I do not find Mark Levin to have said that an amendment is necessary to end birthright citizenship. I doubt any cite backs up any claim to any such a thing. Rather, Levin has indicated that nothing in present law, whether Constitutional or Statutory, requires that citizenship be conferred as a matter of birthright to children who are born of parents who are illegal invaders.
See http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/video-mark-levin-defends-trump-anchor-babies-have-no-birthright-citizenship/.
Mark Levin said on “Hannity” tonight that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
He said that those claiming that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong, pointing to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Levin explained that means that Congress – not the president, the courts or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.
*****
Yes, the practice under the Foreign Affairs Manual has been to confer such citizenship. But that practice is unsupported in reasoned interpretation of law. Now, if Scotus, in a contrary case, disagrees, and if Congress passes clarifying statutory law and then Scotus still disagrees, then, yes, a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to proceed -- short of revolution, secession, or nullification. But that is not what you represented Levin to have said. You appear to have, rather arrogantly, misrepresented Levin.
A reason people tire of rehashing this stuff is because so many (not all) NBC people talk, but they hardly ever seem to listen or read. Levin, to the best of my knowledge, has not said Cruz is disqualified. Neither has he said an amendment is required to end the anchor baby farce. Rather, he has said the opposite.
************
Below, I am setting out some postulations. I mean to keep my eyes open and do some continuing research on some of these issues. If you want to be of service, feel free to help.
See Constitution, Article II, Section 1, excerpt: 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
MY PRELIMINARY POSTULATIONS (If I am wrong, say where and cite):
(1) The Constitution does not appear to specifically prescribe how citizenship is to be obtained or conferred.
(2) Much less does the Constitution prescribe a definition for a natural born citizen. (It does specify that a person must be 35 years of age and have been a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years to be eligible to take office. But, if a person is 35 and has lived within the U.S. for 14 years, the Constitution itself does not prescribe what else would be necessary for such a person to be either a citizen or a natural born citizen.)
DISCUSSION:
One may guess what the Founders or Ratifiers intended by requiring that the President be a natural born citizen. One may even take note that the Founders were concerned to try to protect against intrigues by persons loyal to foreign princes. But the Founders did not spell out how such protection was to be provided. Did they mean to leave that to Congress? Did they mean to leave it to each State to define for itself who should be considered a citizen of right, a citizen of oath, and/or a natural born citizen?
Did they mean to refer the matter to a treatise, by incorporating the work of Vattel? If so, which version, and when published? Did they mean Vattel and/or other treatises to be incorporated as law, or only as guides, for the consideration of Congress and/or Scotus? What other nations, if any, have incorporated the entire work of Vattel as law, as opposed to a guide? Should we suppose that those Founders and Ratifiers of the Constitution who had not read Vattel meant to issue a blank check by adopting it wholesale, sight unseen for many of them? What about interpretations and sub-treatises of Vattel?
Among nations, how much consensus, really, then and now, is there concerning how one becomes a citizen at birth, or how one becomes a natural born citizen? What are we to make of the First Congress having taken it upon itself, as one of its first acts, to define, by statute and apart from Vattel, who should be considered a natural born citizen? What are we to make of Congress having since, on several occassions, undertaken to define who should be a citizen of right, at birth, versus who may become a citizen by oath and naturalization?
If one were God or Lawgiver, one may assume authority to prescribe what one believes the Founders and/or Ratifiers "obviously" meant. But no one person has such presumptive power over our republic. If one did, one may suppose various (obvious?) notions. One may suppose, Wouldn't it be great to require that the classification of a natural born citizen include only such children as are born within the U.S. of parents who were at the time both citizens?
But others may suppose differently. They may suppose, Wouldn't it suffice if one were born not within the U.S., but within a territory, a mandate, a colony, an embassy, a military base, Air Force One, or the residence of an Ambassador abroad? Or an emergency clinic near an off base installation?
And what of children born to parents who are citizens of different nations? Should such children be stateless if all advanced nations were to require the withholding of citizenship in the absence of both parents having beeen citizens? Should only the citizenship of the father be required? But what if some states give equal consideration to the citizenship of the mother? If, because of the citizenship of a mother, a child has dual citizenship, even though he has a natural right of citizenship at birth, should such a child be imputed to have such divided loyalties as to be denied a right to run for the presidency in any nation?
Or should residency for 14 years, as prescribed in the Constitution, be deemed sufficient to guard against divided loyalties, especially in the event of having foresworn allegiance to any competing power? What about an American Bishop who becomes a citizen of the Vatican?
Did the Founders and Ratifiers really intend to reserve all such considerations to the Constitution, or did they intend to convey authority to Congress to sort out such concerns?
Regardless, among the variety of ideas that any one person may think to "obviously" circumscribe the definition of a natural born citizen, it is evident that the Constitution itself does not in any specific sense purport to define or determine such matters.
Did the Founders or Ratifiers intend, presume, or even think about whether any white man (racism was prevalent at the time) who entered into the early nation and made a residence and a living should automatically be considered a citizen, before the Congress had set up institutions and agents for identifying, qualifying, and taking count of citizens? Before birth certificates were common or uniform, how were citizens made or presumed, as each new territory and its occupants became organized and was admitted as a state? Was the determination of who should, upon birth, be a citizen of right of the U.S. a matter within the exclusive or preemptory power of Congress, within the shared power of each state, or within the partial but excludable power of each state?
Regarding such concerns about state citizenship, U.S. citizenship, naturalized citizenship, citizenship of right at birth, and natural born citizenship that qualifies one to run for the presidency and vice presidency: How "obvious" and clear is the Constitution, really?
And how much should the history of persons who have actually been elected and recognized as qualified bear on an interpretation of what the Founders or Ratifiers really meant, anticipated, or even thought about? After all, we have had a President, after expiration of the grandfather proviso, both of whose parents were born outside the U.S. (Andrew Jackson). We have had a President whose place of birth is uncertain and whose father was not a citizen (Chester Arthur). We have had a Vice President who was born in a territory outside the organized U.S. (Charles Curtis). We have had a President whose father was born in Kenya (Obama). We have had candidates whose parents or places of birth were in such places as Mexico, Paris, and Panama. We now have candidates who were born in the U.S. of parents who were not at the time citizens. (But for their long and legal residence, an argument could be made that they should not have been conferred with birthright citizenship.) As to Ted Cruz, his mother was an American citizen. And she had lived in the U.S. long enough such that, under Congressional enactment, Ted was a citizen of right at the time of his birth.
In the Constitution itself, one will not find specific provisions to prescribe or define which of such categories of birth situations should confer status of citizen of right, citizen if earned, citizen of oath, citizen at birth, or citizen at birth qualified to run for President. All that is found is a vague reference to "natural born citizen, " 35 years of age, and 14 years of residence.
As to whether Congress retains power to define who should be a natural born citizen, there are implications, there are minority arguments, and there are majority arguments. The majority would probably recognize that the Founders and Ratifiers could not reasonably be thought to have intended or anticipated all the varying possibilities (some of which are set out above).
To form a framework for governing an expanding nation, the Founders would have referred much of such power to Congress. So long as Congress does not expand or reduce the right of any particular child to run or not run for President after his birth, it would comport with reasoned law to leave such power to Congress. Under Statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born, he was a citizen of right at the time of his birth. He was not required to swear an oath or undergo a process of naturalization or testing. Under precedents of practice, and in light of practical considerations for governing a large federal republic, the chance that Scotus would declare Cruz to be ineligible appears to be vanishingly small.
******
As to anchor babies: The Founders and Ratifiers (both of the Constitution and of the 14th Amendment) may have entertained various and different assumptions about who was or should be citizens. But I doubt many who thought about the matter would have intended that children born of invading hordes must be supported as citizens. Nor have I seen any language in the Constitution or 14th Amendment that should reasonably be interpreted in any such a way.
***************
It appears NBC people would punt to an Act of 1986 to separate out who is a citizen, because they otherwise lack a clear way to determine among many of our migrant residents which are "citizens."
But then, to determine who is a "natural born citizen," they think they have some simple test that is clearly set forth in the Constitution? Even though, to state their test, they have to refer to a version of Vattel that was published after the Constitution was ratified?
The way I see it, Cruz is a citizen, jus sanguinis, because his mother was a citizen. And he is a natural born citizen, because he was born a citizen of right, without having to earn it by naturalization. I don't find anything in the Constitution that says that a person who is born a citizen, who does not have to undergo naturalization to become a citizen, is not a "natural born citizen." Nor, in my experience, have I noticed that those Presidents who were born here of two citizens have tended to display any superior loyalty to America.
******************
NOTES:
John Jay recommended, in a letter to Washington, a need to help guard against intrigue by foreign princes to become head of state in America. As near as I can tell, nothing suggests any connection in Cruz to any foreign prince. (Jay should rather have been more concerned about intrigue by internal traitors, oligarchs, and shills for the Chamber of Commerce who become bent on cannibalizing and selling out America and Americans.)
The Founders (under the Committee on Detail) had been considering a residency requirement of a number of years to become President. The need for that was supported when (without recorded explanation or debate after receiving Jay's letter) it was submitted (by the Committee of Eleven) to require that the President have been born a citizen (a natural born citizen). In Jay's letter, the only word underlined was "born." The word "natural" was not underlined. The Jay letter did not refer to Vattel.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#cite_note-19:
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.
*****
In 2012 WL 1205117, a pro se plaintiff challenged Obama's presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that "natural born citizen" required the president "to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents."
To which the Court responded, " Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. .... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil." [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].
******
Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was not naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. While he was born in the U.S., only one of his parents was a citizen at the time.
Charles Curtis was Vice President under Hoover. Curtis was born in Kansas when it was a territory. As such, he was not born in the U.S. Pehaps the most important function for a Vice President is to be ready to assume the presidency in event of the death or incapacity of the President. Yet, there does not appear to have been significant debate that Curtis would have been disqualified for not having been a "natural born citizen."
Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory, not in the U.S.
Lowell Weicker entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980, but dropped out before voting in the primaries began; he was also suggested as a possible vice-president candidate in 1976. He was born in Paris, France.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, but his parents were Cubans at the time.
****************
SUMMATION:
Much ink has been spilled on speculation and dicta about the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen." Respectable commentators have been all over the map. The controlling documents, being the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, are not especially clear. The 1986 Statute under Reagan did not much help. Since and before that time, much has happened. We have had candidacies by George Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz. We have also come awake to an out of control invasion by Mexicans and Chinese vying for birthright citizenship. Other nations have been clarifying that birth does not in itself confer citizenship.
MY TAKE:
An intelligent policy would hold that birthright citizenship of a type for which naturalization should not have to be earned should pass and endure only to a child born of an American parent and whose allegiance does not become compromised. All other forms of citizenship should have to be earned under provisions for naturalization as provided by Congress.
However, even though an argument can be made that such should be the policy and the law, it is not clear that it in fact IS the law. Ideally, it would be best to have Congress declare such to be the law.
The PROBLEM is this: It is now clear that Congress, the Presidency, and even Scotus, are in thrall to anti-American, establishmentarian, one-world interests that are of no mind to make it easy to enforce the border.
In this situation, is there enough of a good faith argument to support a popular and competent President in building political pressure and agencies to bring such policy to fruition by executive enforcement, pending the lack of resolution by Congress?
