Search This Blog

Monday, December 3, 2018

Right or Left: The Home of the "Isms" Clarified

SO TIRED OF LEFTIES LABELING THE RIGHT AS NAZIS. Talk about psychological projection, huh? Insufferably stupid as well! Just so we are all clear on this, below I've summarized where Fascists, Socialists, Nazis and Communists fall on the political spectrum.
We often hear people parroting words to the effect that communists & socialists are “left” wing, and the NAZIS are “right” wing. Rubbish.
The lie that NAZIS are “right wing” has been disseminated in order to deceive the unthinking.
The German NAZIS and the American neo-NAZIS are NOT “far right”!
“NAZI” is the acronym for “National sozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei”. The literal English translation is, “national SOCIALIST German workers’ party”.
**The NAZIS were socialists! They were “national” socialists, as contrasted with Marx & Engels who were “international” socialists. But, socialists all.
NAZIS have been called “far right” in order to sabotage the thinking of the American people. This is how the sabotage works: The Communists are “far left”. The NAZIS are “far right”. Gee! I better be in the middle – a moderate! (Meaning I stand for nothing.)
So under this false model, both “extremes” are presented as bad. Only the moderate middle is good. And the best alternative to such extremes, that being limited constitutional government, is not even mentioned. How convenient.
In truth, extreme right entails anarchy, or the absence of government altogether. Whereas the extreme left, which is in thrall of big government, entails all the notorious isms.
Collectivism with all its variants (communism, fascism, Nazism, Fabian socialism, syndicalism, etc.) are all on the same side [collectivism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, terror, & government tyranny]. The distinctions between these variants are only minor and technical.
The alternative to all of them is limited constitutional civil government – such as our Framers gave us.
The above explanation, which should be obvious to anyone who can think, is not original with me. Ayn Rand pointed it out somewhere many decades ago.

Saturday, December 1, 2018

The "Trump" Climate Warming Report? NOT!!!

Environmental religionists remain shameless ideologues. That "Trump Administration" climate change "study" is their latest foray into the world of disinformation and hysteria.
Look, we all know this administration is embedded with legions of Obama holdovers and other assorted the-sky-is-falling crackpots and opportunists. So dubbing the recent gloom & doom climate warming report a Trump study is pure fantasy. Did you know that key elements of this "scientific analysis" were the work of one Andrew Light, a hardcore climate warming advocate and, by the way, a philosophy professor with zero science credentials. The "study" was also financed by the notorious brothers grim, Soros and Steyer. But, hey. The money's good. Right, Professor Light?
Perhaps Trump should rattle the cage at the US Office of Global Research (OMG) from which this report seems to have originated and see how many global warming cultists fall out. Then can their butts! Selfless civil servants my a**.

Sunday, November 18, 2018

Birthright Citizenship: Arm Yourself with the Facts

I'm going to risk boring you to death yet again. But it is done for a noble purpose: TO INFORM/EDUCATE. Only after many months of research in 2013 was I able to satisfactorily summarize the issue of birthright citizenship in a manner which, I hope, proves helpful to the reader. For me, when constitutional issues arise, I firmly believe we must unfailingly and faithfully look to the framers and ratifiers--not to mere modern day opinions/viewpoints/interpretations, most of which are flawed and in clear violation of original meaning. And it is this approach to which we should all commit our energies when it comes to properly and honestly dealing with any constitutional issue. After all, you know what they say about opinions. Also, don't solely rely upon the legal views of attorneys graduated from poison ivy league law schools where law students are taught that the Supreme Court is supreme--not the clear original meaning of the Constitution, this in defiance of Art VI Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause). And, of course, never rely upon the panoply of media talking heads, faux experts and political hacks to do your work for you. YOU do the work. Consult the framers as to their meaning and intent. With that, excerpted from Chapter 8 in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action", here is my summary. Again, I hope it is useful:
We’ve all heard the stats: currently, of the developed countries in the world, only the United States and neighboring Canada grant birthright citizenship to illegal aliens, and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.
Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is a perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of the Constitution itself.
By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.
During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period". Poppycock! He couldn't have carefully read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and troubling. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads really are.
That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.
Here are my findings and conclusions:
First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.
It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to anchor babies of illegal entrants. In short, I was unable to find ANY convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed to resolve this issue once and for all.
Toward this end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there was absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed.
Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.
To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”
Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”
On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.
John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”
And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance is to the US.
Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.
Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, per international protocols, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in that alien's country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US alone would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.
The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be easily illustrated by the fact that Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.
In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)
P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.
Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.
Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States", thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignties and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.
Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)
In US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. (Note too that the parents of Wong Kim Ark were in the US legally. They were not illegal entrants.)
In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Au contraire! As can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided an unambiguous definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)
Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers and others have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—appeared in the text of this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.
Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to or proper reliance on the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning violation of the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.
To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.
When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”
Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many political activists, globalists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.

