserving the American republic, domestically?

Unfortunately, to dismantle socialism to replace it with worldwide corporate cronyism is just to replace one kind of elitist fascism with another. Open society my foot! It's NWO.

Compare Soros is known around the world as a top notch political bandit and revolutionary mogul who destroys economies for personal profit. Throughout Europe and Asia, he is regarded as an ego maniac who sees only himself smiling in the rear view mirror following his self-generated revolutions.
He then detours into another concern for the US by rendering a fortunetelling romance of increasing unrest spilling into the streets as violence with a vengeance. Is this conjecture by Soros or does he have insider information?

After having been burned by the lies of Bernie Madoff, is *Elie Wiesel anywhere to be found to call out the promotion of worldwide corporate fascism by Sorosonians? I have so far not ascertained whether or to what extent Wiesel may be pro or con Soros.


Who can stand against Sorosonian Fascism that has run so amuck? Unfortunately, the holocaust pumped a lot of hedge stuff to the surface that is not cream.


*Elie Wiesel -- "If someone had told us in 1945 that in our lifetime religious wars would rage on virtually every continent, that thousands of children would once again be dying of starvation, we would not have believed it. Or that racism and fanaticism would flourish once again, we would not have believed it.

Anonymous said...

The people who push the Black Lives Matter meme have an agenda. That agenda is big intrusive central gov apparatus. That apparatus will be crony run. It will not be fair, effective, efficient, or American. It will be anti-constitutional. It will take from poor Blacks to create a saggy pants de-class.

The Oz puppeteers who push BLM are irresponsible, entitlement minded, cosmopolitan destroyers of republics. They want power to be crony resistributers to masses made to beg for redistributions. They like fishing the hood so much they want to take it everywhere. How is this good for Blacks, Americans, human beings, or soft furry animals anywhere? The best thing for ghetto black males is to grow a pair and man up to seek freedom and dignity -- not booty. Any pol who perpetuates and appeals to the BLM meme is a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

Immigration is the issue. If Cruz can't explain himself (and I doubt he can if Trump gets properly aggressive), then he will be hurting. I like Cruz, but he must soon show that he fully understands this: No one who talks a good game to Conservers of Liberty but who betrays them to elitists will be long tolerated.

Cruz, in defending the H-1B increase, has cited a study by the American Enterprise Institute that claimed 183 jobs for U.S. nationals are created for every 100 H-1B workers employed on American soil.

I don't trust such a study. People are tired of games. They want borders enforced and Americans employed. Sometimes, the smart people, like Trump, speak in the direct language of 4th graders. Cruz may have fooled himself with too much nuance.

Enforce the borders. Employ Americans. Anything less is, and should be, a losing position. The establishment has been caught lying too many times. There is no tolerance for establishment mush talk on the border and jobs.

At this point, it appears that the only way Trump will get behind is if he goes wobbly on immigration. It's about saving the republic. For all his brilliance and character, Cruz had best show he understands, and right quick.

Anonymous said...

Everyone except Trump has to dance for dollars. See Walker and Fiorina have both signaled readiness to go after Trump.

Recall Univision's recent spat with Trump. Jerry Perenchio, former CEO of Univision and national finance co-chairman for John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, has apparently contributed close to $1.6 million.

Anonymous said...

We remember how the endorsements by Crist and Giuliani turned Florida to give the 2007 nomination to McCain over Romney. I suspect Huckabee was pleased that he and Mushy McCain had blocked Romney. The establishment has this time contrived to ensure no non-establishment candidate (Cruz) has a chance. It probably did not foresee Trump. At this point, I see no effective banner under which Americans likely can gather to oppose an establishment drone except that of Trump. Even if Trump is playing us, his foray appears to advantage Cruz more so against the establishment than otherwise would be the case. That said, I will look at some of the opportunistic players with a suspicious eye. So far, I think Trump's level of committment has surprised and knocked the anti-American NWO types back on their heels. I'm loving it.

Anonymous said...

America Matters. If 90% of solving a problem is identifying it, and if Americans should say what we mean, then maybe we should begin by categorizing and saying who and what are our enemies and antagonists.

Of all the below-the-belt mendacity and audacity of the establishment --- the disinformation and misdirection of the aino-rino-dino-jino Establishment has blobulated enough to sink any boat. These subhumans, who have been so far educated as to lose all compass of morality, are reliably quick to tell us such gems as:

FAIRNESS: We must be fair to all races and to undocumented workers. But how is it unfair to require documentation? How is it fair to invite illegal voters in exchange for handouts taxed to and paid for by working Americans? How is it fair to encourage pregnant women to drop anchor babies in America or to lie about it? How is it fair to relieve Mexico of its social obligations to its most destitute class in order to saddle America with the responsibility? How is it fair to export policies of social hellholeism to America?

ONE WORLDISM: We must move towards a one world NWO of global citizens. But why must we move towards a lowest common denominator world in which human freedom and dignity will be sacrificed to nutcase Islam, Fascist Socialism, and Oligarchic Rule?

EQUALITY OF RESULTS: We must equalize the distribution of material goods. But why must talented and energetic workers pay booty to able bodied people who are content merely to vote for a living? How can that sustain an economy?

UNEARNED SELF ESTEEM: We must leave no child behind. But why must genius be held back, even as immense challenges accumulate, just to allow those who are less talented to feel better about themselves? Why should those who only take be encouraged to be so proud on that account as to wear their pants on the ground?

DIVIDE AND RULE: We must categorize, regulate, and "reparate" people by race, sex, gender, orientation, culture, politics, and criminal natures (organized crime posing as religion). Why?

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: We must not allow people to have preferences regarding whom they associate with or do business with. Why?

WIDGET-IZATION: We must allow men who feel like boys to use young girls' restrooms. Why? Taxpayers must help soldiers and felons "to transgender." Why?

GROOMING: We must allow fascists to take tax revenues to fund their grooming of schoolchildren to experiment with strange sex techniques and to obey speech codes. Why?

LINING UP: We must not profile for thugs and religious nutjobs. Instead, we must queue up in endless lines to be randomly patted down by TSA. Why?

INDOCTRINATION INTO DEVIANCY: We must be indoctrinated and made to celebrate thug "music" and deviant behavior. Why?

FORSAKING OF MORALITY: We must not allow any notions of higher spirituality to compete in the public square against the established secular religion of "moral scientists." Why?

Anonymous said...

INSULTING "LOVE": We must conflate sodomy with love, love with empathy, god with a permissive peer, and holiness with headcutting and injustice. We must call a half born baby a non-person. Why?

DISMANTLING SOCIETY: We must dismantle faith, family, and fidelity, to replace them with the deconstructed minds of lost children who are taught to marry anuses. But why must children be left to search for moral meaning in depraved ISIS or fantasy Marxism?

NASTY ROOSTING PIGEONS: To rectify colonization, we must open our borders to allow our culture to be diversely colonized by dregs of all types. But why must we allow reverse colonization in order to cure previous colonization?

CRIME AS RELIGION: We must tolerate the religion of Islam. But why? When did learning to say the slogans needed to keep your head become a "religion" in the sense of being something you actually believed in? Why must we tolerate those whose leaders will not tolerate the keeping of their heads by those who do not believe in their religion?

PAYING OVERCLASS TO ABUSE US: We must allow our elected representatives to legislate to delegate authority and then pretend not to be responsible. (Evidently, our corruptly established Congress believes it can delegate both authority and responsibility, and that it can get well paid for doing it.) Why should we not whack every representative who agrees to reduce the votes needed to enact a provision so he can then assert excuse for pretending to vote against the provision?

GLOBAL FASCISM: Some high IQ but socially ignorant and corrupt subhuman poseurs have worked overtime to impose what they call progress, but what is really global fascism. I call them subhumans because that is what a human being becomes when he or she advocates against freedom and dignity. What we have is a worldwide pandemic of "walking Prog viruses." These subhumans are carriers of contagious stupidity, mendacity, audacity, malignant narcissism, and unadulterated evil. Have you trumped a boot up an elitist's rear today?

Anonymous said...

Loot Bags! Yes, that's a perfect meme for describing how self-help Rino redistributers solicit support from weak-minded Dino redistributees. Booty callers and booty callees. Booty duty and party hardy. Let those who will do the work that Americans won't do clean up after the party's over.

Here's how to organize looting so it's less disruptive: Use police stations as clerk offices for taking orders from looters, so looters can order what they want without needing so much room to destroy. Put loot bags in patrol cars, so police can amiably short circuit law violators by diverting them with loot. Hands oot; that's how to loot. That will keep those who are born to the hood and their commie organizers from smashing through your windshield.

Hillary should be asked whether she aggrees with this strategy: Loot the economy first, so looters won't have to loot it for you.

Anonymous said...

People will feather their nests. But not everyone will make it their career to show talent as an attack dog on behalf of crony corporatists.

As far as evidence of anti-American cronyism, what other explanation can there be for the rabid advocacy for immigration among establishment types? Should we just chalk it up to short sighted blindness brought on by greed and willingness to plunder and deceive coming generations of Americans? If so, that is hardly a ground for recommendation.

I don't think wilful plunder and deceit via crony corporatism make for the kind of competitive free enterprise that promotes either the American Ideal or what is good for America (or the world).

Popular culture is promoting the unholy alliance of Rino redistributers and Dino redistributees at the expense of ripping responsible people. I agree -- that kind of popular culture is not good.

Anonymous said...

If Russia and China want a new Silk Road and a new world reserve currency, things will get ugly. Given how Obama has weakened America, nations will want to find the strong horse. That's what Obama has been working for -- to ensure America can no longer be a strong horse. That's what the Clintons know how to exploit. That's what will be bad for America and American business.

Meanwhile, America's "elites" push for no borders and one world government. However, the liars don't yet quite admit it. Instead, they focus on poor people living unfairly in the shadows and jobs Americans won't do. They hope, by the time we notice their lies, mendacity, and idiocy, that America as a nation will be kaput. It's hard to say who is most misguided, stupid, and evil -- American youth who go to help ISIS, or American elite apologists who talk about making America "fair."

Elites of the World: Dig out your heads! One world gov means lowest common denominator. Do you really want to live next door to Section 8 raving jihadis, commies, and fascists? Section 8 used to refer to military discharge on account of being crazy. Now it refers to elitist plans for integrating us to an open bordered, one world society. IOW, destruction of America by crazies who tell us how smart and fair they are.

At this point, given all the robbery, debauchery, and idiocy that Obama, the establishment, and its "smart" elites are daily imposing on America, how can anyone say what will be necessary in January 2017? Sun Nie Whoo: When playing chess, don't tell your opponent how you have committed your next 8 moves.

I want Cruz. But if Cruz is as smart as I think he is, he won't be making silly attacks on Trump. Nor will he be commissioning them. What we should know is this: We Don't Need No More Stinking Knowitall Establishment Elitists Talking Crap About Fairness!

Anonymous said...

Abortion is an important moral subject. But a people's first priority must be to not abort their nation. If we don't assimilate a majority for enforcing the border and ending anchor baby shenanigans, we won't have any law -- much less abortion law. Scotus has ruled on abortion. In due time, Scotus needs to be slapped from its toddler high chair on that issue and a number of others. But that cannot be done if we don't first save the republic.

Anonymous said...

Re: "All citizens born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

Agree. The reference to "all citizens" (of states) recognizes that some citizens are born in the U.S. It does NOT say that every person born in the U.S. is automatically, by virtue of birth, a citizen of the U.S. While the language seems ambiguous and incoherent, it ought not be interpreted to impose national suicide.


A study in 2010 found that only 30 of the world's 194 countries grant citizenship at birth to the children of undocumented foreign residents.
Since 20 August 1986, a person born in Australia acquires Australian citizenship by birth only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident or upon the 10th birthday of the child regardless of their parent's citizenship status.
Some countries which formerly observed jus soli have moved to abolish it entirely, conferring citizenship on children born in the country only if one of the parents is a citizen of that country.
Because of an enormous population, India abolished jus soli on 3 December 2004.