Answer: If there is not ground for such a process, then America, as a representative republic, may not be much longer for this world.
See http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/video-mark-levin-defends-trump-anchor-babies-have-no-birthright-citizenship/.
Mark Levin said on “Hannity” tonight that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
He said that those claiming that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong, pointing to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Levin explained that means that Congress – not the president, the courts or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.
*****
Yes, the practice under the Foreign Affairs Manual has been to confer such citizenship. But that practice is unsupported in reasoned interpretation of law. Now, if Scotus, in a contrary case, disagrees, and if Congress passes clarifying statutory law and then Scotus still disagrees, then, yes, a Constitutional Amendment would be the way to proceed -- short of revolution, secession, or nullification. But that is not what you represented Levin to have said. You appear to have, rather arrogantly, misrepresented Levin.
A reason people tire of rehashing this stuff is because so many (not all) NBC people talk, but they hardly ever seem to listen or read. Levin, to the best of my knowledge, has not said Cruz is disqualified. Neither has he said an amendment is required to end the anchor baby farce. Rather, he has said the opposite.
************
Below, I am setting out some postulations. I mean to keep my eyes open and do some continuing research on some of these issues. If you want to be of service, feel free to help.
See Constitution, Article II, Section 1, excerpt: 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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
MY PRELIMINARY POSTULATIONS (If I am wrong, say where and cite):
(1) The Constitution does not appear to specifically prescribe how citizenship is to be obtained or conferred.
(2) Much less does the Constitution prescribe a definition for a natural born citizen. (It does specify that a person must be 35 years of age and have been a resident within the U.S. for at least 14 years to be eligible to take office. But, if a person is 35 and has lived within the U.S. for 14 years, the Constitution itself does not prescribe what else would be necessary for such a person to be either a citizen or a natural born citizen.)
DISCUSSION:
One may guess what the Founders or Ratifiers intended by requiring that the President be a natural born citizen. One may even take note that the Founders were concerned to try to protect against intrigues by persons loyal to foreign princes. But the Founders did not spell out how such protection was to be provided. Did they mean to leave that to Congress? Did they mean to leave it to each State to define for itself who should be considered a citizen of right, a citizen of oath, and/or a natural born citizen?
Did they mean to refer the matter to a treatise, by incorporating the work of Vattel? If so, which version, and when published? Did they mean Vattel and/or other treatises to be incorporated as law, or only as guides, for the consideration of Congress and/or Scotus? What other nations, if any, have incorporated the entire work of Vattel as law, as opposed to a guide? Should we suppose that those Founders and Ratifiers of the Constitution who had not read Vattel meant to issue a blank check by adopting it wholesale, sight unseen for many of them? What about interpretations and sub-treatises of Vattel?
Among nations, how much consensus, really, then and now, is there concerning how one becomes a citizen at birth, or how one becomes a natural born citizen? What are we to make of the First Congress having taken it upon itself, as one of its first acts, to define, by statute and apart from Vattel, who should be considered a natural born citizen? What are we to make of Congress having since, on several occassions, undertaken to define who should be a citizen of right, at birth, versus who may become a citizen by oath and naturalization?
If one were God or Lawgiver, one may assume authority to prescribe what one believes the Founders and/or Ratifiers "obviously" meant. But no one person has such presumptive power over our republic. If one did, one may suppose various (obvious?) notions. One may suppose, Wouldn't it be great to require that the classification of a natural born citizen include only such children as are born within the U.S. of parents who were at the time both citizens?
But others may suppose differently. They may suppose, Wouldn't it suffice if one were born not within the U.S., but within a territory, a mandate, a colony, an embassy, a military base, Air Force One, or the residence of an Ambassador abroad? Or an emergency clinic near an off base installation?
And what of children born to parents who are citizens of different nations? Should such children be stateless if all advanced nations were to require the withholding of citizenship in the absence of both parents having beeen citizens? Should only the citizenship of the father be required? But what if some states give equal consideration to the citizenship of the mother? If, because of the citizenship of a mother, a child has dual citizenship, even though he has a natural right of citizenship at birth, should such a child be imputed to have such divided loyalties as to be denied a right to run for the presidency in any nation?
Or should residency for 14 years, as prescribed in the Constitution, be deemed sufficient to guard against divided loyalties, especially in the event of having foresworn allegiance to any competing power? What about an American Bishop who becomes a citizen of the Vatican?
Did the Founders and Ratifiers really intend to reserve all such considerations to the Constitution, or did they intend to convey authority to Congress to sort out such concerns?
Regardless, among the variety of ideas that any one person may think to "obviously" circumscribe the definition of a natural born citizen, it is evident that the Constitution itself does not in any specific sense purport to define or determine such matters.
Did the Founders or Ratifiers intend, presume, or even think about whether any white man (racism was prevalent at the time) who entered into the early nation and made a residence and a living should automatically be considered a citizen, before the Congress had set up institutions and agents for identifying, qualifying, and taking count of citizens? Before birth certificates were common or uniform, how were citizens made or presumed, as each new territory and its occupants became organized and was admitted as a state? Was the determination of who should, upon birth, be a citizen of right of the U.S. a matter within the exclusive or preemptory power of Congress, within the shared power of each state, or within the partial but excludable power of each state?
Regarding such concerns about state citizenship, U.S. citizenship, naturalized citizenship, citizenship of right at birth, and natural born citizenship that qualifies one to run for the presidency and vice presidency: How "obvious" and clear is the Constitution, really?
And how much should the history of persons who have actually been elected and recognized as qualified bear on an interpretation of what the Founders or Ratifiers really meant, anticipated, or even thought about? After all, we have had a President, after expiration of the grandfather proviso, both of whose parents were born outside the U.S. (Andrew Jackson). We have had a President whose place of birth is uncertain and whose father was not a citizen (Chester Arthur). We have had a Vice President who was born in a territory outside the organized U.S. (Charles Curtis). We have had a President whose father was born in Kenya (Obama). We have had candidates whose parents or places of birth were in such places as Mexico, Paris, and Panama. We now have candidates who were born in the U.S. of parents who were not at the time citizens. (But for their long and legal residence, an argument could be made that they should not have been conferred with birthright citizenship.) As to Ted Cruz, his mother was an American citizen. And she had lived in the U.S. long enough such that, under Congressional enactment, Ted was a citizen of right at the time of his birth.
In the Constitution itself, one will not find specific provisions to prescribe or define which of such categories of birth situations should confer status of citizen of right, citizen if earned, citizen of oath, citizen at birth, or citizen at birth qualified to run for President. All that is found is a vague reference to "natural born citizen, " 35 years of age, and 14 years of residence.
As to whether Congress retains power to define who should be a natural born citizen, there are implications, there are minority arguments, and there are majority arguments. The majority would probably recognize that the Founders and Ratifiers could not reasonably be thought to have intended or anticipated all the varying possibilities (some of which are set out above).
To form a framework for governing an expanding nation, the Founders would have referred much of such power to Congress. So long as Congress does not expand or reduce the right of any particular child to run or not run for President after his birth, it would comport with reasoned law to leave such power to Congress. Under Statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born, he was a citizen of right at the time of his birth. He was not required to swear an oath or undergo a process of naturalization or testing. Under precedents of practice, and in light of practical considerations for governing a large federal republic, the chance that Scotus would declare Cruz to be ineligible appears to be vanishingly small.
******
As to anchor babies: The Founders and Ratifiers (both of the Constitution and of the 14th Amendment) may have entertained various and different assumptions about who was or should be citizens. But I doubt many who thought about the matter would have intended that children born of invading hordes must be supported as citizens. Nor have I seen any language in the Constitution or 14th Amendment that should reasonably be interpreted in any such a way.
***************
It appears NBC people would punt to an Act of 1986 to separate out who is a citizen, because they otherwise lack a clear way to determine among many of our migrant residents which are "citizens."
But then, to determine who is a "natural born citizen," they think they have some simple test that is clearly set forth in the Constitution? Even though, to state their test, they have to refer to a version of Vattel that was published after the Constitution was ratified?
The way I see it, Cruz is a citizen, jus sanguinis, because his mother was a citizen. And he is a natural born citizen, because he was born a citizen of right, without having to earn it by naturalization. I don't find anything in the Constitution that says that a person who is born a citizen, who does not have to undergo naturalization to become a citizen, is not a "natural born citizen." Nor, in my experience, have I noticed that those Presidents who were born here of two citizens have tended to display any superior loyalty to America.
******************
NOTES:
John Jay recommended, in a letter to Washington, a need to help guard against intrigue by foreign princes to become head of state in America. As near as I can tell, nothing suggests any connection in Cruz to any foreign prince. (Jay should rather have been more concerned about intrigue by internal traitors, oligarchs, and shills for the Chamber of Commerce who become bent on cannibalizing and selling out America and Americans.)
The Founders (under the Committee on Detail) had been considering a residency requirement of a number of years to become President. The need for that was supported when (without recorded explanation or debate after receiving Jay's letter) it was submitted (by the Committee of Eleven) to require that the President have been born a citizen (a natural born citizen). In Jay's letter, the only word underlined was "born." The word "natural" was not underlined. The Jay letter did not refer to Vattel.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause#cite_note-19:
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.
*****
In 2012 WL 1205117, a pro se plaintiff challenged Obama's presence on the presidential ballot, based on his own interpretation that "natural born citizen" required the president "to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents."
To which the Court responded, " Article II, section 1, clause 5 does not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the Natural Born Citizen clause means what plaintiff Strunk claims it says. .... Moreover, President Obama is the sixth U.S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil." [listing Andrew Jackson, James Buchanan, Chester A. Arthur, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover].
******
Chester A. Arthur was born in Vermont to a Vermont-born mother and a father from Ireland, who was not naturalized as a U.S. citizen until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. While he was born in the U.S., only one of his parents was a citizen at the time.
Charles Curtis was Vice President under Hoover. Curtis was born in Kansas when it was a territory. As such, he was not born in the U.S. Pehaps the most important function for a Vice President is to be ready to assume the presidency in event of the death or incapacity of the President. Yet, there does not appear to have been significant debate that Curtis would have been disqualified for not having been a "natural born citizen."
Barry Goldwater was born in the Arizona territory, not in the U.S.
Lowell Weicker entered the race for the Republican party nomination of 1980, but dropped out before voting in the primaries began; he was also suggested as a possible vice-president candidate in 1976. He was born in Paris, France.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, but his parents were Cubans at the time.
****************
SUMMATION:
Much ink has been spilled on speculation and dicta about the meaning of "citizen" and "natural born citizen." Respectable commentators have been all over the map. The controlling documents, being the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, are not especially clear. The 1986 Statute under Reagan did not much help. Since and before that time, much has happened. We have had candidacies by George Romney, John McCain, Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, and Ted Cruz. We have also come awake to an out of control invasion by Mexicans and Chinese vying for birthright citizenship. Other nations have been clarifying that birth does not in itself confer citizenship.
MY TAKE:
An intelligent policy would hold that birthright citizenship of a type for which naturalization should not have to be earned should pass and endure only to a child born of an American parent and whose allegiance does not become compromised. All other forms of citizenship should have to be earned under provisions for naturalization as provided by Congress.
However, even though an argument can be made that such should be the policy and the law, it is not clear that it in fact IS the law. Ideally, it would be best to have Congress declare such to be the law.
The PROBLEM is this: It is now clear that Congress, the Presidency, and even Scotus, are in thrall to anti-American, establishmentarian, one-world interests that are of no mind to make it easy to enforce the border.
In this situation, is there enough of a good faith argument to support a popular and competent President in building political pressure and agencies to bring such policy to fruition by executive enforcement, pending the lack of resolution by Congress?
Answer: If there is not ground for such a process, then America, as a representative republic, may not be much longer for this world.
52 comments:
Well, the NBC people keep harping on this stuff, even though their ship has sailed. They want a candidate who was born in America of parents who were both Americans at the time.
BOTH PARENTS: Well, Obama (among other things) had a father (he professes) who was not an American. So did Chester A. Arthur. So, that aspect of NBC has sailed. After 8 years, it's done. If it weren't done, Rubio would be disqualified. (Both of Rubio's parents were not Americans at the time he was born in Miami. Only if they were here not illegally, and only if they were "subject to the jurisdiction," should his birth here not have been as an illegal anchor baby. There should still be the issue, however, of whether they were "sufficiently" subject to the jurisdiction. On that, the Foreign Affairs Manual, in my opinion, is wrong. However, until "President Trump" changes it, the fait accompli will remain that Rubio is eligible.)
PLACE OF BIRTH: Then they say, Well, Cruz was not born in America. Well, neither were Charles Curtis (Vice President under Hoover.) And neither were John McCain (Panama), Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory), George Romney (Mexico), or Lowell Weicker (Paris). So then they hedge and hum and say, Well, there's never been a President or Vice President who was actually elected who was born outside the United States or its territories or its military institutions.
NBC people are suffering from cognitive dissonance about this. See the Foreign Affairs Manual:
Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1)
Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
The FAM then references Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In it, Justice Bork said:
A principle revoking sovereign immunity on our embassy grounds abroad would also, presumably, have the same effect as to our military and naval bases around the world, since the United States exercises jurisdiction in such locations. The possibilities are almost endless for tort suits in this country against foreign governments for acts or omissions all over the world. We are persuaded that Congress intended nothing of the sort. Embassies may be, as appellants argue, unique in their inviolability but that does not distinguish them from military facilities, libraries, AID missions, and the like with respect ofthe criteria of the statute. If the controlling question were only whether the United States had some jurisdiction, all premises controlled by this country anywhere in the world would fit the statutory definition of the "United States." Fidelity to the statutory language would prevent us from picking and choosing among premises subject to some extent of congressional control.
Under this reasoning of Persinger v. Iran,John McCain was not born "in the United States" for purposes of the 14th Amendment. So, if John McCain, per Senate Resolution, was a natural born citizen, it was NOT because of his place of birth. IOW, per the Senate Resolution, place of birth is NOT determinative of being or not being a natural born citizen.
Regarding birth in a territory before *1941:
According to Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267 (1901), the net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated. Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character.
*Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes. The phrase “in the United States” as used in Section 1993 of the Revised Statues of 1878 clearly includes states that have been admitted to the Union. (See 7 FAM 1119 b.)
*********
CAVEAT: On other grounds, there may remain an issue concerning Cruz. However, on the grounds of birthplace and double parentage, I believe those issues are best put to rest.
NBC people keep harping on this stuff, even though their ship has sailed. They want a candidate who was born in America of parents who were both Americans at the time.
BOTH PARENTS: Well, Obama (among other things) had a father (he professes) who was not an American. So did Chester A. Arthur. So, that aspect of NBC has sailed. After 8 years, it's done. If it weren't done, Rubio would be disqualified.
PLACE OF BIRTH: Then they say, Well, Cruz was not born in America. Well, neither were Charles Curtis (Vice President under Hoover.) And neither were John McCain (Panama), Barry Goldwater (Arizona Territory), George Romney (Mexico), or Lowell Weicker (Paris). So then they hedge and hum and say, Well, there's never been a President or Vice President who was actually elected who was born outside the United States or its territories or its military institutions.
NBC people are suffering from cognitive dissonance about this. See the Foreign Affairs Manual:
Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1)
Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
The FAM then references Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In it, Justice Bork said:
A principle revoking sovereign immunity on our embassy grounds abroad would also, presumably, have the same effect as to our military and naval bases around the world, since the United States exercises jurisdiction in such locations. The possibilities are almost endless for tort suits in this country against foreign governments for acts or omissions all over the world. We are persuaded that Congress intended nothing of the sort. Embassies may be, as appellants argue, unique in their inviolability but that does not distinguish them from military facilities, libraries, AID missions, and the like with respect ofthe criteria of the statute. If the controlling question were only whether the United States had some jurisdiction, all premises controlled by this country anywhere in the world would fit the statutory definition of the "United States." Fidelity to the statutory language would prevent us from picking and choosing among premises subject to some extent of congressional control.
Under this reasoning of Persinger v. Iran,John McCain was not born "in the United States" for purposes of the 14th Amendment. So, if John McCain, per Senate Resolution, was a natural born citizen, it was NOT because of his place of birth. IOW, per the Senate Resolution, place of birth is NOT determinative of being or not being a natural born citizen.
Regarding birth in a territory before *1941:
According to Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267 (1901), the net effect of incorporation is that the territory becomes an integral part of the geographical boundaries of the United States and cannot, from then on, be separated. Indeed, the whole body of the U.S. Constitution is extended to the inhabitants of that territory, except for those provisions that relate to its federal character.
*Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes. The phrase “in the United States” as used in Section 1993 of the Revised Statues of 1878 clearly includes states that have been admitted to the Union. (See 7 FAM 1119 b.)
*********
CAVEAT: On other grounds, there may remain an issue concerning Cruz. However, on the grounds of birthplace and double parentage, I believe those issues are best put to rest.
Some of us have been saying for longer than a decade that the majority of Americans would flock to a candidate who was a bona fide Conserver of Liberty. We have been saying the Rinos and Dinos do not represent us. That we need a third (actually second) party. That the Rino-Dino party just represents the Oligarch-Serf Party.
I hope Trump eats the Rino Party and completely redefines it! He will pull in millions of Great Americans. Decent, hard working people who yearn to breathe free. Let the Establishmentarian (snif) George Will's go to Hades and the Dems. Let the Republicans embrace the hard workers who used to go to the Dems. Let pc die. Let good minorities free themselves from being shackled to thug cultures. Let freedom ring from every mountain top.
A cult that enforces pretense of belief by killing those who refuse to pretend is a secular death machine -- not a religion. An intelligent person does not empower a depraved child or cult. An intelligent person keeps a close watch on such a source of depravity. If and when the child shows talent or inclination to grow up and become decent and responsible, then an intelligent West may respond in measured steps.
An intelligent West ought not be greasing the way for an apocalyptic minded cult to acquire nukes. The problem is, the West is not intelligent. And its leaders are without moral convicton for judging right and wrong. The West no longer has convictions. The West has put itself under the power of regimes whose strongest convictions are that Islam needs to be empowered and imported. The West will sell to Islam the technology it needs to destroy us. God help us.
What can be said, when the authorities charged with keeping the law become lawless? There is no lawful solution to a lawless regime. There is no such thing as a "fair" cultural war. An establishment of moral nihilists is at war against the people. The establishment is telling the people this: "The only law you have is the rule we hold over you, and we will destroy you if you do not obey." Now, the establishment is becoming bewildered as it realizes the people have had enough and are not going to obey. Indeed, the people are close to wanting to "round up the usual suspects." They realize they are not the villains. The establishment is. Hopefully, the defenestrartion of perverted establishmentarians who force the outrages Cyrus-Bieber-Kanye-BLM-Islam upon us is finally at hand.
Cruz may not have automatically been a citizen at the very time of his birth. Perhaps not until he met a residency requirement. That is what needs to be looked in to. And if a period of residency was required, then what is the theory to show that he was "entitled to citizenship based on his birth," without "needing to earn naturalization" (as via test and loyalty oath)?
I like Cruz, and if he is qualified, I want to prevent a bad argument from disqualifying him. But I keep telling Conservers of Liberty: Do NOT put all your eggs in either the Trump or the Cruz basket! Those who want to fight the establishment need to be ready to help one or the other, depending on which one, if either, may be chosen, cast aside, or disqualified. We Have To Oust The Establishment Of One Worlder Anti-Americans!
I would argue that a person who is a citizen without having to take a test or a loyalty oath is a citizen of right and a sufficient "citizen at birth" to qualify to run for President. I would argue that Congress was delegated with authority so to provide -- regardless of whether the Constitution would otherwise make a person born of blood a citizen, automatically.
Foreign Affairs Manual:
c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
See Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984). It says:
A principle revoking sovereign immunity on our embassy grounds abroad would also, presumably, have the same effect as to our military and naval bases around the world, since the United States exercises jurisdiction in such locations. The possibilities are almost endless for tort suits in this country against foreign governments for acts or omissions all over the world. We are persuaded that Congress intended nothing of the sort. Embassies may be, as appellants argue, unique in their inviolability but that does not distinguish them from military facilities, libraries, AID missions, and the like with respect of the criteria of the statute. If the controlling question were only whether the United States had some jurisdiction, all premises controlled by this country anywhere in the world would fit the statutory definition of the "United States." Fidelity to the statutory language would prevent us from picking and choosing among premises subject to some extent of congressional control.
So, under the reasoning of Persinger v. Iran, it appears to be the case that neither my sister nor John McCain were born "in the United States" for purposes of the 14th Amendment! So, if John McCain, per Senate Resolution, was a natural born citizen, it was NOT because of his place of birth. IOW, per the Senate Resolution, place of birth is NOT determinative of being a natural born citizen.
**************
NOTE: See generally http://www.uscis.gov
If, to receive citizenship through his mother, it was required that Cruz establish a term of residence and renounce any divided loyalty, that is a ground on which anti-Cruz people would claim and argue that his citizenship is based neither on birth nor on right, but on being earned (via earned naturalization). Supporters of Cruz (and McCain?), such as Dershowitz, Levin, Jacobson, and others, will need to address that concern.
They would probably argue that Cruz (and McCain?) did not have to take a loyalty oath or test, and therefore, AFTER necessary residence, had a right to citizenship, by virtue of birth from an American mother. They will probably argue that Congress, by virtue of its enumerated powers, including power to define naturalization, thereby made him a "natural born citizen." Given the precedents, is this clear enough? Who would have standing, and once there was standing, who would have the burden of proof?
*************
According to the FAM:
Naturalization
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship Subsequent to Birth:
Naturalization is “the conferring of nationality of a State upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever” (INA 101(a)(23) (
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) or conferring of citizenship upon a person (see INA 310, 8 U.S.C. 1421 and INA 311, 8 U.S.C. 1422)
Naturalization can be granted automatically or pursuant to an application. (See 7 FAM 1140).
I think the issue of Obama being a natural born citizen does not resolve that such status can be by virtue of birth alone, because his mother was an American citizen. The opinion in Wong Kim Ark dealt with the citizenship of a child born of legally resident parents. I do not see any sensible interpretation that would support finding a child born of illegal invaders to be a citizen. I do not see any precedent holding that a child who has no parent who was an American citizen would qualify to become president.