NOTE: Another article provides some background information, even though it seems to imply a social justice argument for some kind of global citizenship. See

To include African Americans and children of permanent resident aliens, the Clause had to be interpreted not to require everyone to have citizen parents, so long as the parents were present on American soil by the consent of the U.S. Government. That interpretation represented a modification of Vattel’s and (arguably) Burlamaqui’s views (however plausible). And, of course, our view also meant that the Clause should not be read as conferring birthright citizenship on the children of aliens never legally permitted into the United States.
I cannot escape the conclusion that the framers and ratifiers of that Amendment consciously intended to perpetuate the subordination of Native Americans who had not renounced their tribal allegiances, even if they did not intend to subordinate non-white immigrants.
The reality is that the nineteenth century Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship for children of aliens in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and it has been accepted with virtual unanimity by the American people ever since then, if not before. As a result, the nation can be said to have effectively consented to a reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that confers jus soli birthright citizenship on children of aliens never legally admitted to the United States.

Anonymous said...

Wong Kim Ark deals explicitly only with children of legally admitted aliens. The undocumented alien population then was much smaller and may well not have seemed significant....
Acceptance of the Wong Kim Ark precedent therefore cannot be said to involve explicit acceptance of jus soli citizenship for aliens not legally present in the United States, either by the Court or the American public.
[A] number of organizations favoring immigration restriction have repeatedly advocated either for congressional legislation denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented aliens, or for a constitutional amendment to achieve that result, or for both.
In the 110th Congress, one hundred and four Congressmen have co-sponsored the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would legislatively interpret the Fourteenth Amendment not to provide citizenship to those born to parents not legally present in the United States, beginning after the date of the law’s enactment.
These efforts have all failed. Indeed, none has come anywhere close to winning congressional approval or broader popular support.


My take: Congress has left us with many ambiguities. Whatever it takes, we ought not interpret them to force us to national suicide. The NWO idea of global citizenship is both pollyannish and an evil affront to human freedom and dignity because it would reduce the world to a lowest form of ugly fascist despotism.

Anonymous said...

In the Prog mind, treason against the American Ideal has been reduced to something not so bad, as a kind of euphemism for the progressive transformation of a representative republic into a fascist despotism. Progs see that as a good thing. Another way of saying fundamental transformation. This cannot be fixed by mere appeal to reason or faith. Monsters have selected themselves to rule. Now, human beings (faithful Americans) must select monsters for quarantine. If necessary, for destruction. West was West, East was monstrous, and now West has been colonized by East. As the central apparatus agglomerates more power, fed judges grease the way to oligarchic fascism.

Anonymous said...

What I detest about Murdoch, Soros, Buffett and most Rino pols is that they don't really advocate for or represent America or the West. They represent Fascist One World Corporatism, not Americans or American business interests. I hope Trump represents America. If so, that's quite a rare thing for a billionaire.

Compare It explains One Worldism as a collage of corporations, inexorably determined by the cumulative bylaws of business. All anxieties tranquilized.

If we do not want America to be reduced to a One World lowest-common-denominator of sheeple to be farmed under third world primitive paganism, religious marxism, and international corporate fascism, then we need leadership towards making America, and American business, great again.

Anonymous said...

The problem is in international crony corporatism that buys pols, undermines govs, and cannibalizes nations. The way to stop crony corporatism is not to tax domestic corporate or business profits, because those corporate taxes are in main simply passed on to consumers. When not passed on, they harm our productive capacity. That is a cost!

When we tax corporations to foot overhead for universities to educate foreigners to take the knowledge gained and compete against us, that is not, from our nation's perspective, a wise investment. It is not a "free ride" for our citizens to finance the education (and defense) of foreigners.

Moreover, these kind of "free rides" quickly add up and become addictive bad habits. When the bill is tallied, the lie of "free stuff" becomes apparent, as it turns the next generation into debt slaves to work to pay down interest on the national debt. These "free rides" are as harmful as drug highs. They induce kids to waste their time, impose opportunity costs, devalue incentive, and steadily increase national debt, thus future taxes.

The way to diminish the crony corporatism that is killing our republic is to regulate against corporate crony lobbying and/or to tax the hell out of it. Corporate lobbying should be looked upon as a non-business expense and therefore a taxable consumption, to be taxed to the agents who authorized it.

End the income tax altogether. Replace it with a consumption tax (both on retail sales and as a year end progressive tax on individual cumulative consumption). Apply the consumption tax against agents for businesses only when they engage in activities declared to be non-business and therefore consumptive -- such as political lobbying.

Similarly, most money transfers out of country should be considered as taxable events of consumption. Impose tariffs to put the brakes on Chinese currency manipulation. Encourage foreigners to invest in American business, but tax them when they take funds out of America. Do not tax exports of durable goods so long as the money that is paid to buy them is brought into our country.

The problems needing to be addressed are: End crony corporate buying of pols and govs. Encourage individuals to save more. Level the international trade game. Brake the gap in consumption between the masses and the aristocratic oligarchy. Tax oligarchic consumption activities as needed to increase general employment, as by gov contracts for building and maintaining infrastructure. (I would rather that able bodied people be required to accept gov funded jobs than that they grow accustomed to laying idle while collecting "entitlement" money made by our working class.)

Until such problems are addressed, the cash-strapped masses will continue to be duped with "free stuff" that will simply make them ever more burdened as slaves to pay interest on accumulating and future indebtedness, while oligarchs stock their tax havens and "charitable" foundations. BTW, non-profit charities should pay consumption taxes as an ordinary person.

The problem is not the businessification of America. The problem is in the businessification of America's crony politicians. The purpose of such cronies is not to serve America, but to cannibalize America and establish One World for farming the masses as permanent debt slaves. Cronies sell their programs to lofos by calling what they sell "free stuff."

Anonymous said...

To accept a basis for human decency is all that is needed. Various "Good Books" can be useful for helping many people to find the metaphors they need to put meaning into their language. These metaphors and parables for enhancing communication about ways for promoting decency need not be "walled off" from the public square. It is for the use of figures of speech that religion can be helpful or important. Not for gov-forced cajoling of literalistic systems of belief about metaphysical matters for which any literalistic description is beyond mortal capacity.

The powers of gov need to be limited so that the powers of individuals can be enhanced. When gov law-making busybodies intrude too far against individual powers (such as by unnecessarily inhibiting freedom of association, expression, enterprise, and faith), then they and their gov need to be slapped back -- as any fine lady would slap back a too fresh suitor.

Anonymous said...

See And


As to general and crossover appeal, that is on the increase. Some pols show Hillary leading JEB by 9% and leading Trump by only 6%. So Trump is either gaining on, or faring better than, the main establishment candidate. And, YouTube videos are going around, showing Trump support in minority communities. Trump seems better among non-college voters. This will fit nicely with his immigration and jobs positions (provided MSM campaigns of distortion fail). Trump also shows 24% support among non-whites.


It's not clear what is specifically driving Trump's recent improvement against Clinton, though she has been battered by a slew of negative headlines in recent months, especially regarding her email use at the State Department. Trump, apparently buoyed by various controversies, has also had a near monopoly of presidential media coverage.

But the CNN poll does show where Trump is drawing much of his support: white men. The survey found that Trump led Clinton among white voters by 55% to 41%, and among men by 53% to 42%. In contrast, Clinton was ahead among women by 60% to 37% while dominating among nonwhite voters by 71% to 24%.

Trump also did a bit better among voters who didn't go to college (he led 48% to 47%) and those who make $50,000 or more (he trailed 49% to 48%).

The other GOP presidential candidates didn't fare much better than Trump against Clinton, either. The poll found that Clinton led former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida by 9 points and Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin by 6 points, similar to her margin against Trump.

Anonymous said...

COS must be done while we still have a liberty-literate citizenry! If we wait until the demographic is flipped to liberty-illiterates, COS cannot then save us. We would by then have become a nation unfit for liberty.

Anonymous said...

Standing. Affirmative rights in the Bill of Rights were important to give individuals standing to insist that the gov not tread upon them as individuals. The difficulty in Negating gov so it does not tread beyond enumerated powers is often one of acquiring standing to complain when it does.

The challenge is to find effective levels at which gov actions that are beyond its authority can be nullified. As people get more and more fed up with ObamaGov, the issue of nullification gets hotter and hotter. As a form of nullification, many would now cheer for tar and feathers. I would love to see the surprised looks on faces of DC metrosexualizedprogs as they are run out on rails.

Anonymous said...

If you want a good foundation, build it on a better rock of assimilated faith (belief), family and fidelity. The law is as shifting as sand and conquest.

Many so called "real Americans" are loyal not to America but to one-world corporatist plunder and deceit. The crux of your argument (and belief) is that the drafters and ratifiers shared a firm and clear understanding of NBC. I doubt many of them shared your interpretation. Else, why did the First Congress take it on itself in 1790 to flesh out a definition of NBC via enactment, rather than Amendment? You can say you don't believe Obama is Prez all you want, but at the end of the day, he is still there.

Anonymous said...

I think the Founders did delegate considerable authority to Congress on the issue of qualification to be President. For example, see Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, which makes the Vice President first in the line of succession and allows the Congress to provide by law for cases in which neither the President nor Vice President can serve.

To that extent, it is among those situations where ordinary enactments can apply, without need of Constitutional Amendment. Congress did interpret the NBC provision in 1790. That enactment was rescinded, but the gist of it has not been clearly replaced. So the issue remains somewhat ambiguous.

I do not believe the Constitution unambiguously requires that the only people eligible to run for President are people who were born on U.S. soil of two parents who were then and there citizens. I believe Cruz is eligible. I think precedent has taken that hill. The war to preserve the republic has moved on.

I am not sure of the extent to which Congress, without Constitutional amendment, may have power to modify qualifications prerequisite to be President. They do enact provisions for succession. Thus, in successive order, Congress recognizes the Vice President, Speaker of House, President Pro Tempore of Senate, and Secretary of State. But what if on the death of a President none of them were to happen to have been born on U.S. soil or of two parents who were both citizens?

Anonymous said...

Very few legal provisions, even constitutional ones, are completely unambiguous. To try to make perfect law is a fool's errand. An errand for which the ACLU provides too many fools to count. Much of the problem relates to how to place the burden of persuasion. (How to flip the bird-on.)

Since the Constitution is not a suicide pact, the burden should be placed on advocates for anchor babies to show that the drafters and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended the ambiguous language in it to require that babies born of illegal invaders be recognized as citizens.

The natural born citizen clause, being undefined and ambiguous, needs to be interpreted by resort to typical canons for legal construction. An important factor would be the intent of the drafters and ratifiers. Some argue that intent is clear, by reference to Vattel. Others, me included, argue there was no clear reference or understanding among all the drafters and ratifiers to refer to Vattel. The purpose was to help protect the nation against conflicted foreign princes. None of the candidates today is a conflicted foreign prince. Most seem to be more loyal than some of the scum we have previously elected.

The question to the Vattel advocates concerning the NBC clause is this: How should the "bird-on" of persuasion be flipped? Considering the Obama precedent, I think that bird has already been flipped.

Anonymous said...

A problem is in due process. Once you give citizenship to the child, you have to give the child representation if the parents refuse to go and take the child with them. The nation is not equipped to have that many hearings.

We have a similar situation with the highway beautification act. Beautifiers want to remove highway advertising. Problem is, the billboard owners are entitled to due process. There are just too many billboards. So states, as enforcers on behalf of feds, can rarely get around to actually getting the billboards removed. Instead, they give lip service so the feds will not cut off highway funding.

We need to proceed with all these ways of addressing the problem. And with every one of them, we need to be building the wall. A big beautiful wall. Wall baby, wall!

Anonymous said...

Monica Crowley says Obama wants Biden over Hillary. Obama is a dangerous "friend." The truth will not be pursued to the point of hurting Obama. The NWO Establishment is too pervasive to allow that. If pursuing the truth can push out Hillary without hurting Obama, then it may be pursued.

IAE, reporters should be making FOIA requests to see the written policy protocol for preserving documents and equipment. They should pursue the change of custody of the Blackberrys. They should ask to see where Hillary, et al, signed property sheets to give all property back to inventory agents.