Rubio was born in Miami of legally resident parents, so he is a citizen. Whether he should qualify to become President is debateable. However, the trend is such, and the establishment is so corrupt, that I do not imagine that his eligibility would be subject to any practical challenge.
The citizenry needs to wake up and address what is needed to sustain the republic. The establishment cannot be trusted. If a competent and decent President can be elected, he may be able to turn things towards a better path.
I think a better interpretation of existing law is that a child born of illegal invaders (an anchor baby) is not a citizen. I think the President should see to it that the guidance in the Foreign Affairs Manual is changed in that respect.
Contemporaneously, the law regarding citizenship needs to be clarified. Going forward, the Constitution needs to be amended to convey to Congress complete authority by legislation to determine who is a citizen and who is eligible to become President.
Re: George McClellan Jr. was born in Saxony while his parents were on vacation. And, the Republican Party nominated Charles Evan Hughes to run against Woodrow Wilson in 1916, even though Hughes' father was not an American citizen when he was born.
Thanks Billie, for the excellent information! The notion that being a natural born citizen requires birth in the United States of two parents who were both citizens at the time needs to be retired. What is still needed, however, is a way to distinguish who is a citizen of right at the time of birth, who is a citizen of right after a period of residency, and who may become a citizen upon application and passing a test and swearing allegiance. Then it needs to be determined whether one or more of such classifications qualifies a person to run for the presidency.
The standing situation is intolerable, because it promotes uncertainty and disrespect for the law and for office holders whose offices depend on appointments from potential presidents whose offices are of dubious legality. It builds our republic on sand.
It is also intolerable because it promotes confusion about the citizenship of persons born in America of illegal invaders, visitors, temporary workers, long term visa workers, and legal domiciliaries seeking to establish citizenship. Our bureaucracies are filled with confused and incorrect guidance. For example, the Foreign Affairs Manual says, based on thin air or at most poor scholarship, that a child born in the United States is a citizen regardless of the legal status of his parents.
We desperately need a competent President, a loyal Congress, an adult Scotus, an awakened electorate, and a Convention of States. Otherwise, our house cannot much longer stand on the sand that is shifting beneath our feet.
I think the establishment believes that to allow the confusion to continue will put time on its side in its goal of replacing the republic with one worldism. See Phillip K. Dick's dystopian novel, Time Out of Joint.
Sure, there's a class of post graduates who are highly mal-educated in pc. Then there's a class of post graduates and autodidacts who are highly informed in politics, history, moral philosophy and practical science. The first class votes for socialists, commies, deceiving muslims, and crony liars. The second class looks for freedom loving Americans. So who's the lofo now?
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts.
How about some toughen up, grow up training in the schools for the general populace?
Church used to be where people went once a week for sensitivity training. Now hardly anyone goes to church, but many go five times a week to schools and work to learn diversity and tolerance training.
The ones who don't go to school or work learn entitlement, pity me, white privilege, and blame whitey training at home -- from the teevee. This is the new religion that Progs believe will sustain them against the gathering forces of evil. It's a mass, prepare-yourself-to-be-eaten religion for manly fems and femly mans. Elite service.
Well, Wong was born in America of parents who were legally domiciled here at the time. So he was a citizen by birth because his parents were "subject to the jurisdiction." In respect of anyone who might argue that the Court meant to go further to say that Wong was a "natural born citizen" who could qualify to become President, that would at best be dicta. Prominent people seem to have written on all sides of that issue, but I see no holding to support it.
I don't think that issue can fairly be said to have been resolved by good or substantive reasoning. I do agree that the present Scotus is a tool of the establishment and would probably rule, if need be, in favor of someone like Rubio being a natural born citizen. (I am retired, so I can say that because I don't give 2 cents for pc.) Personally, I do not believe that good sense should allow anyone to be eligible who does not have at least one parent who was an American citizen at the time of his birth. However, I bow to this cycle of establishmentarian expediency.
That Is why I think a Convention of States is needed to clarify the issue, rather than to rely on a corrupted and largely lawless Scotus. The Liberty Amendments suggested by Mark Levin would put Scotus under the adult supervision it so badly needs.
IAE, the natural born citizen issue is not the biggest monster now facing America. The biggest monster is out of control illegal immigration, supported by corrupt interpretation of anchor baby precedents. That can be fixed by executive order, followed by clarifying legislation. If Scotus butts in, an Amendement may be needed, as via a Convention of States.
I hope you are not a one-world advocate for anchor baby citizenship based on birth to illegal invaders. If you are, then you would be part of a fundamental challenge to humanity -- to determine whether any republic can remain free of being swallowed by worldwide, two-class fascism that trades liberty for false security and "equality."
Pyler v. Doe demonstrates why Scotus ought not be deciding cases more broadly than necessary, especially since they do not represent the people at large, nor have they shown any superior social sense.
All Scotus needed to say was that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are for that purpose physically within the jurisdiction of a state. It did not need to impute that the children born in the U.S. of alien invaders should be considered as being "subject" to the jurisdiction for the purpose of being citizens. After all, the decision gives alien children who were not born in the U.S. a right to equal treatment as persons, without needing to make them citizen subjects.
However, I agree that one-world destroyers of the republic will run with this decision and argue that the words "subject to the jurisdiction" mean and add nothing when an anchor baby is born here. They will argue that a person who is born here is necessarily "subject" to the jurisdiction, so that his birth, in and of itself, makes him a citizen. If presented with this issue, I fully expect this Scotus, absent some way to heap big disgust upon it, will so confirm.
This is why a Convention of States is vital. Trump needs to inspire major disgust against some of the immigration related decisions by Scotus. He needs to proceed as much as he can on several fronts. Executive orders. Strong cabinet appointees. Inspire a legislative agenda. Build a wall and enforce the border. Inspire support for amendments to strengthen the republic.
*************
NOTE:
It appears the drafters intended a meaning for "subject to the jurisdiction" that was different from "within the jurisdiction." But a one-world Scotus may hardly notice.
14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I know you think the republic is in at least as bad a shape and as much peril as I do. We're pretty much down to our last good horses, and the mongols are closing fast. If I thought there was a better horse, I would be looking to ride it. All the candidates have saddle sores. as we know.
What has gotten us where we are is an unimaginably well funded and entrenched establishment, that has funded itself by complex and corrupt kickback schemes. Like the Clinton Foundation. There seem to be about as many good representatives in Congress as one might have found in Sodom. Our Congress is impotent. Our Scotus is a joke. And our Prez is the worst ever, by far.
The thing about Trump is this: If he is sincere, he can attempt to do what he says and not worry about the funding. He's 69. He can't live forever. I'm hoping he wants to leave a different kind of legacy from Soros.
I might be wrong, but I don't like to give up. Even to the last, I would be looking for a miracle, if it came to it. We need a miracle. Trump, with Cruz as backup, has the making of what we need. Cruz may help us reform the promised land, but I don't think he is the Moses who can get us there. He just does not have the funding. We don't have royalty to lead us, and would not want it, but maybe we have a billionaire who can resist the criminal elite.
We're in the realm of immeasurables. Here is where we fall back on spiritual intuition and prayer. If I'm wrong about Trump, we'll never know if someone else would have done better. We each just have to apply our best judgment and intuition.
I know Trump is as covered in defects as anyone. He may yet commit an unpardonable sin along the way. But my biggest issue is the preservation of the republic. The four biggest concerns I have about that are: Invasion by illegal immigration; invasion by establishment promoted immigration; political correctness that hamstrings us from saying what is necessary; and national defense (military and economic).
Trump is making the right noises on at least three of those items. I don't see another horse in the running who has the necessary backing, without selling out to the corruptocrats who have taken us to where we are.
We need to create a new party that represents Americans. Trump is pulling in minorities and blue collars. Is anyone else doing better, who is purer than Trump?
I'm not all in. I'm riding the horse that is available. If it tires, I'll move to a fresh one, if it appears. I want to get to the promised land. I want to see America become great again.
One thing about this project: The more I've looked into it, the more I've come to appreciate that the establishment and the outfits that feed elites to it are far more evil, conniving, deceiving, and entrenched than I would ever have suspected. I'm particularly disappointed in Scotus and its run towards one world fascism under the guise of centrally regulated egalitarianism that is destroying the republic.
In a better world, I would prefer Cruz. In this world, I think Trump has the tools we need to avoid imminent disaster. If another establishmentarian one worlder is elected, we are done as a republic.
I prefer not to use the word conservative. It too often promotes ambiguity and confusion. Does it mean bible thumping, support for the establishment, Agenda 21, strong military defense of the homeland, or empire promotion?
I want more liberty. I want to conserve the values and programs that support the preservation of liberty. I understand what is needed to be a conserver of liberty. Faith, family, fidelity. Less central rule. But when someone talks about conservatism without specifying what he wants to conserve, I don't understand what he is for or what he is against. In that case, to say he is for or against conservatives becomes more like noise than meaning.
We need an American who promotes liberty. The conservation of liberty. Liberty within limited, less centralizing law. The sustaining of the republic against all the fascist and socialist forces of hell.
In borgdom, liberty is lost even to the elites who try to ride it. This is because keeping a boot on every face of humanity is a full time job in which the elitist can never relax without losing his footing and often his head. For that reason, elites who imagine they must rule will ever trend to ratchet against liberty -- even their own.
If America does not reverse the direction of the "elite" establishmentarian rear sniffers, the world will soon lose its last best beacon of hope. We will not avoid fascist destruction of liberty by choosing one kind of borgdom over another.
We will not be able to stop that gravy train without a national ID. If we're going to be an independent republic, we will have to have a national ID. So long as we do not have that, we will have bleeding hearts crying for the sanctuary cities in which all the shadow people will continue to assert, and be supported by Scotus with regard to, their equal rights not to be discriminated against as "persons within our jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment.
In effect, our one world elites have conspired, consciously or subconsciously, to make it all but impossible for the U.S. to save itself from the emerging two-class nwo of Agenda 21. They will use every tool of force, deception, and legalistic subterfuge to hold and increase their gains. They have turned the central law into a one way ratchet towards worldwide despotic borgdom.
They will not give up easily. We are in for a fight. A way to tend to identify leaders against them is to test for whom they most despise. Who do they detest as being "coarse and vulgar"? Who but a vulgarian can inspire us to free ourselves from parasites and predators? Isn't it a badge of honor to have parasites and predators call one a vulgarian? Vulgarians, unite! Throw off the pinkie wagging establishmentarian parasites and predators!
The United States is surrounded by drooling parasites and predators, and the response by our internalized establishmentarian elite has been to tie us into a mess of gordian knots of gordian knots. Laws of laws of laws, impossible to understand, much less enforce.
We need leaders who can inspire us to untie ourselves by cutting through the knots. The knots are mainly made of little more than pc. A leader who can call pc stupid where it is stupid can free us. We can then emerge into sunlight and see what can be fixed simply by brushing aside a mess of liars, whiners, incompetents, sissy boys, addicts, hedonists, sexually confused loons, and destroyers of the republic and human freedom and dignity.
What is needed to restore a representative republic that can preserve freedom and dignity for its citizenry and against the world? To dare to ask the question against the weight of the pc crowd and all its godforsaken fascists, socialists, incompetents, and sociopaths is to be 90% of the way to answering it.
When we begin asking the question, we will no longer tolerate the pc lies of muslims, ows, blm, opm charities, weak kneed sex addled fake christians, and all their liars, deceivers, shills, and demons that have proliferated so thorougly throughout the world.
If you want to see hate, look at the programs and demonstrations being waged by the progressives to try to destroy the republic and replace it with their addled idea of a Marxist utopia. But then, Dems can't usually be called hypocrites against principles or christianity to the extent they do not have principles or higher faith. Frankly, if you want to see personalized hate against people, go back to any prog blog. You're not making sense or headway here.
0 Edit Reply
−
Avatar
Flip Dlanor
an hour ago
You don't think I'm making sense because you won't address what I'm saying. Again, you ignore the direct information that I'm asking you. You finally quote from the Bible but use a quote that backs what I'm saying rather than what you're saying. And when that's pointed out to you, you dodge.
You apparently have become someone who can feel horrible about others and superior to them, and it has led you astray from what you say you profess.
You are argumentative enough, but I see no indication coming from you of depth or discernment, much less christian faith. Only a desire not to be "hated" for being a pc statist. People who love liberty are on to your game. We know statists have little to offer, but much to destroy. If statism is so good, you need to take it somewhere else. We simply do not want it. Call that "hate" or whatever you want. No sale. If you want liberty within a representative republic, then you need to learn respect for an inviting faith, traditional family values, and loyalty to the republic that defends your freedom of faith, thought, speech, association, and enterprise.
There is nothing wrong with hating the agendas of wannabe collectivizing despots and their useful idiots and shills. Indeed, hating such agendas tends to be a mark of good sense. What you call hate, many would call good sense. If you find liberty lovers to be not to your liking, that is much more your problem than mine. Frankly, my dear, we don't care.
If you want to invite into such a republic those cultures and memes that are devoted to its destruction and replacement, then your efforts simply cannot be tolerated. To tolerate that which seeks to destroy human liberty in trade for collective equality or security or pc feelings or fairness is not enlightened tolerance. It is subhuman.
If you have no decent faith, or if you are an egalitarian materialist who thinks people should not endure hurt feelings or having less property, then you might read David Hume to seek some better some ideas for guiding a decent philosophy of morality and virtue. Hint: It's not in statism, socialism, or fascism. So far, all you offer are your wannas -- especially your wanna to have liberty lovers not hate your agenda.
What is your guiding philosophy for determining right from wrong and for encouraging and defending a decent society? What red lines do you have the will to enforce? When you enforce them (if ever), is it with hate in your heart? Do you not hate any kind of evil? I asked you whether you purport to be a christian. So far, the only thing I see you use Christianity for is to advance a non-christian agenda by suggesting to people they cannot be Christians if they hate the agenda of those who are bent on the destruction of their republic. Nothing but "please don't hate on me or stop my gravy."
People are trying out all the non-Trumps. As they try them out, they find them wanting. I expect they will soon find Carson wanting. So they return to Trump. The medicine may not be tasty to everyone, but it's entertaining and it's not obviously poisonous.
It's hard for the wolf to articulate why it's necessary to devour the little piggies while the wolf is chewing.
Manly Christianity made America. Homosexualized christianity is destroying the West. Thanks be to the Poison Ivies.
It appears Merkel never had a mature mind on the topic to begin with. Rather, her mind appears already to have been rotted to homosexualized, sado-masochistic christianity. Per New Yalie Christianity, it seems Jesus was more an advocate for Gay Marxist redistribution of materiality than an inviter to participate in pursuing human freedom and dignity under the Reconciler. s/
Muslim "refugees" (crowds covering jihadis) present an existential challenge to the childishly tolerant and unmanly moral code of Marxist-Fascist, Do-Gooder Libs. Merkel's mush filled moral mind has melted under the molten heat of Mohammadan evil. Likewise, Obama.
I hate to see anyone treated badly based on nothing but superficial bias. On the other hand, freedom of association gets close to the essence of what freedom is all about. In this day and age, I think most businesses would go under or lose many of their best customers if they began blatantly discriminating. So I question whether we still need micromanagement by carpetbaggers who conflate gov with morality and charity.
That said, it was not long ago when many country clubs obviously discriminated against blacks. If discrimination in public accomodations were to rear its head again, it may become necessary to rethink this, again.
But which is worse: Seeing some businesses unfairly discriminate, or raising millions of tender snowflakes? This is a real challenge for Carson. Were he to stray too far away from the "whitey must pay" meme, Sharpton and Jackson would roll out their racist bands. https://youtu.be/zHflFFKoaNM
I don't want any more manmade law than is necessary. I want manmade law not to needlessly interfere with people who just want to live their lives and follow their faith. I don't want manmade law to defend every person's feelings by needlessly impinging on freedom.
I think every business owner should be able to decline to do business with whomever he wants. I want a return to freedom of association. I want people to rely more on traditional values to get along, instead of going so much to gov based force. I don't think people should be precluded from discussing their values in the public square merely because they rationalize their values based more on spiritual receptivity than on secular notions of materially redistributive fairness.
I think a republican literate society needs to try to keep manmade laws to a minimum. I think criminals against public safety and property and criminal conspirators should be locked away or banned. I think followers of Islam are by definition moral or legal criminal conspirators, at a minimum.
******
The superior interest in marriage, I believe, is in a union before God. While the State does not have the superior interest, it does have interests in preserving defensible demographics for those who choose to continue to live under its auspices. The state has an interest in protecting children and the non-able-bodied from abuse. It has an interest in promoting patriotism and providing incentives to promote the general health of the citizenry and the republic. The state balances interests in respect of the general will, as represented in legislatures.
I think the general will must be checked, so that no mob or coalition of gangs or special interests can reduce everyone else to inferior status. One of those checks is to inculcate respect for an assimilating idea of a higher (spiritual) sponsor of values. As people seek guidance in such higher respect, they will more likely find common ground in good faith and good will. They may refer to their right to participate in such assimilative process as unalienable. When such right is alienated, the people become less human, more subhuman.
The formualaic reference to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be conceptualized under the heading of an unalienable right in a citizen, so long as he is not reduced to inferior status, to participate in the assimilation of moral codes and legal rules.
So long as we retain dignity as free thinking Americans, we will limit the power of gov to regulate against us. The more our institutions of faith and family are weakened and insulted, the more we tend to be forced and herded to rely on ever more intrusive gov regulations, until all rights are forfeited because we have allowed ourselves to be reduced to subhumans, who have no unalienable rights.
For the gov to intrude to require that its agents must issue special licenses to sanction same sex marriage is a gross and unnecessary intrusion and insult against human freedom and dignity. It can only weaken and divide society, thus making ever more gov intrusion necessary and acceptable to the hive minds of socialist subhumans. If socialist subhumans did not want hive society, they would not be buzzing to force clerks to celebrate their deviance. They hardly need a license to sanction their perversions.
A fair society is one in which adults are mainly free to associate, or not, with one another as adults. It is not a society in which goosesteppers bring macro and micro force of gov to requre everyone to clap and celebrate their every perverse redefinition or dedefinition of "marriage."
Let a thousand points of eccentricity shine. And keep needless gov regulation away from every one of them. Let people be adults, and let them be free to praise or hurt one another's feelings. Let each person grow stronger as a person, without crying to gov about every microaggression. Let snowflakes go to their own snowflakevilles to police themselves. Just don't let them bring snowflake gov after anyone who chooses not to live in a snowflakeville.
People who can think and who want to live in a decent society are way fed up with pc fairness that amounts to little more than "make the white sap who has a job pick up all the tabs." People who can think are starting to realize that this kind of attitude (pc "fairness" and homosexualized "christianity") leads to an impoverished, dangerous, and depraved society. They want productive leaders who will push back against pc parasitism and predation. Momma's boy PC wobblyness will no longer be tolerated.
We all swim with how the current sloshes because that's the way of everything. You may as well psss against the wind. Right now, the current is that the people have had more than their fill of central establishmenarianism, whether it be dino socialistic or rino fascistic.
What sort of "value" do CEO's add? Short term, non-visionary, Potemkin value? Hollowed out, cannibal value? Reduction of republic to establishment owned plaything value? Buying up patents and then shelfing them value? Crony regulating small businesses out of business value? Erasing of national borders to reduce masses to cheap serfs worldwide value?
Trump's book, Time To Get Tough, outlines staged progression in tax rates. Without some kind of progression, either via income tax or consumption tax, there is no reasonable way to fund a sustainable or defensible high tech society. Instead, we would revert to a two-class worldwide serfdom. Not having some kind of progressive tax system is how to get the ladders pulled up to establish a two class society. How the progression is rated and managed, and how cronyism is regulated, are how it is determined what sorts of small businesses will be allowed to compete.
our system, notwithstanding its formal checks and balances, has fallen too much under the (unfair) sway of crony establishmentarians. Our gov is too much and too easily for sale. So I look for ways to check that. Formal and inspirational ways. I have not seen any formal correction that would likely restore more freedom, even though I think Levin"s liberty amendments would be a good start. Maybe a miracle will salvage us for the short term, if we can elect some good conservers of liberty. But that's short term, and in 8 years or less we would be right back in the soup.
I think the unraveling of faith and family have contributed to an unraveling of the republic. I think an assimilative restoration of good faith may help. That seems to necessitate faith in an assimilative principler of reconciliation. However, I am not especially confident that even that would suffice. Especially since more and more churches seem to be redefining Jesus as an advocate for Marxism more so than as an inviter to individual free thinking and dignity. IOW, the crony establishment, having seized control over most institutions of significance, seems now to have redefined charity and seized control over most churches.
PC has become so thick that some even argue that God cannot hate -- not persons, not behavior, and not even evil. Because pc people are not willing to revile evil (except in white males with jobs), they are without spine to teach upcoming generations right from wrong.
I think an idea of God can make sense. But it is not something on which agreement can or should be forced. Meantime, the republic continues to unravel.
do you believe there is no God because you know it or because you think it's unlikely? If unlikely, is there some way you calculate the odds, scientifically? If you only believe it's unlikely, is that another way of saying you doubt that it's the case? If you only doubt that it's the case, aren't you a doubter instead of a believer? But isn't every believer, in some ways, at some times, also a doubter, even a smidgeon?
When a person says he or she is definitely an atheist and not an agnostic or a believer, is anything of substance really being said, apart from adopting a dramatic stance?
Is a believer who doubts his belief an atheist, agnostic, or indeterminate? Do you believe in yourself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
What are you? Are you a coherent identity, or just a stream of consciousness, floating in a fluxing field, rationalizing decisions and beliefs after the fact? If your identity is just a locally iterative expression of a fractal repetition of bubbles in a field in a cosmos in a meta-mega-field, that cannot be confined to measurement in space-time, then isn't apprehension of that field a way of apprehending God? Haven't we had this conversation before? :)
*****
"credible evidence," leads me to think you are espousing a belief that God, to be relevant, must be substantively and physically confineable, provable, and replicable. But if the idea of God pertains to something that is beyond measure, but not beyond intuitive appreciation or empathy, then you are only ignoring what is at issue. I don't know of anyone who does believe in God who thinks God, if God exists, must be scientifically measurable.