Years ago, Army companies had property officers who were responsible to keep up with such things. Surely something like that system still exists in the government. The record likely exists, unless the regime does not want to find it. If the smell gets bad enough, a judge should appoint a special master to pursue a "fishing expedition."

Ask Obama: Hey, Obama, if your own admin cannnot inspect to trace your own property records, how you gonna inspect Iran for compliance with your nuclear agreement?

Anonymous said...

Mohammad the Madman and Islam invert Allah to justify plunder and rapine. Obama inverts fairness to justify taking from producers to redistribute to cronies, homies, and jihadis. Criminals invert having been mistreated as children as justification for ripping off society. Homies invert slavery of more than 150 years ago as justification for sticking their behinds in society's face. Swindlers invert the greater good as justification for erasing and cannibalizing nations.

Man's capacity for plunder and deceit is bottomless. The only real salves are faith, family and fidelity. But those are the enemies of plunderers. And that is why Obamailk work so feverishly to divide and destroy them. Is Obama evil? Is the sky blue? Is America circling the drain?

Anonymous said...

Elitists, Rinos, and Dinos do not believe in nations. They believe in One Worldism. Like Obama, they cannot profess loyalty to America as an independent republic except by lying. They are as good at lying as Muslims are at taqiyah.

Anonymous said...

The establishment speaks with a forked tongue because it represents One Worldism (lowest common denominator rather than human dignity) instead of the American Ideal. It obfuscates and lies about nearly everything.

LIE 1: They lie when they say the 14th Amendment must be interpreted to confer citizenship upon anchor babies born of undocument invaders who never became legally domiciled subjects of America.

LIE 2: They lie when they say it is impractical to rid the nation of illegals. Simply require a national ID card that can be associated with current information for purposes of confirming eligibility to drive, vote, and/or be in country. Require employers to confirm legal status before employing any person, on pain of considerable fine or forfeiture. Outlaw sanctuary cities. Do those things and most illegals will self deport. As to the remainder who continue to live in the shadows and on the underground economy, they can gradually be reduced as the wall (a big beautiful wall) is enforced.

One Worlders will always lie. They will cry that these things are unfair, inhumane, impractical, and anti-constitutional. They are nof fair minded people. They are nasty sheeple farmers who want to destroy America and turn the world into one big hellhole for morlochs to farm eloi. These people are not good. They are very nasty villains with creased pants, raised pinkies, and ivy connections. Unfortunately, too many of the infants on Scotus are on board for the lies.

What I detest about Murdoch, Soros, Buffett and most Rino pols is that they don't really advocate for or represent America or the West. They represent Fascist One World Corporatism, not Americans or American business interests. I hope Trump represents America. If so, that's quite a rare thing for a billionaire.

Compare It explains One Worldism as a collage of corporations, inexorably determined by the cumulative bylaws of business. All anxieties tranquilized.

If we do not want America to be reduced to a One World lowest-common-denominator of sheeple to be farmed under third world primitive paganism, religious marxism, and international corporate fascism, then we need leadership towards making America, and American business, great again.

Anonymous said...

Well, what I detest about Murdoch, Soros, Buffett and most Rino pols is that they don't really advocate for or represent America or the West. They represent Fascist One World Corporatism, not Americans or American business interests. I hope Trump represents America. If so, that's quite a rare thing for a billionaire.

Compare It explains One Worldism as a collage of corporations, inexorably determined by the cumulative bylaws of business. All anxieties tranquilized.

If we do not want America to be reduced to a One World lowest-common-denominator of sheeple to be farmed under third world primitive paganism, religious marxism, and international corporate fascism, then we need leadership towards making America, and American business, great again.

Anonymous said...

A competent executive (President) could, via executive order or agency regulation, clarify that native birth does not by itself confer citizenship. Let him direct Fed Agents to provide for the status determination and/or deportation of everyone under the age of 18 whose citizenship is in doubt because of lack of certificate or proof of long established or legal domicile.* There is no Amendment or Statute that confers citizenship based on native birth absent evidence of legality of domicile.

Let President Trump do it. That's all it takes. Then let some lib or cheap labor establishmentarian assume the burden to get standing and prove soon to be President Trump has acted outside his authority to take care to defend the Constitution and enforce the laws.

Establishmentarian insects and parasites are scurrying because Trump has lifted the rock under which they were building their muckety muck. No wonder they hate him! Look, bugs crawling and scurrying everywhere, every one of them raising a nasty appendage to shake at Trump and call him "coarse and vulgar." Ha!

*Do this going forward, because up to now there have not been affirmative and reasonable means for establishing, confirming, or certifying citizenship. Going forward, national citizenship ought not be indicated via birth certificates. It ought to be confirmed via federal identification.

Anonymous said...

Congress has not used its naturalization power to make citizens of children born of undocumented parents. It has used its power to create a presumption that abandoned children found in America were born of an American parent, and that presumption becomes conclusive after a number of years.

Advocates for anchor baby citizen status claim the 14th Amendment makes all native born persons into automatic citizens. However, the 14th Amendment does not do that. It requires, for native born citizenship status, that the person be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Thus, in theory, no legislation is needed. All that is needed is a test case to establish a precedent to clarify the existing law: That being native born, without more, does not make one a citizen. However, this would be unattractive, politically. Our establishment press would make very unpopular any party or person who sought to deport a recently birthed and abandoned baby or a child of long residence in the U.S.

So, the easier political path would be for Congress to legislate to provide that no child born in the U.S. of parents who are not then and there legally domiciled in the U.S. is not a citizen. Birth certificates should not, by themselves, indicate citizenship. Then, require employers to use e-verify before they hire employees. As much as possible, proceed with ways to encourage self deportation and to prevent future border jumpiing.

Otherwise, evil establishmentarians will win the day by lying and twisting the arguments to useful idiots.

Anonymous said...

Libs believe in evolution. I do too. I think evolution is how God interfunctions with us. Let evolution work. There are limits to the genetic drag we can reform. We may aspire to a future where advances in neuroplastic conditioning can reform bad acting adults. But until we are there, we need to be pragmatic and not try to absorb so much evil that it kills most capacity for good.

At this point, evil is gaining. We cannot afford to import, pander to, and tolerate people who are hoodified, zombiefied, or radicalized against human liberty. There are too many of them. Heck, they have taken almost all institutions, including the White House. We need to wall away the hoods, zombies, jihadis, marxists and other infectious parasites, predators, and one worlders. When they show themselves to be incorrigible, we need to dispatch them as we would mad dogs. Either eliminate them or neuter and quarantine them. Do not enrich, fertilize, or breed them.

This is not about race, sex, or creed. It's about this: Are you an evolved human being, or are you a conditioned parasite pajama dude posing as a humanitarian?

Anonymous said...

Has politics ever been more dishonest? Wealth in the West is distributed far more unevenly than most people realize. By that observation, I do not advocate for gov coerced redistribution. But I do note how dishonest it is for the people farmers -- the people who have most of the wealth, who own most of the media -- to be telling all the people who have so much less that they are the ones who need to share their country with ever more immigrants.

We have Conservers of Liberty who want to spread opportunity. However, they are stymied at every turn by a dishonest establishmentarian class that wants little more than to import ever more cheap labor, all the better to fertilize and farm a never ending supply of perpetual debt slaves. Meanwhile, these lying people farmers tell Conservatives how evil ("coarse and vulgar") they are. The world has become a bawdyhouse that is run by idiotic pajama kids (dinos) and lying poseurs and monsters (rinos).

Anonymous said...

If America commits suicide, it won't be able to provide sanctuary for anyone, much less everyone. If no one is allowed to be held responsible for his own bad ideas and choices, then bad ideas and bad choices will kill everyone. We can't save humanity by importing irresponsible anti-humanists who practice
striking pitiful poses and hiding behind women and children while pretending to be responsible humanists. We can't save the world with other people's money.

Anonymous said...

Establishment Republicans are considering requiring a loyalty oath from Trump to swear not to run against the establishment if the establishment declines to make Trump its candidate. Yup. Establishmentarians have been so loyal, both to their party and to America. Charlie Crist comes to mind.

How about an oath not to give hurricane hugs to creepy, anti-American Prezys? How about an establishment oath not to help Dems against conservatives who are selected as Republican candidates?

The more I see of monstrous anti-American establishmentarians, the more I wish Trump would take the dare to run a third party. (Really a second party.) I hope Trump devours the Republican Party and leaves it as a steaming pile.

Anonymous said...

China's mercantilism is seasoned with people farming. We need to take account that Chinese princelings farm their people as cheap and expendable laborers. This gives China an inhuman advantage.

One counter against that consists in the advantage of inventive thinking that will more easily find expression in a free republic. However, America is killing that advantage with regulations that seem designed to help China reduce us to its model.

China buys our pols. Steals our industry. Farms its people. if China increases its understanding of AI robotics, it may soon compensate for its lack of freedom and free thinking. We need to think and do creative things to escape China's currency manipulation and death grip on our economic freedom.

Anonymous said...

You're thinking in curvelinear space that exceeds the dimensional capacity of most linear thinkers. Which is why they don't get your last sentence: Anything that can't go on forever, won't.

Anonymous said...

Re: "[E}liminate the corporate tax, and tax all businesses, regardless of how organized, as pass-through entities, for which each individual owner is responsible for paying tax on respective share of the profits"

This should be done, but it would take a Donald Trump to sell it.

Anonymous said...

Were the states considered as separate countries, their incapacity for independence would become more obvious. Taken separately, they all lack at least some of the resources required for true independence or complete capacity for self governance.

As one state attempts to provide better health care or education, then people move there to take advantage of such programs, but they tend to locate their businesses elsewhere, Their tax base departs for locales that do not tax them to pay for such amenities.

States may partially overcome such counter tendencies by joining together in interstate pacts and agreements for providing for kinds of insurance, health care, education, and safety nets. That kind of local and bottom up control would seem better than top down federal impositions. Smaller states should seek to merge with larger states.

However, when it comes to international trade, there is little substitute for federal trade and tariff policies to help produce balance and prevent the undermining of America.

Eventually, smaller countries should seek to merge with larger countries, when such can be done without submitting to tyranny.

Anonymous said...

When free trade is twisted to justify the kind of currency manipulation and transference of industry that leads to one worldism, it is amazing how much political correctness it produces. Political correctness often comes to produce a culture that is incapacitated from identifying its opponents. It makes it "coarse and vulgar" to say that certain things and concepts are evil or stupid. People farming things -- like Islam, Marxism, Fascism, Crony Corporatism, International Oligarchism, Open Borders, Anchor Babies..

Political correctness undermines the freedom of faith, thought, speech, enterprise, association, and personal defense that is necessary to sustain decent human dignity. Free trade, in the modern usage of the term, has come to mean the destruction of every republic and every shining city on a hill. Everyone who wants to preserve any oasis of human freedom and dignity is called names that the public is conditioned to take as dirty. Names like nationalist, privileged whitey, colonialist, phobe, bigot.

The West, which has done more to enhance the freedom and dignity of women and minorities than any other area or culture, many of which are prone to being slavers, mutilators, repressors, bangers, rapists, dopers, head cutters, man drowners, and man burners, is called the bad one. Free trade, as it has come to be understood, has become code for the destruction of independent republics and free politics.

This Faux Free Trade Open Bordered One Worldism is how the non-West seeks to sink the West. It is how those evil people who want to farm people find and unite with those incompetent people who want to be farmed -- in order to enslave every independently competent free thinker. This is how Evil unites with Ignorance to make government of, by and for the people -- perish from the earth.

Trump is our Anti-Stupid. Cruz is our Anti-Evil. Together, they are emblematic of perhaps our last chance to turn from the evil and stupid path of politically correct, fascist despotic, one worldism.

One Worldism need not always be bad. Smaller countries should merge with larger countries when such can be done without spreading or submitting to tyranny. At present, however, there is so much tyranny and anti-human people-farming going on in the world that America can ill afford to let down defenses.

Anonymous said...

Now that Coulter has weighed in, Cruz seems to be slightly modifying his understanding of birthright citizenship to come closer to Trump's. IOW, the Negotiator (Trump) was in front of one of the foremost Debater/Scholars (Cruz).