If, on the other hand, "evidence" is meant to encompass what is experienceable not just to physical measurement but also to empathetic appreciation, then such evidence may reasonably be found in a way of conceptualizing one's innate empathies.
Now as to heaven or hell, I personally feel no great need for those hypotheses. But as to an innate sense of empathy as a basis for moral investment and participation, I do think that God, in that sense, is reasonably evidenced. Not physically proved, because everything that we experience to be physical is also particular. Being particular, what is physically measurable would, by definition, not be that sort of God.
The reasonable value of a conception of God is in this: Belief in a real and encompassing basis for reconciling our empathies and interests helps guide us to be receptive to finding ways more to cooperate with one another than to destroy one another. Such a dramatic attitude of belief helps teach us to rely more on good faith and good will in order to de-escalate differences, than to rely on the gangsterism of stifling and regulatory government. It helps us avoid trying to make gov into god. It facilitates hope not to be overrun by big gov Libs.
****
If I understand, you agree that science does not provide a tool for opining about the existentiality of a supernatural god, but you opine a disbelief in such a god because you see no scientific evidence for it?
Does information, as it accumulates, ever cease to exist?
Do you believe good faith, good will, or morality have any non-arbitrary meaning?
Is it anything to which we can make reference that "should" guide us? Or are the words just labels to apply to whatever any particular person wants to rationalize?
"Should" we just yield to whomever seems to be backed at the moment by the most power and will? "Should" we try to redistribute "equal fairness" to iron out deviations from norms?
To which kinds of deviations "should" people work to effect or force redistributive equality? Is the idea of "fairness" anything more than an invention to be pushed by whatever person or group happens to have power or sympathy to impose or trick its will?
our system, notwithstanding its formal checks and balances, has fallen too much under the (unfair) sway of crony establishmentarians. Our gov is too much and too easily for sale. So I look for ways to check that. Formal and inspirational ways. I have not seen any formal correction that would likely restore more freedom, even though I think Levin"s liberty amendments would be a good start. Maybe a miracle will salvage us for the short term, if we can elect some good conservers of liberty. But that's short term, and in 8 years or less we would be right back in the soup.
I think the unraveling of faith and family have contributed to an unraveling of the republic. I think an assimilative restoration of good faith may help. That seems to necessitate faith in an assimilative principler of reconciliation. However, I am not especially confident that even that would suffice. Especially since more and more churches seem to be redefining Jesus as an advocate for Marxism more so than as an inviter to individual free thinking and dignity. IOW, the crony establishment, having seized control over most institutions of significance, seems now to have redefined charity and seized control over most churches.
PC has become so thick that some even argue that God cannot hate -- not persons, not behavior, and not even evil. Because pc people are not willing to revile evil (except in white males with jobs), they are without spine to teach upcoming generations right from wrong.
I think an idea of God can make sense. But it is not something on which agreement can or should be forced. Meantime, the republic continues to unravel.
I'm thinking the entire Human Cloud Cosmos could be stored on a quantum-based micro chip and protected inside a specially designed asteroid that could steer around most hazards. Maybe back-up clone-cosmo chips could occupy many asteroid belts and navigate through the "real" cosmos. But I worry what would happen when a human cloud-cosmos collides with an alien cloud-cosmos. This has probably all happened before. Deja vu. This might make for an interesting reprisal of Inception. https://youtu.be/j8Z7po6YLOg
I suspect Google is working on a Cloud Cosmos. Every molecule of every protein of every cell will be electronically translated and uploaded as a virtual clone counterpart. When near death, you just do a Vulcan Mind Meld with the Cloud. Once you are comfortable in your new Cloud Apartment, there will even be cruise packages to allow you to revisit Earth. No decapitation required. :)
For the crème de la crème, more progress has been made on the brain freeze front than most people suspect. Three syllables: Joe Biden.
The progressive wussification of Christianity continues. If modern Christians cannot defend their faith against the subterfuges and insults of the thugs, commies, and jihadis that challenge all decent civilization, then what good are they?
The purpose of Christian inspiration should be to reduce the need for invasive laws. Not to inspire reams upon reams of gov microregulation that tries, on behalf of corrupti and ignoranti, to eliminate every last vestiage of what it calls "unfairness." Like the war against global warming, the leftist war against unfairness has become the perverted rationalization of leftist "Christians" for destroying freedom of enterprise, i.e., American liberty.
When faux-Christianity tries to use gov to force everyone to be nice according to the rules of snowflakes and whiners, everyone loses. When faux-Christianity justifies gov force to take opm to redistribute it as "charity," it alligns itself with gangsters and thieves.
Why do these people hate independent, free thinking Americans? Why do they hate the liberty of their fellows? Why are they so preoccupied with being fair to thugs that they make themselves such grossly unfair tyrants against the general liberty of the republic?
Is no one at Yale smart enough to get this?
I like Cruz. However, like Trump, he has some 'splaining to do. Maybe the debates will help. I also liked Reagan. I am wondering how much he delivered for those who funded him? I doubt that even Reagan was able to stay pure. Trump pulls off the blanket to expose political prostitution for what it is. I don't see that our system allows anyone a chance to run who does not relish being a political prostitute. Except, possibly, a former crony prostitute.
I don't believe Cruz can walk on water. But if he can ignite a fever of individual contributors, maybe he can lead us out of the muck and mire. So far, that hasn't seemed to be the case. I want to see Cruz shine at the debates. But even those seem flakish and cronyish. The tentacles of the established cronydom are strong. Their snares are well laid.
I wish there were a way to give ordinary good Americans more honest representation. I also wish there were a way to square the circle. The examples of the elections of Obama are not encouraging. It is sad that the unstated slogan for Trump tends to be: Trump, because he got so rich playing the crony game that he no longer has to prostitute himself. It's sad that the only way to raise up a Moses seems to be by floating him through the mire. However, until we receive a universal flash of understanding, the mire will be the mire. Pray that enlightenment will shine forth from at least some of the debaters.
My working preference is Trump/Cruz. Trump has the cred to burn off much of the DC vermin and to face down foreign no-gooders. Cruz has the constitutional brains to know what is needed to reset the republic. Unfortunately, the establishment is busily setting many snares against both of them.
I still want a study to see how Reagan's policies aligned with his funding. To determine the extent to which he had to fit his policies to what could have a chamce to fund and elect him. It's great for Cruz to espouse principles. But can he attract the funding to make them real? Or must he, like so many others, attract funding behind closed doors and then put lipstick on it for the rest of us? I like much of what he says. I just don't know that he can deliver.
I want a real conservative also. I just don't think our system, as it stands, has lately produced or funded a viable conservative. Who nowadays can afford to have conservative principles, to run on them and actually seek to accomplish them? I wonder how Reagan got his major funding? To what interests was he financially beholden? I think I'll look into that.
Cruz may be admirable, but what in the real world offers hope that he could or would actually deliver? If or when Trump is knocked out, how can Cruz acquire the funding he would need in order to deliver?
ISIS seems to be like stupidity. You can't make terminally stupid people smarter by throwing money at them or by promoting them to equal negotiating status. You can inoculate against ISIS, but you can't fix it. You can quarantine Islam, but you can't fix it. Islam is where maggots go to infest, and we shall always have maggots. Some people just gotta be maggots. Every metro American who makes himself allegiant to Islam should be given a one way ticket to the Islamic paradise of his choice.
We should not be praising or enriching the rot of Islam. We should quarantine it. And while it is quarantined, we should let it bleed out. Expedite the bleed out by taking its resources. Why are we dithering with evil?
The real enemy is Islam itself. Not ISIS, which is merely its latest mask. If we don't identify the real enemy, every effort we make to fight it will be like fighting with the tar baby. Quarantine the tar baby and let it die. Same with Obama. If we can't summon will to impeach and remove him, then at least quarantine and nullify him.
Re: God’s economics is fully the opposite of The Donald
Great. Another socialist wobbly who pretends to speak for God. Is this another silly sermon like, "If your faith leads you to hate, you're doiing it wrong?" We should better say, "If your faith cannot guide you in judging and distinguishing between right and wrong, then it's worthless."
Should John Walsh and Nazi hunters not hate evil? Should they apologize for wanting to put monsters behind bars? Should they forgive evil doers by ignoring evil? Should everyone help spread wealth so evil doers and able bodied whiners and layabouts can get more of the tools they need? Is it "God's economics" to give your enslaver and his ghetto gang bangers what they need to kill you, rape your wife, enslave your children, and pillage your land?
To large extent, an overabundance of pc apologies to metrosexual whiners and wieners is what has brought human decency, dignity, and liberty low. The road to ensure "fairness" via intrusive gov microregulation is paved with apologies to weak minded but able bodied parasites who have learned how to whine and vote for a living.
Every day, fewer and fewer people are growing up to become independent, free thinking, competent adults who don't collapse in the face of minor insults and "microaggressions." The worst of the worst feel no loyalty to family, country, or humanity. Rather, they invent a god, like allah, who promises them booty in exchange for acting like pirates. They deploy every subterfuge. When they confront a culture that thinks itself refined and tolerant, they cry like women in peril, demand sympathy, and then spread throughout the economy and society to waylay and enslave it.
They pervert Christianity, making it out to be a socialist plan for redistribution of wealth to crying metrosexuals who somehow can't get enough of their "fair" share of free condoms. They school our boys to become weepy femimen, incompetent without gov protection in every detail to look out for themselves, much less family or country. They focus on claims by evil doers of being treated unfairly or having their poor little sensibilities offended. They see not the harm done to society by paying tribute to whiners and socialist takers. They see not the harm in teaching children never to grow up, but always to whine against Christians and to complain that Christians are not redistributing to them their "fair" share of "God's economics."
This is not about God's economy. It's about perversion of faith. If there's a voice other than Trump's that is telling the truth about perverters of America and her economy, who is it?
Insane metrosexual micro-regulation of so-called micro-aggressions is parchimg every leaf and limb of liberty. We need new soil, new tilling, extensive de-weeding and much watering. In trying too hard to be fair to weeds, we have neglected the essential tree. Apology time is so over!
I agree that being born in the U.S. cannot, by itself, reasonably be ground for conferring citizenship. What I am not confident of is that the perverse Scotus we now have would agree. So the concern is how to arm the republic against those who now occupy almost all the seats of institutionalized power. For that, we eventually come to the tree of liberty. Along the way, we may have some other opportunities, such as:
- Electing a President who will take care to preserve the Constitution and the republic (to make America great again).
- Having the President reverse all executive orders to the contrary.
- Inspire the public will to resist and bring heat against the perverse denizens of DC and Scotus (bully pulpit).
- To stymie and short circuit a corrupt Scotus, seek legislative assistance and a COS.
- If all that fails, cry havoc and let loose the dogs of nullification and secession. Progs will hate that, even as they call it "hateful."
The thing is, a decent republic cannot live with a sissy Sasquatch squatting in every home and claiming entitlement to be fed, sheltered, esteemed, and celebrated. Sissy Sasquatch needs to be sent back to his/her/its/zes own home. At the "loving" (non-hateful) point of force, if need be.