[S]ome constitutional scholars, according to Cruz, say that Congress could simply "pass a law defining what the words in the 14th Amendment 'subject to the jurisdiction' means." But in order to assure the repeal of birthright citizenship, the Texas senator also proposed wholly amending the Constitution, saying "we should change the law."

"My view, there's a good faith argument on both sides," Cruz said. "We should pursue whichever one is effective but as a policy matter, we should change the law."


I don't see why Congress should try to paint the lily to define what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

Instead, just pass a law that says: Children born in the United States and any of its territories, who are born of parents who are not at the time citizens, lawful domiciliaries, or lawful residents, are not thereby to be deemed to be citizens of the United States or any State thereof.

Anonymous said...

I don't find the labels "Conservative" or "Libertarian" to be reliable or helpful. They have become more like noise than meaningful words. Too many so-called Conservatives want big central gov to intrude in states' rights. Too many Libertarians have no clue regarding how important it is not to let the central apparatus undermine the values of faith and family if a small gov republic is to be sustained.

What I want to know about a person or candidate is whether he has any understanding about what is needed to be a Conserver of Liberty. I would like to see both political parties made irrelevant.

I suspect there are many Conservers of Liberty among both parties who are sorely fed up with both Rinos and Dinos. Together, they probably constitute a large majority. However, they are usually not represented because the fascist, established, donor class has figured out how to divide and bind them as so many subjugated bundles of fasces. What I look for are candidates who can inspire, unite, and motivate those voters.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the 14th Amendment:
Does "under the jurisdiction" require exclusive jurisdiction and allegiance as a subject? Or may it require only superior, or coequal allegiance? If exclusive, then no one could be a dual citizen. But they can. So something less than complete allegiance is required, at least for persons who are born citizens without needing to be naturalized.

May a person born of a mother who is legally domiciled to work in the U.S. be considered a citizen, notwithstanding the citizenship of his parents? And, if citizenship of children follows that of their parents, how could a child born of a mother who is a citizen of one foreign nation and a father who is of another be anything other than a dual citizen? Should the citizenship of all children of foreign nationals be probationary until the child has come of age and either sworn allegiance or shown himself to have been lawfully domiciled for some number of years?

This begs a very important question: How is it understood that a person may be born a citizen without being naturalized? That fundamental question does not seem to have ever been well or completely answered! (It has been partially answered for some cases by statute.) Vattel discovered that diffrent nations had different precedents, traditions, understandings, or provisions on such subject, with variations of jus soli and jus sanguinis. See "These outlines of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship policies are, as noted, ideal types. In fact, most countries, while generally emphasizing one or the other, have increasingly blurred the distinction between the two by including elements of both in their broader procedures." (Who has a right of citizenship without having to earn it, and who must, by naturalization, earn it?)

Before the Constitution was ratified, there were no citizens of the U.S. Before the Articles of Confederation, there were domiciliaries and citizens of 13 different colonies. Before Congress first defined how a person may be naturalized, how were citizens commonly understood to have been "grandfathered" in? I suppose by some vague understanding based partially on parentage and partially on place of birth. That was sufficient at that time, because the issue did not often come up. People who were not citizens were not attracted to come and live among foreigners because there were no significant attractants, like public welfare. (When Texas was admitted to the union, who among the residents automatically became citizens of the U.S.?)

Anonymous said...

When we became a republic instead of a number of colonies of a monarchy, the idea of citizenship as opposed to subjectship became more important. But to what do we now look to confirm, on challenge, whether a person is a citizen? I would say the factors may include long residence, evidence of unquestioned allegiance, and perhaps military service. If we don't recognize such as grounds for citizenship, then we are in danger of becoming a nation of stateless children and refugees, leading to a permanent and inferior class of helots, with a legal right to be here, but no right to representation or to vote as citizens. This would plant seeds of a kind that the Civil War should caution us against.

However, if we're looking to factors instead of statute, then we're looking at common law -- either already established or unfolding before us. Or, some would say we should look to Vattel (which I have not found to be convincing for our situation).

It is not clear to me that all contingencies can be provided for in some comprehensive statute. Trying to ratify or legislate a perfect solution would probably lead to a very invasive central gov. Instead, we should perhaps look to practical modes for a way forward.

This begs to your issue: Should children born to parents who are legally domiciled under some long term work visa be considered as "probationary citizens," until they establish their personal allegiance as adults? I think a President, in taking care to defend the Constitution and laws, could make a reasoned interpretation of that. Indeed, he must, because, so long as Congress does not act, the republican based demographic of the nation is at risk. So, what interpretation should he make?

Absent some express statutory provision, you seem to be be right: There does not seem to be any requirement to recognize or naturalize children born of foreign workers, even if they are legally domiciled.

Moreover, the Statute of 2011, at 8 U.S.C. § 1401, would not avail them relief where their parentage is not unknown. So, they eventually would have to undertake to earn and apply for naturalization. I have no problem with that.

Anonymous said...

Did you see where Feds arrested Brandon Raub, a vet who posted something on FB about 911 conspiracy? See Evidently, Raub's right to talk conspiracy theory smack is considered potential terrorism. Shades of Clockwork Orange!

I do not for a second believe our gov sponsored the destruction of the twin towers. However, why is our gov swarming, arresting, holding, and involuntarily counseling someone (ostensibly for his self protection) merely because he posted some crazy speculation?

And what informed and sane person would want this regime to be able to nullify the Second Amendment?

Anonymous said...

Under a President Trump, Congress may be asked to take jurisdiction over issues for determining the constitutionality of statutes concerning citizenship status away from Scotus. As things stand, Congress hides behind Scotus, so Congress can claim an excuse for serving the interests of oligarchs instead of the people.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Cruz is a natural citizen at birth. And so?

I think your problem is this: You want to assume the Founders provided for anchor babies based on "native birth." (Which they did not.) Then, you want to assume they foresaw that Congress might provide for ways by which a child could become a citizen at birth under statute. So you assume they foresaw a need to derail that.

This chain is just too weak. It does not make sense in logic, practicality, or good law. Were Clinton and Obama better for the nation than George Romney, Ted Cruz, and Bobby Jindal? Would John Jay's son have had conflicted loyalties?

Anonymous said...

Under our Constitution and Amendments thereto, there does not appear to be any such a thing as a native born citizen -- unless the child's mother was legally domiciled in the U.S. or its father was a U.S. citizen. To assert that being "native born," in itself, confers citizenship, is to assume that the Founders provided for anchor babies. In the absence of controversy, the Founders may or may not have so assumed, but they did not provide for it.

To qualify a person to become President, no provision clearly provides that there is some constitutional distinction between a citizen whose allegiance is to the U.S., who was born of an American parent, versus a citizen who was born in the U.S. of two parents who were both then and there American citizens.

Some people have simply let their imaginations run away with them, to recommend a remedy that is not a remedy and that provides no protection for the people. There is simply no empirical basis to suggest that electing George Romney, John McCain, or Ted Cruz would have been more dangerous than electing Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, or Barack Obama. Rather, if NBC people have their way, they will disqualify some of our better candidates.

Anonymous said...

There is no Constitutional Provision, Amendment, or Statute that purports automatically to confer citizenship on an alien child born of non-American citizens who are not legally domiciling or residing in the U.S. Nothing makes extended visitation under a passport, without more, ground for making a mother or her baby sufficiently "subject to the jurisdiction" for purposes of making the baby, subsequently born in the U.S., an automatic citizen.

The practice of presuming to make such a baby a citizen is grounded only in an incorrect assumption. So long as no Federal Court rules incorrectly, no Amendment or Statute is needed to correct the problem of so called anchor babies. All that is needed to provide clarity is for a competent President to issue an appropriate Executive Order, to give guidance to all immigration agencies.

A competent President could, via executive order or agency regulation, clarify that native birth does not by itself confer citizenship. Let him direct Fed Agents to provide for the status determination and/or deportation of everyone under the age of 18 whose citizenship is in doubt because of lack of certificate or proof of long established or legal domicile.* No Amendment or Statute confers citizenship based merely on native birth, absent evidence of legality of domicile of mother that is sufficient to show that she was "under the jurisdiction" at the time of birth.

Let soon to be President Trump do it. That's all it takes. Then let some lib or cheap labor establishmentarian assume the burden to get standing and prove the President has acted outside his authority to take care to defend the Constitution and enforce the laws.

Establishmentarian insects and parasites are scurrying because Trump has lifted the rock under which they were building their muckety muck. No wonder they hate him! Look, bugs crawling and scurrying everywhere, every one of them raising a nasty appendage to shake at Trump and call him "coarse and vulgar." Ha!


Anonymous said...

*Do this going forward, because up to now there have not been affirmative and reasonable means for establishing, confirming, or certifying citizenship. Going forward, nation of citizenship ought not be indicated via birth certificates. It ought to be confirmed via federal identification that shows either that a parent was an American citizen or that the child was born in the U.S. while the mother was "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. For example, identification that showed the mother was in country under a valid work permit would show that she was "under the jurisdiction" Mere status as a diplomat or a visitor under a passport would not. The U.S. needs to have in place some central registrar to show citizenship status on a continuing basis. Absent special permission to the contrary, employers should be required to confirm that they have verified citizenship status of all employees, on pain of legislatively imposed substantial fine.


We do have a Statute of 2011, at 8 U.S.C. § 1401, under which Congress undertook, among other things, to statutorily define a citizen at birth to include a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States. That statute confers a kind of "deferred birthright citizenship."

What is needed is a way to clarify that this statute does not by itself confer full birthright citizenship. This needs to be done in a way that does not purport to toss abandoned children out of the country without fairly attending to them. That can be done readily enough, given Executive guidance and a central registrar.

Notice that the statute talks about a child of "unknown parentage." A fair implication is that Congress recognized that to establish parentage by non-Americans may be an alternative ground for denying citizenship, notwithstanding place of birth. I'll wager that various nations that do not accord birthright citizenship have adopted a similar provision, in order to respect two concerns: Care for children, and care for not incenting anchor babies.

I wonder why Obama was dog whistling for alien children to come to the U.S.? Compare

If some Federal Court were to decide that every form of lawful presence in country is sufficient to confer birthright citizenship to a subsequently born baby, then immigration officials should undertake to determine whether a visiting woman is pregnant and limit her legal stay to less than the time remaining for gestation.

Anonymous said...

*Do this going forward, because up to now there have not been affirmative and reasonable means for establishing, confirming, or certifying citizenship. Going forward, nation of citizenship ought not be indicated via birth certificates. It ought to be confirmed via federal identification that shows either that a parent was an American citizen or that the child was born in the U.S. while the mother was "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S. within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. For example, identification that showed the mother was in country under a valid work permit would show that she was "under the jurisdiction" Mere status as a diplomat or a visitor under a passport would not. The U.S. needs to have in place some central registrar to show citizenship status on a continuing basis. Absent special permission to the contrary, employers should be required to confirm that they have verified citizenship status of all employees, on pain of legislatively imposed substantial fine.


We do have a Statute of 2011, at 8 U.S.C. § 1401, under which Congress undertook, among other things, to statutorily define a citizen at birth to include a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States. That statute confers a kind of "deferred birthright citizenship."

What is needed is a way to clarify that this statute does not by itself confer full birthright citizenship. This needs to be done in a way that does not purport to toss abandoned children out of the country without fairly attending to them. That can be done readily enough, given Executive guidance and a central registrar.

Notice that the statute talks about a child of "unknown parentage." A fair implication is that Congress recognized that to establish parentage by non-Americans may be an alternative ground for denying citizenship, notwithstanding place of birth. I'll wager that various nations that do not accord birthright citizenship have adopted a similar provision, in order to respect two concerns: Care for children, and care for not incenting anchor babies.

I wonder why Obama was dog whistling for alien children to come to the U.S.? Compare

If some Federal Court were to decide that every form of lawful presence in country is sufficient to confer birthright citizenship to a subsequently born baby, then immigration officials should undertake to determine whether a visiting woman is pregnant and limit her legal stay to less than the time remaining for gestation.