It is much to be desired that the issue of anchor babies will not make its way to Scrotalus/Scrtchmyass until well after the next presidential election. Presently, there is little in DC that can be trusted by a republican citizenry. The tree of liberty is parched dry. It needs to be watered. I say that in a loving way, no matter that Progs may jump about and call it hateful. F'em.
First, groundwork needs to be laid for how the new President may reasonably correct the problem concerning anchor babies. That problem must be corrected, because otherwise the meaning of citizenship will very soon be swept and eroded out to sea. Second, if we can get a Convention of States, per Mark Levin, we may yet turn back Progressive dystopian one worldism in a lasting way.
(As a disgruntled blast to the side, the idiocy of Progs regarding SSM is already spilling over into immigration and visa law. Soon, a person without a record will be able to marry and divorce, marry and divorce, and so on, to pull waves of terrorists into the West. They recruit our idiot Progs to tie us up in knots, and we let them. All in the stupid hope that our Progs, who hate for anyone to have freedom not to have to celebrate them, will stop calling us hateful. Which they never will.)
I wonder what you make of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. (1982) and the guidance in the Foreign Affairs Manual?
Plyler v. Doe reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections.
Does Plyler implicate that children of illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction?" Or does it only provide that such children are "within the jurisdiction?" Given the difference in terminology among the clauses in the 14th Amendment, does the distinction matter?
See http://www.state.gov/documents...
7 FAM 1111 --
d.
“Subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States”: All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth.
The FAM implies that a child can be "subject to the jurisdiction" even if born of parents in the U.S. illegally. However, the implication seems to be based on nothing more than a circular begging of the question.
So, what should be done concerning the current guidance as set forth in the Foreign Affairs Manual? Should it be followed until Congress enacts clarifying law? Or should a newly elected President, after 2016, simply rescind the Foreign Affairs guidance, by executive order? Is the President entitled to direct that such provision be removed from the Manual?
Buckley and Gore played to different audiences. Gore played to the femimen via the passive aggressive ploy. He got under Buckley's skin when Buckley said: See here, you queer....
That's when Gore smirked and stoked, because he knew he had just won points among the femimen. That made him an icon with the metrosexual culture. I think Buckley later tried to reverse that by apologizing. The thing I like about Trump is that he tends to shrug his shoulders, like people need to just grow up and stop crying for apologies.
If America is to survive, American men must absolutely stop apologizing to sissy boys and metrosexuals. To apologize to them is nearly the same as to tell them that their hateful agenda for destroying the republic is just, fair and good. It absolutely is not!
When I was in high school, I doubt we had nearly the number of femimen we have now. I suspect this is caused far more by culture than genetics. The weird thing is, so many crybaby minorities think they are being manly by wearing saggy pants. People of my generation tend to look upon them as little boys who are without much hope of ever growing up. They have the same exhibitionistic need as the gays. I suspect the invading Muslims see them in the same way. It's not their saggy pants or love of sodomy that I detest. I neither admire nor care for their proclivities. What I abhor is their complete lack of awareness for how they are endangering the republic.
Given the ambiguity caused by the failure of the Constitution to provide a clear definition of either citizen or natural born citizen, and given the clear rottenness in DC, I am not inclined to disagree with you. Presently, we have little more than pretense of law. We need to elect the best President who will represent the best interests of America. We need simultaneously to be working to get Levin's liberty amendments launched via a COS. This problem of unclearly defined citizenship, especially with regard to anchor babies, has become of existential danger to the republic.
I had hoped we would be voting this time for the best of the best, as opposed to the least worst. I now have big concerns against nearly all of the candidates.
Bobby Jindal is beginning to look comparatively better. He was born in Baton Rouge. His parents immigrated from India. I assume they were legal domiciliaries at the time of his birth. I suspect neither had by then been naturalized. He is obviously born an American citizen, but some may argue he cannot qualify if neither of his parents was a citizen at the time of his birth. That argument may make some sense as to both Jindal and Rubio, but I much doubt it can succeed in these times. On the issues, Jindal may be the best Conserver of Liberty.
Sometimes it's not enough to hate the sin and love the sinner. Sometimes, the sinner needs to be removed in order to protect decent society. I don't hate McConnell. I love him so much that, for his own good and the good of the republic, I want him removed, and I want an example to be made of him. To appropriately encourage (or discourage) the others. S/
Some of the Founders read Vattel. They did not explicitly adopt Vattel. If they had, I suspect we would have a whole new set of problems.
If you want to look at this logically, use some Venn Diagrams to set out the various separate and overlapping concepts.
When you do, I suspect you may find the following:
There is no set of exhaustive and mutually exclusive determinants for determining who is a citizen (natural, automatic, unearned, earned, naturalized, or honorary) -- much less for a natural born citizen.
There is no clear law that distinguishes between being "subject to the jurisdiction" versus "within the jurisdiction."
There is a practice, but no clear law that says that a person born within the jurisdiction, on that account alone, is or is not a citizen.
There is a practice, but no clear law that says that a person born within the jurisdiction of an embassy or military post is not a citizen.
I can argue philosophically who "should" be a natural born citizen.* But I doubt any such argument would receive universal acclammation. IOW, I doubt there was much "meeting of the minds" among the drafters or ratifiers of the Constitution concerning the subject. The only meeting of the minds that seems to be documented is that they worried about potential abuses from conniving and meddlesome foreign princes. (Had they more foresight, they would have worried more about home grown, establishmentarian-inbred, basement-dwelling, poison-ivy educated, entitlement-minded, socialistic trustafarians.)
*Philosophically, I think a child, born of an American parent, who resides in the U.S. for at least 10 years before reaching age 21, should be considered a natural born citizen in respect of being qualified to run for the presidency. However, nothing in the Constitution provides for or against such factoring.
As a practical matter, most of the distinctions have simply been blown away by events. If any distinction remains, it may be to disqualify a candidate who has no parent who was an American at the time of his birth. If so, that would disqualify Rubio and Jindal. However, given the fait accompli of the establishment, even that distinction seems very unlikely to hold in the real world.
Until DC is routed, term limits are enacted and enforced, the 17th Amendment is revoked, the stranglehold held over politics by the donor class is reduced, the Liberty Amendments are passed, and faith and family are restored, I do not think the NBC arguments can hold even one dollop of water. Presently, I worry more about the definition of anchor babies and ordinary citizens.
See the Foreign Affairs Manual:
Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1)
Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
The FAM then references Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In it, Justice Bork said:
A principle revoking sovereign immunity on our embassy grounds abroad would also, presumably, have the same effect as to our military and naval bases around the world, since the United States exercises jurisdiction in such locations. The possibilities are almost endless for tort suits in this country against foreign governments for acts or omissions all over the world. We are persuaded that Congress intended nothing of the sort. Embassies may be, as appellants argue, unique in their inviolability but that does not distinguish them from military facilities, libraries, AID missions, and the like with respect ofthe criteria of the statute. If the controlling question were only whether the United States had some jurisdiction, all premises controlled by this country anywhere in the world would fit the statutory definition of the "United States." Fidelity to the statutory language would prevent us from picking and choosing among premises subject to some extent of congressional control.
*******
So, under this reasoning of Persinger v. Iran, John McCain was not born "in the United States" for purposes of the 14th Amendment. If John McCain, per Senate Resolution, was a natural born citizen, it was NOT because of his place of birth. IOW, per the Senate Resolution, place of birth is NOT determinative of being or not being a natural born citizen.
Most techniques have potential for good or ill. Problem is, power seems to tend more to corrupt than to ennoble. Much of the value of the ideal of free trade is in its recognition of the value of dispersing economic power. Our problem is that some of our trading partners have agglomerated economic power. If we do the same in order to compete, then we tend to become much like them. Centralizing power to make trade and tariff deals is bound to tempt a lot of corruption. There does not seem to be any cure-all.
At this time, I think we need a way to bust up the establishment. Term limits. Liberty Amendments. As things settle down and mature minds return, we will eventually need to restore faith and family. Otherwise, I see little hope in the mere fluxing formalisms as are contrived by man.
There's a vast difference between visionaries and process suckers. While our reach will always exceed our grasp, it's important to reach for the best. Not necessarily to grasp it, but to continue to reach for it. (Tesla did not give squat about immediate financial gain.) Most lawyers, as with most people, do not believe there is anything ultimately to reach for. Like Obama, they are YOLO's. They are all about milking the process to zero-sum and immediate gain. Visionaries and geniuses want to establish, achieve and create something longlasting and meaningful. There is a world of difference between our founding lawgivers and most modern, paper-hanging, ACLU-like lawyers.
America no longer leads in pursuing better visions and explanations because the people now running things tend mainly to be short sighted grubbers. They focus on regulations, process, redistribution, fairness, equality -- not because they have any understanding or intuition regarding any meaning in such ideas, but because they hide behind such words to pursue their own grubbery. (Adam, Where art thou?) Obama-ilk claim to be for "progress" -- but they do not believe there really is any meaning to progress to.
Our modern moral philosophers tend to be midgets. They are pc midgets, more concerned with snowflake pc for not saying "midget" than they are with pursuing any vision. They take creative will to be "hateful" when it produces inequality, because they hate America. They hate it whan someone else shows himself to be "unfairly unequal" and superior in energy, intellect, talent, or vision. However, an America that no longer believes in vision is no longer America. Just a nation of midget crabs rotting in a bucket.
Those who do not believe in potential for greatness will not vote for someone who wants "to make America great again." The cosmos fairly shouts, "I-Am-That-I-Am is here!" But grubbers heads are so circled into dark places that they envision it not. So, instead, they hang paper and seek material "equality."
The voters are starting to decipher the message of the political shills: "Please, don't be hateful. Let me do all the gooood things that my donors want me to do to you."
It's usually the dumb people who don't know their limitations. In the case of the beltway, it's all the kumquats who have been educated beyond the capacity of their intellects. Give me the common sense of the typical citizen any day over the acidic blather of self inflated apologists for the establishment.
The reason Trump will not soon fade is because there are so many kumquats that need squeezing.
If both Trump and Cruz end up showing to be four flushers, then the nullification and secession options will begin rising, Especially as the establishment sucks the economy dry. Just because people are hoping that Trump and/or Cruz don't prove to be complete frauds does not mean they are not stocking up. Everything is going to sea. Batten down the hatches.
We may as well have given letters of marque to enterprising privateers to accept fiat money in exchange for kicking bribes back to our political class. We make fiat money for bankers and corporations to play with, so why not make fiat money for privateers and politicians to play with? The model of the Clinton Foundation may prove to be as groundbreaking as the creation of the Fed.
Hollow men without chests or scruples are sucking the stuffing out of our republic, yet Krauthammer says we have much to agree with Republican elitists concerning "things that matter." In what moral universe do such things matter? Is this like "Blackhearts Lives Matter?" Apart from blackheartedness, to what principles or principler do our elitists look to for drawing "red lines" under their brand of moral guidance?
I have always been uneasy with the idea that "corporations are people" in all senses, as well as with the idea that campaign contributions are "speech."
I am open to ideas about how to get money (Foreign, Union and Corporate) out of politics. However, I have not seen any effective or constitutional path to that, especially given the unified interests of Dinos and Rinos in keeping our pols bought.