Anonymous said...

I think we have no choice but to make choices. One way or another, most people arrive at a moral code, even if it fluxes. The way I see it, a people can aspire to support maximum individual freedom, or they can fall to the false security of collectivized fascism.

To me, fasces means bundle. Collective. In that respect, every form of government that prefers to subordinate individual liberty to collective control is fascist. Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, Slavers, Aristocrats, Oligarchs, Crony Corporatists, Jihadis, Despots, Totalitarians -- they're all a kind of fascist.

The only non-fascists are the people who seek by a representative form of checked and balanced republicanism under God to preserve human liberty. Without freedom to think, assemble, speak, associate, and enterprise we are not fully human. We are then sub-human. To the extent a collective, by pretense of pc justification, takes away freedom, it takes away individual responsibility. That is a bad thing. The person who willingly consents to that is behaving badly.

To me, the political test for what is "bad" is this: What interferes with the establishment and sustenance of a society that decently avails the freedom and dignity of its individual members? There is no absolute test that is not spirit based. The only spirit based test is in pragmatic respect for the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. They are fleshed out in more detail in the Ten Commandments.

Ultimately, each of us gives expression to pragmatic judgments about what is good or bad. What reconciles each of us in those judgments depends on our receptivity to, and relationship with, the spiritual Reconciler. I don't absolutely, objectively know whether the name of the Reconciler is or was Jesus. All I purport, intuit, and believe is that the Reconciler abides. As our works unfold, the goodness or badness of our choices becomes more apparent.

Anonymous said...

Libs believe in evolution. I do too. I think evolution is how God interfunctions with us. Let evolution work. There are limits to the genetic drag we can reform. We may aspire to a future where advances in neuroplastic conditioning can reform bad acting adults. But until we are there, we need to be pragmatic and not try to absorb so much evil that it kills most capacity for good.

At this point, evil is gaining. We cannot afford to import, pander to, and tolerate people who are hoodified, zombiefied, or radicalized against human liberty. There are too many of them. Heck, they have taken almost all institutions, including the White House. We need to wall away the hoods, zombies, jihadis, marxists and other infectious parasites, predators, and one worlders. When they show themselves to be incorrigible, we need to dispatch them as we would mad dogs. Either eliminate them or neuter and quarantine them. Do not enrich, fertilize, or breed them.

This is not about race, sex, or creed. It's about this: Are you an evolved human being, or are you a conditioned parasite pajama dude posing as a humanitarian?

Anonymous said...

We don't need a name to know what a program really is. The Devil does not care what you call him.

BTW, Rinos are for Single Payer. There can be no other explanation for how they have been proceeding.

To replace Obamacare, it will be necessary to go in one of two directions: (1) Eliminate restrictions on interstate insurance competition (as Trump advocates), or (2) implement Canadian style single payer.

A lot of Republicans decry single payer as implemented in other nations, but not so many Canadians seem to have a problem with it. I would hesitate on it, however, because I suspect the Canadians can afford it only because the U.S. does the heavy lifting in terms of health research and because Canada does not share a long border with an invading horde.

I think Trump is a very competent pragmatist. He may indeed envision single payer as best in an ideal world. But he is a pragmatist. So I expect he will go for lifting restrictions on interstate competition, as he says he will.

Cruz is very smart. But he also is a pragmatist. And he has his own faults. I like Trump's tax plan better. I like Trump's position on immigration better. And Cruz, to the extent he cannot fund himself entirely from grass roots, will be prey to the Establishment. They will either defeat him or in considerable respect buy him. Politics bows to pragmatism. Cruz would bow to high tech industries who want ever more visas for high tech employees. You can wrap that in whatever pretty paper you want, but it will still stink.

But most importantly, we are being killed by PC. PC is the number one poison against the American Ideal. There is no better warrior against pc idiocy and corruption than Trump.

Anonymous said...

Imagine the panic at Establishment Central Command!

The Establishment greased the way to replacing faith and family with government and its phony environmental, social and moral "scientists."

It surrendered in the face of a homosexual chooming marxist muslim malignant narcissist Gosestepper In Chief and his weaponized IRS gooney tunes.

It snoozes as the regime buries us under unsustainable debt and a weakened military.

It participates in rampant corruption, selling principles for bribery from the donor class of oligarchs -- foreign and domestic.

It facilitates the dividing and ruling of America via policies of bs education and immigration.

It lets racist hoods, malignant robbers, and depraved killers evade blame by deflecting it onto "white privilege."

It ignores the rush of insults against small business owners and their freedom of association and religious principles.

The Establishment is complicit in the destruction and cannibalization of America. At last, a champion says, Stop! And, with support from Americans, all the forces of pc and hell cannot stand against him.

Anonymous said...

The number one challenge America faces is to defeat political correctness and reclaim individual freedom. Freedom of thought, assembly, speech, association, enterprise, and faith. This is why Trump resonates. This is why Americans like him and why metrosexualized sophisticated lickspittles find him to be coarse and vulgar.

Trump is no fan of SSM, the pc war on Christmas, La Raza, crtitcal race whiners and looters, global warmism, one worldism, or surrender of the nation to border jumpers, currency manipulators or IRS weaponizers. Trump does not apologize for not being pc to all the forces that seek to destroy America. To apologize to the pc of those who are bent on destroying America is like apologizing to the robber who is trying to tie you up. It tends to be better to concentrate your energy on more productive measures. Instead of giving the enemy a path to bayonetting your guts, spill his guts.

Anonymous said...

The masses are being trained not to think but to receive instructions. To make matters worse, the trainers are also training themselves how not to think. It is as if they believe Reality is only a construction for salving glandular desires.

Glands salving glands. No concern for reality. Charging against credits without limits. Spending without budgets. Gorging without producing. Learning without substance. Ruling without responsibility. Marrying without progeny. Matter without spirit. Nation without borders. Children without sense. Morals without meaning. Rationalization without reason. Walking nightmares. Zombieland. Hoping to be replaced by robots.

The nation has become 4F because it has lost the 4 F's: Faith, family, friends, fidelity. Faith is ridiculed. Family is deconstructed. Friends are appliances. Fidelity is forfeited.

In place we have: Moral scientism, marriage to the government, walking on politically correct eggshells, and one worldism. Diverse addicts of meaningless diversions, ripe for conquest, enserfment, and replacement.

The number one challenge America faces is to defeat political correctness and reclaim individual freedom. Freedom of thought, assembly, speech, association, enterprise, and faith. This is why Trump resonates. This is why Americans like him and why metrosexualized sophisticated lickspittles find him to be coarse and vulgar.

Trump is no fan of SSM, the pc war on Christmas, La Raza, crtitcal race whiners and looters, global warmism, one worldism, or surrender of the nation to border jumpers, currency manipulators or IRS weaponizers. Trump does not apologize for not being pc to all the forces that seek to destroy America.

Anonymous said...

Judaism seems often to be considered a religion that is predominantly (but not exclusively) passed on through parentage, particularly mothers. However, different sects disagree (which is why there are sects).

Here is one view:

As such, judaism seems to have elitist and influential tendencies -- which is not to say that all elitists are bad. To my thinking, however, any elitist, including a jewish elitist, is bad to the extent he seeks to harness gov in ways that are unreasonably intrusive of my freedom of thought, assembly, speech, association, enterprise, and faith.

A disproportionate number of jews or persons of jewish ancestry seem to seek to enlist gov and the force of fascist numbers. Marx, Rothschild, Lenin (jewish ancestry), Trotsky, Marcuse, Soros. Jews predominate in DC and Hollywood.

For one possible listing of the 100 most influential jews, see

Anonymous said...


Among other things, the Act (IRCA)
- legalized certain seasonal agricultural undocumented immigrants, and;
-legalized undocumented immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt; candidates were required to prove that they were not guilty of crimes, that they were in the country before January 1, 1982, and that they possessed minimal knowledge about U.S. history, government, and the English language.

The effect of the IRCA was in many ways counterproductive. Hiring process changed as employers turned to indirect hiring through subcontractors. Thus, liability for illegal hiring was shifted away from the real employer and onto the subcontractor, which also decreased workers' wages.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) provided AMNESTY (not citizenship!) for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies "knowingly" hiring illegal immigrants. Aside from creating the H-2A visa for seasonal employment, it was supposed to solve the problem of massive illegal immigration.


In his diaries, President Ronald Reagan said he was going to sign the bill because we had to regain control of our borders. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill contained three promises:

- The government would make a concerted effort to control the borders.
- An effective employer verification program would ensure that only legal workers were hired.
- One-time amnesty would be granted for people illegally in the United States.

All three promises were broken. The government has made no serious effort to control our borders. Employers continue knowingly to hire illegal immigrants without any real fear of punishment.

BOTTOM LINE: Your attempt to rely on the 1986 IRCA to separate wheat from chaff (citizens from non-citizens) during any deportation hearing is no help. If this is the best Congress can do to provide legal guidance concerning the 14th Amendment, it's Not Good Enough. Nor is there any reason to imagine that a Congress that is beholden to the Chamber of Commerce would ever do better.

Anonymous said...

What we need is a President who will take reasoned steps to enforce law already in place regarding citizenship. That is the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. A competent President will not wait on a Congress that is unable to act further or intelligently because it is beholden to an anti-American establishment. He will take care to enforce the laws by providing reasoned guidance for the enforcement of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Now, in that regard, I agree that practicality suggests that the President should begin with enforcement by deporting the most recent offenders who have invaded. IOW, a kind of "deferred amnesty" for those who have been here for some period of time beyond which the administration calculates that it can effect deportations within available resources.

I agree that this is necessary, so that no one need undertake the impossible task of tracing and documenting with admissible evidence roots back to the Declaration of Independence. However, experience shows it is not feasible to be effectively guided by further Act of Congress, because Congress is Babel'ed, divided, and compromised to an anti-American establishment.

It is, however, feasible to be done by the Executive. IOW, the Executive can take account of available resources in prioritizing how to go about with a program of deportation of illegals. And that program could begin with phased target dates based on, among other things, dates of entry.

Alice in Wonderland has nothing to do with this. This is all a consequence of an anti-American establishment that runs Congress, Scotus, and the current President. The only hope that appears on the present horizon is in Trump and Cruz, to lead a constituency that is mad as hell.

Anonymous said...

Common sense went away with the chain gangs and the mental hospitals.

Oh SNAP. Now we have the welfare class, begging under overpasses, getting food stamp cards, signing up for lodging with the Salvation Army, getting free meals with outdoor Sunday Services, and making themselves available for demonstrations to give power to the people.

The Underground Economy is why minorities can afford to not act white, to go polar bear hunting, and to attack police. They are content with their economic and political situation. They like the psych reward of feeling tattooed and superior on the cheap and the down low. The producing class works and pays taxes for the privilege of being parasited, hated, and accused of being mean and privileged. Enough!

Anonymous said...

Regulators do not want the law enforced. They want law breakers, so they can have more probationary control over them. Millions of regulations have been created to ensure that every American must be a violator. Even pols are not allowed in office unless their donors have the goods on them.

If regulators enacted sensible laws that were meant to be evenly enforced, and if all farmers were held to the law, then more would compete on a level playing field. As things stand, the advantages go to the law breakers who are willing to be beholden to the "made men." And no one is promoted into higher echelons unless he/she is a "made man." This is why so many bosses are criminal, progressive, Dem dregs.

Anonymous said...

Why is solving the problem so hard? I submit that a big part of the reason solving the problem is not simple is because central regulators do not want the problem solved! They do not want an independent America. They want, or work for, one worlders. If one worlders wanted to design a system that would dissolve nations, they could hardly have found better ways than are already in place.

Anonymous said...

How do Mexican farmers get their workers? I suspect they have less of a problem because their local workers get less welfare. If able bodied people were paid less in welfare (or if the amount of welfare receipts were contingent on the amount of work they do), then they would learn to be more willing to work.

Too many farmers are no longer conservatives. They have been turned into welfare queens. If Americans won't do the farm work, then we're paying too much in welfare to able bodied Americans.