I have played witn an idea of taxing all political contributions and lobbying at a very progressive rate. However, I suspect corruption, like water, would just find its level anyway. I retain hope and openness, but I have not seen the clear path, much less the will, for preventing govs and pols from being bought and sold like commodities.
Except against Cruz and Carson, Trump should look at each pundit and opponent who harrangues him and say, "Do you really believe the American people don't see the connivery that the establishment is putting on? Do you really think they are blind to how much you are owned and the corruption you serve? Why do you want to continue to sacrifice the liberty of the American people to a lot of low life cronies? Do you think George Soros and the Facebutt Kid are looking out for the republic?" Then he should just good naturedly laugh.
Cruz for Veep. We don't need another Reagan/Bush ticket. We need 8 years of cleaning house followed by another 8 years of intelligent leadership. No Bush-Wuss for Veep!
This is a time for truth, not for pandering or apologizing. Progs try to force Conservers of Liberty to apologize for demeaning Muslims. There is nothing to apologize for. The candidates who cannot summon the moral fortitude to shame the evil shamers cannot lead America away from the abyss to which we are being rolled. Progs emanding apologies from conservers of liberty are like fascists who try to demand apologies from the people they enslave. They want Uncle Sam to say uncle to Uncle Joe. Trump tells them, Hell no!
The corrupt establishment continues to change the rules and horses midstream, adjusting the handicaps to ensure the establishment wins --- heads, tails, or coin standing on edge.
*****
A person who has a mature political philosophy and well thought out positions on particular issues is less likely, in stable times, to be a flip flopper. In such times, to be a frequent flip flopper is a mark of a non-serious mind.
Unfortunately, we live in a time of great instability in demographics, politics, economics, and religion. To considerable extent, the republic has been pulled out from under us and replaced by a wolf in granny's clothes. Sometimes, it's more important to kill the wolf than to worry about having a pre-thought-out 500 point plan. If the establishment wins, every point in every plan will become little more than subterfuge.
Americans want a viable conserver-of-liberty-and-the-republic to be found, who will stop the pollution of the demographic with banana republicans. Preferably, that would be someone who can defeat whomever the Dems nominate.
It would be a nightmare if Trump called Hillary's face ugly and that were used to alienate him from half the electorate. Trump needs to learn some finesse, and he needs to learn enough facts so he can argue more from knowledge than from simplistics and name-calling.
Problems: First, there may not be enough time for Trump to cram and study up on what he needs to know. Second, there may not be many among the candidates who are beyond being purchased by corrupt interests. Third, the rules seem to have been jimmied so that there simply is no viable path, mathematically, for a conservative like Cruz to become the nominee.
Summary:
We are going to need to be nimble. If events prove, as seems likely, that no other candidate can stop the irreversible flipping of the demographic into permanent bananaville, then we need to have preserved an option to call on the services of Trump.
Our so-called intellectuals need to show a viable path for Cruz to become the nominee.
If they cannot show a viable path for Cruz, they need to evidence why we should have faith that any other candidate will not become a sell out, yet will retain resources to defeat the lascivious cronies of the Chamber of Commerce.
If our so-called intellectuals cannot help shape Trump, or show a path for Cruz, or shore up alternative candidates who are faithful conservers of liberty, then they will begin to look like little more than shills who are useful to the establishment for flattening and enserfing America and humanity into a new, two-class one-worldism.
I want to hear Trump and Cruz marshal command of the facts. Facts, facts, and facts -- to bring home the point, to be drummed over and over, that both wings of the establishment are filled with traitors to the American Ideal and must be replaced, expelled, or prosecuted. I want those of the opposition, if any, who are not brain frozen, to wake up and begin adding their voices to Trump's. They need also to be vigorous and insistent in challenging the agendas and premises of the "debate" moderators. A lot more "gotcha" needs to be deflected right back at the moderating shills for the treasonous cohort of the establishment.
The American Ideal is in an existential war against the anti-human forces of Borgdom. This is far bigger than the Civil War, because our antagonists are richly infested in every institution. Established traitors are hell bent to erase representative government of, by and for the people ... from the earth.
Wake up? Powerful NWO forces within both parties are "progressing" along their agenda just fine. There is a need for waking up, but it is in ordinary Americans and conservers of liberty. If they do not wake up, the Rino-Dino Party assuredly will, this coming election, complete its project of deconstruction of America. This is seen everywhere. One small example was Breyer on Colbert, conditioning Americans to get used to the idea of world law.
Most of the candidates, excepting Trump and Cruz, are hacks for sale to the establishment. Look at the history and funding of those who are least despised and least feared by the establishment. Four to eight more years of establishmentarian treason against humanity will assuredly leave the republic with no way back from the NWO agenda. We need a miracle. We need faith. And we probably need to pray for Trump to learn some finesse!
Otherwise, there will not just be a run on the economy. There will be a run on patriotism. A brat-finger-in-the-eye-of-common-decency establishment is busily flipping the demographic. We now have a gay and muslim-sympathizing prez, redistribution of nukes to jihadis and commies, a gay military chief, hundreds of thousands of unassimilable muslims, non-arrestable and non-profilable inner-city thugs, sancturary cities for illegals and anchor babies, a soon majority of welfare voters, deconstruction of family, deconstruction of Christianity, socialist Pope, abortive deconstruction of humanity, statist opm masquerading as charity, and femimen and metrosexualized coeds "educated" to be zealously clueless. Soon there will be no coming back for America. It will be over. Everyone will be getting theirs, while the getting is good. No one but chumps will defend or work to sustain the regime. It will be time for every tribe to find its own way. A tribe-based run on patriotism will be the signal for loosing the goosesteppers of despotism.
Obama's finger-in-the-eye routine is pure Cloward-Piven. People have thought this is an exaggeration. It absolutely is not! Meanwhile, a treasonous Congress knits.
What's a conservative? We want a conserver of liberty. Trump wants to make America great again. Who cares whether Trump is a "conservative"? Neither was Hayek. I care about which American can defeat the establishmentarian opposition.
You need to catch on: We want a new party. It can operate under the Republican label, but it needs to be a new party. We want to pull voters away from the two wings of the braindead party. The challenge Trump has is in blasting through all the "educated" ignorance. That's far from easy. Your coyness is more clueless than cute.
If you truly want a non-establishmentarian, you need to do more thinking about the path to make that happen.
*****************
If Obama is not an America hating musloid, he does a close impersonation. He lied about his respect for tenets of Christian faith. And marriage. He attended BLT "church" (front cousin of Islam) for 20 years.
He hates the American middle class ("Whitey"). Spreads nukes and arms to Iran and ISIS. Puts a finger in America's eye every chance he gets. Promotes muslims, commies, and one worlders to highest level positions. De-defines all traditional glues for representative democracy. De-defines Christianity. Outlaws many aspects of Christian faith. De-defines family. Promotes central gov towards control over all minutia of work, enterprise, association, speech. Promotes taquiya (war on women, debt of white men, white privilege mythology, myths supporting minority entitlementism, myth of global warming, thought criminalization, forced equality of all deconstructive lifestyles, myth of peacefulness and contributions of muslims) as justifications for dividing Americans in order to make ordinary Americans pay for the sins of everyone else.
At a minimum, Obama is a muslim sympathizer who hates every foundation of America. He is much like Hillary, Alinsky, and many Poison Ivy profs and Scrotal justices in that regard. Obama and Hillary and the establishment for which they stand are sworn, deceiving enemies of every foundation of American liberty. It is fitting that one deconstructionist-parasite-predator, anti-American liar should defend the "honor" of another.
Momadman was a self-fulfilling "prophet" sadist. He knew he would be willing to do anything to feed his narcissism. And he learned how to use Stockholm Syndrome.
In similar way, Mosheepfemmen are self-fulfilling masochists.
In the permanent, primitive, two-class, fascist ecology of dar-al-Islam, Momadmen and Mosheepfemmen need one another. Just as in the plan for a permanent, two-class, fascist NWO, cronies and commies need one another. This is called "saving the fascist planet."
*****
There is (or should be) freedom of thought, speech, association, enterprise, and religion. Freedom of religion means you don't risk being stoned for practicing it or for renouncing it. If you can't renounce it without risking life and limb, then it is not a religion that can be freely exercised. IOW, it is not a religion that can be protected under the First Amendment. Freedom of religion means half the population is not mutilated, blanketed, or relegated to second class status. Separation via a nonsense wall should not be the issue. The issue should be freedom. But establishment cronies and ACLU commies have reduced our freedom with all manner of pernicious ropes and shackels. They have conflated statist force with freedom. Before long, we may have freedom only under Sharia. "Progress." S/
****
A good Christian would not lie and swear he would uphold the Constitution while secretly planning to replace it with Leviticus, Deuteronomy, or some Communist interpretation of Christianity. If a good Christian American believed provisions in such works should become law, he would debate them forthrightly. The problem is, our Congress and our Establishment have become elitist dens of iniquitous lying, deceiving, and scheming. Once a citizenry accepts lying and deceiving as legitimate paths for amending or enacting its laws, it will have accepted that it is to be ruled less by laws than by elitist connivers and cronies.
****
If we can't recognize what is and what is not a religion, then how can we decide what kind of acting on indoctrination is protected as civilizing faith versus criminal conspiracy? It seems pretty basic that what you must profess in order to keep your head is thought control, not chosen faith or religion. To so tolerate acting on criminal conspiracy as not to defend against it is often to surrender to it.
It is one thing to tolerate thinking or discussing concerning a meme. It is another thing to tolerate inciting or acting on it. When sharia law prescribes acting on a criminal meme, as by calling for stonings, beheadings, hand cuttings, eye gougings, mutilations, second class citizenship, etc., then such actions become intolerable. To incite such actions becomes criminal conspiracy.
For a state to sanction the indoctrination of young, weak, and dependent minds to perform such actions becomes state sponsored abuse. Much as the use of public funds to indoctrinate grade school children to experiment with deviant sex to see if they enjoy it is state sponsored abuse.
I think there is sense in your position, when plumbing the level of the subconscious. Not, however, at the level of the conscious. See http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm. As expressly articulated, no such a distinction is evident. At an unarticulated level, however, I think a whiff of a distinction is present.
Consider the words nonflammable, unflammable, inflammable, and flammable. Unflammable and inflammable do not mean the same thing. Yet, usage leads many to take unalienable and inalienable to mean the same thing.
I prefer your take, because I suspect it is closer to the subconscious psyches of the founders. Even though inalienable appears in some of the drafts, my preferance is for unalienable. For the flavor you describe.
One may alienate my body by enslaving me. But one may not alienate my soul without killing whatever makes my mind mine. So long as I am me, my fundamental freedom and dignity are unalienable. Unless Obama-ilk can kill the thinking middle class and turn citizens into zombies and serfs, they cannot alienate the fundamental rights of Americans. The war against the collectivists extends to the spiritual essence of being human beings.
In his concern for the bodily poverty of Mexicans, the Pope, if he is Christian, must not forget the spiritual essence of human beings, nor the false tears of depraved cronies. Inspiring charity is one thing. Exciting commies and cronies to ruin representative republics under pretense that forced transfers are charity is another.
COMMENT: It is truly sad and remarkable that this comment is censored.
Post a Comment