Coordinate school years with seasonal harvesting times. Then pay enough and students and teachers can do some of the work. Coordinate farm employment agencies. Farmers should be able to tell private employment agencies that they have a need for whatever number of workers, preferably of some experience. Employment coordinators should be able to fill those needs out of unemployed persons, seasonal and migrant workers, and prison trustees.

Anonymous said...

I like a little brightness of hope to go with my dystopia. Otherwise, life would be like time in joint with Ragle Gumm, a Phillip K. Dick character (from his book, Time Out of Joint).

(Hamlet: "The time is out of joint; O cursed spite!/That ever I was born to set it right!" [I.V.211-2])

Ragle Gumm believed he lived in the year 1959 in a quiet American suburb.
His unusual profession consisted of repeatedly winning the cash prize in a local newspaper competition called, "Where Will The Little Green Man Be Next?"
Gumm learns that his idyllic town is a constructed reality designed to protect him from the frightening fact that he lives on a then-future Earth (circa 1998) that is at war against Lunar colonists who are fighting for a permanent Lunar settlement, politically independent from Earth.
The fake town was thereby created within Gumm's mind to accommodate and rationalise his dementia so that he could continue predicting nuclear strikes in the guise of submitting entries to a harmless newspaper contest.
When Gumm finally remembers his true personal history, he decides to emigrate to the Moon after all because he feels that exploration and migration, as basic human impulses, should never be denied to people by any national or planetary government. Vic rejects this belief, referring to the colonists essentially as aggressors and terrorists, and returns to the simulated town- which has lost its raison d'etre because of Gumm's escape from its environs. The book ends with some hope for peace, because the Lunar colonists are more willing to negotiate than Earth's "One Happy World" regime has been telling its citizens.


MY TAKE: Gumm was a repressed looney who came to believe Earth should accept immigrants from the Moon, and accept the wish of the Moonies to be akin to a separate and free nation. Gumm's situation was upside down to ours. To be comparable, a tolerant America would need to be seeking to colonize Middle East Islamic nations, instead of intolerant ME Islamic nations seeking to colonize and dhimmify the world. In our situation, intolerant and unfree Muslims and Third Worlders are seeking to colonize the too tolerant West. Given the situation of today, Gumm should be on the side of America, not on the side of the lunar allah worshippers of fascist collectivism (one not-so happy caliphate).

In that light, American Thinker attracts a diverse lot of modern Ragle Gumm's. As such, our time is out of joint, and we were born to try to help set it right. Everyday, American Thinker presents its new puzzles for the game: Where Will The Little Green Man Be Next. Everyday, it is our task to solve the puzzle. Welcome to time out of joint!

Anonymous said...

Obama has been very good at banishing Jews and Christians from various places in the Middle East. And very good at importing Muslim "refugees" to the U.S. Anyone who has not by now figured out that Obama hates the American Ideal of individual freedom and dignity ("acting white") and wants to fundamentally change it to a lowest common denominator collectivism ("acting black"?) has not been paying attention.

But this animus against individual liberty is not just an Obama thing. Obama is just a little twisted boy figurehead and symptom of a much larger monstrosity that has insinuated itself into the very fabric of our being and that has infested every institution of our society. Obama is a little boy servant of a monstrous establishment that controls nearly all our institutions of politics, banking, media, academia, and entertainment.

This Establishmentarian Monstrosity wants Americans to believe they are bad for wanting to preserve liberty, country, America, faith, and family. So it wants to teach us to hate whites, so-called white privilege, traditional marriage, traditional mores, property, and market-based distributions. And if we don't sufficiently hate such things to satisfy it, it will call us a lot of names: Racist, bigot, misogynist, chauvenist, hick, hater, phobe, neanderthal, bible thumper, fun killer. Oh, and not to forget George Will's favorites: Coarse and vulgar. To add insult, it will brand, harass, investigate, audit, suspend, banish, fine, jail, confiscate, regulate, and destroy your livelihood and business. The Establishment has contrived to discredit and run out brother Christians and Jews from much of the Middle East. Soon, if not already, it will take your kids.

Just imagine the list of grievances a modern day Jefferson could compile against the Establishmentarian Monsters.

Anonymous said...

Secular Jews who do not respect a homeland tend to want to make the world their homeland. And so they want to force everyone else to make the world their homeland. Many want one worldism. They want to force it. And that means many want to hold themselves apart and be among its rulers.

If you let water drip perpetually on the same spot, it will eventually wear down most anything. Maybe this is why so many Jews have come to rule in Hollywood and DC. Israeli Jews tend to be America's friends. Homeland Jews, not so much. Homeland Jews tend to be friends of one worldism, which cannot do other than to expose America and human dignity to a lowest common denominator.

Anonymous said...

The class of establishment goons that thinks itself smart has no clue how close the social contract is to being broken. We are close to the point where good people can no longer afford to be legally responsible. When that point is crossed, we will not be able to afford legal principles. We will have to separate and assimilate to tribal principles. That would entail nullification and secession between tribes. I do not want to get to that point, but the clueless alliance of pinkie wagging Rinos and entitlement minded and incompetent Dinos is perilously close to putting us there. We need a wake up miracle and a COS to pass the Liberty Amendments. If the infantile George Will class foists another choice on us between a Rino and a Dino, I think we will have crossed the Rubicon. At that point, Georgie and his friends will have lit their own match.

Anonymous said...

Unless the next President marshalls strong political support, the establishment Congress and Scotus, if given half a chance, will deem that all persons born in the U.S. are entitled to birthright citizenship. Just as they ruled SSM is constitutionally protected. Establishmentarian one worlders do not care what the Constitution says, and they are deeply infested in every institution.

Absent a movement and mandate to root them out, they will continue to spread their evil. The next President, if he is faithful to America instead of to one worldism, will need to find ways to use the executive power to begin reversing the infestation and anti-American influence that has dug deep into the other two branches of government. Until then, carrying their dead weight is like carrying the weight of a zombie Siamese twin.

Anonymous said...

So how many of these migrating muslims will offer sanctuary to any non-muslims, if it ever comes to it?

Set aside an island for them. Call it Xion and put them there. If they want to immigrate to the West, let them renounce Islam (institutionalized terrorism that calls itself a religion). A citizen cannot be loyal at the same time to two opposing masters. Islam is diametrically opposed to the American Ideal. No one can at the same time be loyal to Islam and to America. Renounce Islam or get out! Obama should be sent out first, on a rail.

Anonymous said...

All able bodied so-called progressive minorities want to be more equal than white men with jobs. All have morally defective philosophies in that way. All need to grow up, but most never will. Their parents spoiled and stunted them in that way. Enough with the molly coddling! So long as you need to be specially molly coddled, you're just a little girl, a little boy, or a little sexual misfit -- and that's what you'll always be looked upon as being: Little, unreliable, and irresponsible. A perpetual toddler may get fascists to force lip service and speech codes, but can't force respect.

Anonymous said...

Intellectuals recognize that they can't pigeonhole freedom, so they convince themselves it has no meaning, except as a sometimes useful construct for twisting people's emotions. Giving over freedom as a mere invention, a construct, they also give over its train, including dignity and humanity.

I think freedom is something, albeit, not a measurable something. I think we know it when we lose it, and then we curse having lost it. Regardless of whether our choices come first from our brains and then to our actions, or first from the context of our fields and then to the rationalizations of our brains, the fact is that we consciously appreciate a sense of participatory feedback between ourselves and the contextual field within which our experiences unfold.

Free will apparently resides somewhere, even if not in our brains. Regardless of whether our brains send forth free will, they do experience a sense of participatory will. That which we appreciate and how we appreciate it feeds back to circumscribe how things are reconciled to follow.

As to what really exists in any ultimately and completely measurable sense, that seems to regress to nothing more than spins of spins of spins. Somehow, each spin (even if ultimately reducing more to a value or vector in a field of mathematics than to a spin in a field of geomety), in expressing a measure of itself, takes account of ("empathizes with") the measure of its significant neighbors. Things seem measurably to appreciate one another ("wilfully participate with" and feed back to one another) -- even at their most fundamental level. At such level, participatory will seems to exhibit a meta, fundamental, innate dignity.

To suggest that such a spiritual connection can or should reasonably be cast aside and ignored is to reduce the dignity of individuals. It is to make the borgdom (the state apparatus) the only thing of import. All for the state, and nothing outside the state. And this seems to explicate a fundamental divide between Americans and One World Establishmentarian Collectivist Fascists. So now we see why nearly all elitists are so blind to human dignity and American Exceptionalism -- because they believe participatory freedom is only a make believe idea. To which I laugh at them and say, The entire cosmos abides only because the Mind of God makes believe it is so.

Anonymous said...

My point is to explain how we can apply principles that will help us to avoid having to diagram the tree! To do that, our gov will need a principled plan that will help us avoid having to diagram the tree.

When we get around to contested hearings concerning whom to deport, we will need a coherent understanding about what makes a citizen, and we will need a policy for how to enforce that understanding.

Birth in America does not make a citizen. Having a citizen parent does (or can). What we need are policies to clarify and explicate:
(1) How can a person become a citizen of right, without needing to earn citizenship under procedures for naturalization?
(2) How should we identify persons, who are born in America without an American parent, who should be given a right to prove entitlement to become documented as citizens?
(3) In case of a deportation hearing, what evidence should suffice for such a person (or his appointed attorney) to prove that he is a citizen, who therefore should not be deported? (Should it suffice that he is here legally? That his parents are here on a long term visa? That his parents are here legally to visit on a passport? What should suffice?)

You are reverting to abstractions. I am suggesting how to find a practical path for what should be the point of deportation hearings.

To punt to Congress (while Congress is impotent or misguided) or an Amendment (which will be delayed) is not sufficient. The President will need to take measures to enforce his understanding of existing law. If I am correct about existing law, then the President can proceed with executive orders and guidance to enforcement agencies just as soon as he is elected.

To wait and rely on a mere test case to Scotus, without managing the optics and marshalling public opinion, would likely be disastrous (given the establishmentarian one-world bent).

For any of this to work, we will need to come to a coherent understanding about what it takes to make a citizen. That has been assumed, but never completed. It has been assumed because the issue has never, until the Mexican invasion, been considered important enough to be examined closely and competently. If we are going to have a coherent policy for citizens, then we need a coherent definition for what a citizen is. To say a citizen is a person born of a citizen parent is merely to regress the question concerning what makes the parent a citizen. To regress a question is not to answer it. If the President is to proceed in a principled way to protect citizenship, without waiting on a useless Congress and a twisted Scotus, then the President will need to explicate a coherent and reasoned interpretation of "citizen."

Anonymous said...

Rules of evidence create many exceptions that allow the admission of hearsay. So official documents, like birth certificates, if certified by recognized authority, will generally be admissible to show the truth of facts attested to. Such documentation may be accorded various levels of presumptive truth, provided there is no evidence of tampering. So each state official who issues such certificates has substantial power to affect the burden of proof for an applicant. What kind of evidence may he accept before issuing a birth certificate that purports to document citizenship of the child or its parents? What power do federal courts and officials have to ensure equal treatment and non-selective profiling against applicants of certain racial characteristics? When must an official provide a certifying document based only on the affidavit of a suspicious midwife? What right does an applicant have to bring an action years later to obtain a certificate that should have been previously obtained but was not? How is due process to be accorded before determining the nation to which a person who claims to be a U.S. citizen should be deported? Given such issues, how practical could a program of massive deportation be?

Anonymous said...

Apart from presuming my parents are citizens (an assumption they share, but still just an assumption), what can be the basis for saying they or their parents were not mere invaders? How can a mere birth certificate establish whether both my parents were citizens, based merely on recording their hearsay?

And what does "foreigner" mean? Different nations define the term differently for purposes of keeping their statistics. Some base status of being a foreigner on whether one was born of a citizen father, born of a citizen mother, born in country, born in country of a foreigner, born out of country of a citizen, and various combinations of jus soli and jus sanguinis. (Perhaps in as many combinations as post modern advocates for equality want to create for assigning gender. Lol.)

Think a little more and maybe you'll identify the problem. Hint: Who do you know who claims to be a citizen, who did not undergo naturalization, and whose parents did not undergo naturalization? If mere birth is not sufficient to confer citizenship (and I do not believe it is), then what is their, and their progeny's, basis for asserting citizenship? What makes them citizens, if they were not naturalized and if birth in the U.S. is not sufficient?

The obvious answer is that they would like to be able to trace someone in their direct family tree to having become a citizen -- either by having been naturalized or by virtue of some original qualification other than birth. So, for those who cannot trace back to a naturalized parent, what is their basis for claiming citizenship under an ancestor?

Obviously, the Founders "grandfathered" and considered every white person who was living in the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence and at the time of the Articles of Confederation to have been citizens. However, at some point, the Constitution cut off merely living here as a basis for asserting citizenship. We know that, because the Constitution empowered Congress to provide for how naturalization would occur. The necessary implication was that merely living here would no longer be sufficient.

So, all the persons merely living here, who came after ratification of the Constitution, were not automatically citizens unless born of a citizen (jus sanguinis). Nothing in the Constitution says progeny of such non-citizens would become citizens merely because of birth here (jus soli). Something more would be thenceforth required, unless a child were born of a shown to be, or well known to be, citizen. And that something more, at least until the 14th Amendment, was to be determined by Congress, under its power to determine requisites for naturalization.

So, did the 14th Amendment clarify the situation? Did it take from Congress the power to determine in any way that a person born in the U.S., but not born of a citizen, would or would not be entitled to claim citizenship?

Well, the 14th Amendment did NOT provide that birth here would, in itself, be sufficient to confer citizenship. This is because it also requires that a person born here be "subject to the jurisdiction." Now, it had already been commonly recognized that a child's citizenship would be influenced, jus sanguinis, by the citizenship of his father. So, the words "subject to the jurisdiction" were not needed to establish that. What, then, was the purpose of those words, "subject to the jurisdiction"?

The purpose must have been to require some status in a child's parentage that was more than illegal, but less than citizenship. This is because nothing clearly shows an intention to confer citizenship on a child of an invader. And it was not necessary to provide for citizenship when a child's parents were already citizens. So, what was the purpose of the words, "subject to the jurisdiction"?

Anonymous said...

Was the purpose to provide that a child would be a citizen if born here of parents who, even though not citizens, were legal domiciliaries? If so, what sort of legal domiciliary status was necessary to confer status that could allow a parent to pass on citizenship? If mere invader status was not sufficient, then what about having a long recognized residence and employment? What of being here under authority provided by Congress for a work visa? For an education visa? For a work visa with permission to bring family? The precise line for what the drafters of the 14th Amendment and its ratifiers intended does not seem to be clearly established.

Under a most conservative interpretation, a child born here of an invader should not be supposed to be a citizen. Nor should a child born here of a person merely visiting or passing through. But what of a child born of a person under some short term work permission?

If you and your parents and their parents were not naturalized, and if no one can trace lineage to anyone who resided in the U.S. at the time of the Articles of Confederation, and if birth here is not in itself sufficient to confer jurisdiction, then, apart from hearsay on some certificate, What Is Your Basis For Claiming You (Or Any Person In Such Situation) Are A Citizen Or Born Of A Parent Citizen? Do you now understand the issue?

I think the basis has to be on long term residence with no question to the contrary. However, how much time is needed to establish a presumption of citizenship based on length of term of residence? That is the fuzzy issue for which, until the Mexican invasion, no one in Congress or Scotus appears to have felt any need to provide clarification. Must citizenship be like squaters' rights, so that open and notorious claim of citizenship for a number of years, during which no authority beings an action for deportation, should be ground for proving citizenship? Can such long established "squaters" become parents of a child who would be eligible to run for president?

Anonymous said...

Some aspects of the citizenship quandry may be so hairballed that Scotus may appreciate a reasoned attempt by Congress to provide some clarity.

For example:

Whereas the issue of national citizenship has not been entirely clear; and
whereas Congress has among its enumerated powers a responsibility to provide for naturalization;
Now therefore be it enacted as follows:
All persons documented by appropriate state or lawful authority to have been born in the United States before 1/1/2000 shall henceforth be deemed naturalized citizens. If born of a parent who also is a citizen, they shall in addition be deemed a native born and natural born citizen.
All persons not born before 1/1/70 who are not shown or documented to have been born of an American citizen shall be recognized as citizens of the nation or nations of their parents.
All persons not being naturalized or native born citizens shall have a right to apply to become naturalized citizens only by provisions of Congress elsewhere enacted.

Anonymous said...

A lot of Americans are not naturalized. They rely on being supposed citizens at birth. Many residents of America cannot trace their ancestry back to parents who were naturalized. Absent some provision for presuming or grandfathering citizenship of their ancestors, they would not, on challenge, be able to show that they are born of a lineage that originated here legally.

Not enjoying citiizenship based on a line of naturalization, they would need one of two things:

(1) A precedent or statute that creates a presumption that persons of long residence are natural citizens.

(2) Some implication or interpretation under the Constitution that makes their residence under a long line of ancestral residents into a ground for natural citizenship. (When Texas was admitted to the union, I wonder how it was determined which of its residents should then be considered as U.S. citizens?)

Note: This may cause hair pulling among the NBC people, to try to determine who "really" is qualified as a "natural born citizen" to run for the presidency.

Anonymous said...

A fuzzy black hole can always be found that can be exploited. What of children born of persons residing in the U.S. as lawful visitors or temporary workers? What of children found or abandoned in the U.S. who are of unknown parentage?

Does the Constitution, any Amendment, or custom of law, purport to rule on such issues in any way that would restrict Congress, under its enumerated powers, from providing that such persons are not natural born citizens, but persons who have, at most, only such right to be naturalized as Congress may define and delimit?

Since the Constitution is not clear, I would say that national self interest should entitle Congress to rule on how such persons may be naturalized. However, the interests of establishmentarians are quite opposed to national self interest. This is why we need an energetic President who is an American Idealist instead of a globalist. This is why the establishmentarian colossus will oppose any such a candidate with every artifice at its disposal.

Anonymous said...

The too smug but intellectually light on their arguments NBC double-agents who pretend to be Conservatives want to spread confusion concerning Cruz' qualification. If they can marginalize Cruz, and the establishment neutralizes Trump, the republic will be done!

I like Carson, but not yet for President. I want someone who knows more about how to fight bad guys than about how to fix their bodies. Trump, Cruz, Carson -- in that order. An American unapologist. Anything else is just an apologist.


Regarding D Day: So a lot of fascist establishmentarian cronies, commies and jihadis are going to go Donald hunting. Hmm. If I see a lot of nazis and musloids shooting, mutilating, burning, and head cutting, I'm supposed to despise their targets as opposed to them? Somehow, I don't think that's going to work. In effect, I suspect they're going to be pouring gallons of gas on their own heads while Donald gives them a match and tells them to sit down.


Why do we trade with China? Because they buy our pols. Our pols tend not to represent Americans. They represent donors. The biggest donors are the biggest traitors, criminals, and cannibals. We have been selling ourselves and our republic into servitude for decades. We have been giving godforsaken cronies, commies, and jihadis the rope they intend to use to harness and then hang us. And our colleges have been teaching our youth to think they should like it this way. Because ... racism. All the while blaming Americans who are trying to sound the alarm by yelling, Stop!

Anonymous said...

Free trade with China is much like affirmative action with minorities and religious tolerance for Muslims: It's a one-way street that leads to the destruction of America. Trump wants a two way street. Feedback. Communication. Not elitists preaching to Americans about why we should tolerate our destruction. Enough! Don't take this crap anymore! Fit Larry Kudlow and George Will for tar, feathers, and rail.


Socialism at home and free trade abroad is a recipe for enriching oligarchic princelings while pushing us lower than Chinese peasants. It's the recipe that is being sold to our Dino ignoranti by our Rino corrupti. We need to stop this stupid and corrupt alliance of Ainos. We need to kick Dinos and Rinos in their as ses by aiming at their so-called heads and make America great again.


There is nothing "free" about policies that allow outside nations and corporations to access our markets and resources at will, while protecting their own. You can't have a "freedom policy" with a partner who is not a partner but instead is a predator or parasite. This notion that you can have only one or the other, freedom or predation, is stupid. Obviously, you can have policies of self defense and mutual respect that rise to each occasion.

Policy makers need to think beyond adolescent, bipolar notions of all one or the other. We have to adjust to an ever challenging and fluxing world. Simple mindedness will kill us as a republic and reduce us to a lowest-common-denominator nation of cheap and depraved laborers.

The idea that we must expose our citizens to have to compete against the cheapest and most depraved of laborers worldwide is a canard. A deception rammed against us by depraved oligarchs and their shills. Smart protection for our republic need not make us less efficient or competitive.

This is because of a number of factors. First, labor is being rapidly replaced by machines. Second, tax policy can be deployed to help workers transition from welfare and noncompetitive industries to infrastructure workfare and evolving industries. Third, protection need not be an all or nothing game. It can be a buffering device. Fourth, the nations that compete against us by farming their people as subhumans and serfs incurr tremendous losses in social capital, trust, incentives, and creativity. Were we to fall for false economics and go to their level to reduce our citizens to their kind of subhumanity, we would lose the good will, trust, energy, and creativity that, up to now, has defined the character of Americans. There is a reason why our public schools are among the worst, but our universities tend to set the standards, worldwide.

There is a stupid and depressing trend among too many so-called thinkers to limit themselves to purely linear and bipolar thinking. Too many people are not learning how to think in ways that comport with the fluxing and feedback nature of our cosmos. Our world is not linear or bipolar. It is fluxing and feedback. National citizenships are determined not by pure jus soli versus jus sanguinis, but by fluxing combinations. Trade polices tend inherently not to be purely free or protected, but combinatory. It's time for us to wise up, if we want to preserve a decent republic for our progeny. Trump tends to be correct in his plain spoken assessments. We have way too many "stupids" sitting on top of our gov, bureaucracies, media, and colleges.

Anonymous said...

Ainos have bombed out the innocence of children as much as we bombed out Dresden. Kids' minds are daily bombed by advocates, groomers, and entertainers for gender confusion. Bombed by conditioning for divisive group mindedness, that conditions blacks to blame whites and whites to accept blame for white privilege. Bombed by banning public support for ideals of a spiritually good Reconciler. Bombed by being taught to look upon police and authorities as racists and bullies. Bombed by being taught to dislike America and to desire its replacement and ruin. Bombed by conditioning to tolerate the intolerable. Bombed by teaching that Islam is anything other than a cult for terror, repression, mutilation, superstition, backwardedness, and horror. Bombed by conditioning to accept the fascist pc of cronies, commies, and muslims.

On top of all this progressive bombing of kids' minds, what's the hubbub over a little discussion about suicide children and the real bomb?


Walker had considerable support from corporatist establishmentarians for standing up to public unions. Has Walker ever been effective for standing up to corporatist establishmentarians? If they want to nullify borders, cheapen labor, diminish the political influence of the middle class. and browbeat the middle class with pc, then will Walker defend American values against such corporatist elites?

Insofar as the biggest challenge to America's First Amendment Freedoms is in the donor class, how is Walker equipped to fight on behalf of the American Ideal and ordinary Americans?


Corruption reaches far beyond the media (corrupt as it is) and envelops most of Congress -- which is owned by establishmentarians. (There's no other way to explain Boehner and McConnell.) So any revival of a HUAC would be purely Orwellian. Establishmentarians would see to it that it was used not to protect America, but to undermine America.

Until adults retake power, maybe a continuing caucus would be better. A Conservers of American Liberty Caucus (CALC).

The reason the regime has declined to identify the anti-American, anti-human, statist enemy (Islam, Marxism, and Fascist Cronyism) is because the regime is the enemy.

Anonymous said...

When the law is unclear, it helps lift the fog to look at the politics. Global establishmentarians want to undermine national borders and national citizenship. They want people to be citizens of the world. They don't want selective citizenship in separate nations. They want people to be subject to local jurisdiction, and they want all local jurisdictions to be subject to global jurisdiction. They want to reduce the masses to a lowest common pool of cheap and divided labor.

Scotus is comprised of establishmentarians. So, if given a favorable opportunity to tip the political scales, they will. This is why Cruz makes sense when he says an Amendment will likely be necessary to clarify the issue. Problem is, by the time an Amendment could be done, establishmentarians may well have flipped the demographic to make such an Amendment a political impossibility.

So an American President needs to marshal the political will. He needs to hit the ground running. He can begin with Executive Orders. After all, he is bound to take care to enforce the laws as best he understands them. While Congress and Scotus dither and wait, he needs to be acting. Build the wall. Enforce e-verify. Provide guidance to enforcement agencies. Promote self deportation of illegals, but don't rush into massive deportations. Bring political heat on Congress to enact a clalrifying statute. With executive management, by the time Scotus makes its determination, or by the time an Amendment is being processed, the wall and good management may make the issue of birthright citizenship largely moot.

Anonymous said...

Trump needs to represent America, instead of representing the Rino-Dino laying of waste to America. We need to help him help us step back from One World Elitist Fascism. To do that, we will have to fight against the deceits of a colossus.

Collectivist Progs (Rino and Dino fascists alike) are so steeped in making false comparisons based on feelings! In nearly every argument, they go directly to such false narratives. They savage every argument that cautions against the wholesale taxation of Other People's Money, time, resources, and energies.

Progs say: You can't deport millions of people. Rinos say it is logistically impossible. Dinos say it is Hitlerian. As if illegals would not self deport if jobs dried up. Or as if it were analogous to loading people on trains to Auschwitz to deport them to their countries of origin. What a lot of overloaded bunk!

Prog Rino Fascists want to abuse cheap labor by making a desperate and borderless worldwide market for it. But they want to make Conservers of Liberty out to be the bad guys! Asinine! Prog Dino Statists want to harvest cheap votes, so they can farm people as socialist serfs. Yet, they want to make Conservatives out to be the bad guys! Asinine!

Aino Fascists and Statists deflect an examination of their evil natures by broadcasting false narratives. Statists like Hillary will say they want to spread opportunity and wealth, save the poor, end cancer. help refugees, make the benefits of democracy available to American muslims, equalize pay, provide free health care, free education, free drugs, free condoms, space to destroy, and freedom from law enforcement.

IOW, Hillary will use the central apparatus to provide "charity" for all -- free as manna falling from the sky. Money from the stash. Enough to satisfy every want. And so, Hillary will tell us that anyone who cautions against her brand of statist gangsterism is a Nazi. Per Hillary, anyone who cautions against her program for national socialism is a Nazi! If that isn't irony shot from chutzpah, what is?

Anonymous said...

The problem with spoiling toddlers by sparing the rod is that they tend to grow up to become self centered, malignantly narcissistic, lying fascists. Once these rotters come into adult bodies, what is to be done? They often plot and succeed against an unsuspecting and trusting citizenry. How can they be strapped back into high chairs until they stop making messes, learn proper manners, and show respect for other people's dignity and property?

Well, first, we need to identify them for what they are. Expose their lies and false narratives. Trump is good at that! It takes talent to rock PC Ainos back on their heels, but Trump has shown how to do it! Then, we will have to escalate against their antics to whatever the level that is required in order to assimilate and restore common decency. Otherwise, these perpetually malignant toddlers will continue to deploy every subterfuge to cycle us away from the Reconciler and among the outrages of state scientific moralism, marxist despotism, and religiously tyrannical jihad.

Anonymous said...

A person can orient his functional code as would a reasonably empathetic American. Or he can orient himself as would an entitlement-minded victim. There does not seem to be much middle ground. One can be an American or a One Worlder. A Thinker or Feeler. Maker or Taker. Empathizer or Faker. Producer or Looter. Honest Citizen or Crony Gangster. Human Being or Fascist. One can base his moral code on a meta or higher purpose or on material wannas disguised under claims of "fairness."

This applies to nearly every issue that is in contention today. Immigration, pc, affirmative action, socialistic redistribution, and tearing down America by claiming victimhood. The only way Rinos can "justify" their position on immigration and cheap labor is to sanction the Dino position on every other issue -- by argumentation based on feeling instead of thinking. So, we have pinkie-wagging Rinos pretending to be sophisticated by engaging in name calling against Conservers of Liberty.

Yet, the American Ideal is hardly represented in our political parties. This is why Trump is resonating, while most Rino and Dino pundits are lying about it. Surprisingly, it took Maureen Dowd to see the potential virtue in Trump for burning away the lies of the main parties to make room for a new party. Apparently, it pains her as much as most other Americans to listen to Hillary.

Collectivist Progs (Rino and Dino fascists alike) are so steeped in making false comparisons based on feelings! In nearly every argument, they fall directly into such false narratives. They savage every argument that cautions against the wholesale taxation of Other People's Money, time, resources, and energies.

Progs lecture other people that they should share, but Progs themselves share little. Prog Ainos talk about fairness, but rarely serve anyone but themselves. They do not tend to volunteer their own money or service. They tend not to serve in the military to defend country. Not to give to charity. Not to obey laws. Not to raise responsible children. Not to honor faith, family, or country. More often than Conservers of Liberty, Progs tend to be addicts, pleasure mongers, decency destroyers, property disrespectors, child molesters, voting cheaters, and trouble seekers. When there's a law breaker, child abuser, vote cheater, or trouble maker, it's usually a Prog -- regardless of whether the "ever-tolerant" PC Prog be of the variety of crony, marxist, or muslim.

Prog Fascists tend to have "progressed" not to abide the idea of a Reconciler who invites us to partake of decent participation. Instead, they fall headlong into serving their hedonistic natures. If they reference Jesus, it tends to be to advance a convenient and false narrative for using the state to force charity. Or they may advance some grotesque conception of a gangster-approving horror of an ideology or god. Having devoted themselves to gross pleasure and false or gortesque god, Progs call this "being all for the State" (or Sharia). You have to break omelets. Blot out empathies. Treat children and women as things. And goats.

This is Prog "progress." Demons often posing as agents of "Christian redistribution." Hillary as Christian Statist! Gangster Rapper who is "in no ways tired." And it is morally and clinically sicko.

Anonymous said...

Freedom is not passed through the bloodstream. It is learned via faith and families. There is an early window of opportunity to teach it. Give a child over to a wuss system of education, entitlementism, and one worldism and freedom is quickly lost. It is very hard to bring people who are marinated in collective entitlementism back into the fold of freedom lovers. For most, you eventually have to cut them loose, like gangrene. Otherwise, they will pull you, your house, and your country into a hellhole. The devil, through the proxy of gov, seduces security minded people into wanting to marry the gov to get goodies. But the goodies always turn into poison.

Anonymous said...

There are too many pc metrosexual wussies to sponsor a restoration of America. Absent a miracle, complete with an election of Trump-Cruz and a COS to pass the Liberty Amendments, this nation will have to pass through fires of nullification and/or secession. California, for example, is terminally stupid. Beyond fixing.

EDIT: I don't care about fixing the Rino or Dino Parties. Their ideals are too one-world, anti-American. I want them eaten. Taken out. Digested. Dropped. Replaced by a party that represents the American Ideal: a representative republic that promotes human freedom and dignity. That respects faith and family. That can sever the gangrene. Cut away the terminally stupid that makes a religion out of incorrigible depravity.

Anonymous said...

Taking Obama for the anti-American deviant he is, he can hardly be said to have been a failure. If anything, the 47% that constitutes the worst sort of dregs has increased and solidified. It is more benighted than ever.

The fascist war against faith and family has sliced through the heart of America. Every institution is more polluted with depravity and insanity than ever. More unsustainable debt has been piled against our children. With the rise of pc feminazism, more men have been feminized than ever. More invaders are sucking the stuffing out of us. More nutcase nations are warring to promote the torture of human beings in order to establish societies and religions based on horror. More muslims are immigrating. More cities are becoming ghettos of anti-Americanism. We have ever more central city lawlessness. More feelings of justification based on nothing more than mendacity against producers. More ignant profs making fetishes out of depraved "critical theory" blame against workers. More childish pants-on-ground polar bear hunting. (I had to put the modifier "childish" in that sentence, because, without it, a lot of ignant fans of rap and crap would think I meant to extol pants-on-ground as a good thing.)

But for Trump, Cruz, and Carson, it's hard to see much daylight shining through all this dank, bleak, black fog of demonic, pinkie wagging, subhumanism. Even if one of them is elected, DC is filled with depraved, establishmentarian, anti-American, one worlders. Only as Trump eats them, drops them, and puts us on a third party path to promote the American Ideal will I feel Obama has been a colonic.

Anonymous said...

What we have is a plague of PC wussies. Too many people prayed to a god of entitlementism, and so God sent a plague to wake them up. This PC plague is poison that holds America and the First Amendment in the balance. This inhumanity has been brought about by men and women alike. Too many women have greased the way for feminazis to metrosexualize men and society. Too many men have become entitlement minded parasites. Working together, pinkie wagging men and women are killing America, thereby creating the vacuum that has sucked in despotism -- i.e., secular and sectarian religions of worldwide horror. I do not solely blame men. Women share at least equal blame for this. They had much to do with the election of the pos in the wh. Obamagirl needs to go to Confession.

Anonymous said...

The rest of the pack may be in trouble. Maureen Dowd is saying this:
“Do I think that Trump should be president?” Dowd asked. “No. Do I think he can be the badly needed match that burns down the status quo? Yes. Do I think he could precipitate an advent of a real third party? Yes.”

My translation: In a better world, Trump may not be best. In the world as it has become, Trump may be precisely what we need.

Looting, border invasion, currency destruction, debt enslavement, moral anarchy, and lawlessness are run amuck, and this situation has been baited by the establishment. Nearly every so-called news and education outlet is owned or controlled by a crony who promotes the idea that pc is true and good and that anyone who accurately describes facts about race, gender, orientation, culture, status, and faith is a phobe, hick, racist, bigot, misogynist, chauvenist, grin go, white privileged cra ck er, and hate criminal. IOW, fascist control has infested most news outlets. All such fascists, progs, socialists, cronies, nutcases, and pervs have a lot of non-fact, opinion based, hateful names to call people who report the facts. That's fine by me, but only so long as the right goes both ways!

Anyone who surrenders to fascist pc, who is too ignorant to see the problem or too corrupt to care, is a dirty establishmentarian or a double agent or water carrier for a dirty establishmentarian. Anyone who fails to see the importance of Trump for fighting this grave threat to the First Amendment and the American Ideal is a dirty establishmentarian.

This is why the nation is divided as never before. What began as a free republic has been stirred by commie hustlers and jihadis into a frothing cauldron of social unrest. This is the "fundamental change" the perv in chief sought to produce. He and his goons and funders have set race relations and common decency back 30 years. They will have to be sorely defeated, for they cannot be tolerated without tolerating the destructon of the American Project. In rejecting e pluribus unum, they are attempting to force a war of all against all. Or a replacement of America by a collectivist, fascist despotism.

EF George Will. If fascists can freeze targets into Emmanuel Goldstein poster boys, so can independents. If we want to reform the establishment, we will need to start naming the incorrigibly crony, establishmentarian enemies. After all, that is what the enemies acting on behalf of NWO are now doing against Trump and Cruz.

Anonymous said...

A lot of kids are mentally numb by the time they get out of college. Well, they were probably numb even before. For many, the problem is not so much that they believe pc crap. The problem is that they are just too numb to resist it. Being numb, they have no interest in trying to follow what's really going on. They learn nothing, so they vote the way they have been pointed. Voting zombies. Wind up dolls. If you say Obama and his cohort have set race relations back 30 years, their response (even by those who claim to have super high IQs) is that, "Wow, you're carrying a lot of white privilege."

So you have to go at mental zombies gently. You have to ask them what they think about so and so. Draw them out. Get them to think about political events. For many, it's like waking up after a long sleep. The ruling class wanted to train people to be content to be farmed. The purpose of college became one of completing the project of turning people into cattle. To considerable extent, they succeeded. They wanted to turn Americans into an electorate that would be so unfit for representative governance that it would rejoice as elitists step in to offer their services.