"Birthright Citizenship" NOT Grounded in Law

Section 1, Amendment XIV: "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..."
In accordance with the original meaning and intent as clearly stated by the XIV's framers' (Sens. Howard and Bingham), this provision does NOT include automatic "birthright citizenship" to children of illegal aliens, the latter who are subject to the jurisdiction of and owe their allegiance to their countries of origin. And since children, historically, derive their citizenship from their parents, the children of illegals owe their allegiance to their parents' country as well. Anyone caring to understand this section of the amendment needs but to read the words of Sens. Howard and Bingham who wrote the damn thing. (Like I've always counseled, when in doubt as to what is and is not constitutional, READ THE CONSTITUTION and the relative founding documents, e.g. the Federalist Papers, which explain the Constitution's meaning.)
But, since there is needless confusion over the meaning and appropriate application of this section, who should clarify its meaning? Not that faithless gaggle of notoriously revisionist black-robed judicial oligarchs we call the "Supreme" Court. Over the years, the court has consistently and grossly misinterpreted and misapplied XIV, to say nothing of virtually all other provisions in the Constitution. SO, as per Sec 5 of the XIV Amendment, it is wiser to leave it's clarification to the People's representatives in Congress and hope for the best.
Tragically, in the end who can We trust to properly represent us and to uphold the Constitution as originally intended? Have any of our reps even read the Constitution and, more importantly, honored their oath to preserve, protect and defend it? Fortunately, I have but 10 fingers and, sadly, that's likely the number--albeit on the high end--in Congress today who more or less honor their oath. A disturbing and sobering problem for us all.
And why so precious few constitutionalists in Congress? Truth is, a person who adheres to original meaning and intent and who regards his oath as sacred has zero chance of being elected. Hell, I very seriously doubt even Madison and Jefferson could get elected as dog catcher in today's anything goes welfare state. How dangerously far afield we've strayed, huh? The reality is that without promises of unconstitutional bread and circuses, not one of our founders could be nominated today, much less elected.

The Lost Liberal

Just to clarify, there is Classical Liberalism (think Founders) and Modern Liberalism (think Progressives, Socialists, neo-Marxists). Caught in the middle of this ideological maelstrom is the lost "Liberal" who doesn't understand that today's Liberal standard bearer is the modern Democrat Party which has been usurped by Progressives, Socialists, neo-Marxists and Fascists. It is hoped that these clueless liberals of the JFK conservative Democrat genre will find their way out of the abyss into which the Modern Democrat Party has led them. Their rotely voting Democrat because they delusionally "think" that the modern Democrat Party represents their traditional values and political beliefs renders them no less a victim of Modern Liberalism than are Conservatives and other assorted patriots. 

Monday, November 12, 2018

Caravans, Protocols and the Law

FYI. Despite the disinformation and spinning out there, here's why the President is within his constitutional authority to prohibit illegal entrants from applying for asylum. Here are the sections of the Immigration & Nationality Act which specifically grant him such authority:
1. Section 215(a): “Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions AS THE PRESIDENT MAY PRESCRIBE.”
2. Section 212(f): “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions HE MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE.”
In view the Central American migrants' violation of international protocols requiring that they accept any first offers of asylum, e.g. Mexico, Trump’s order to permit these migrants to apply for asylum at US ports-of-entry only is, to say the very least, extremely generous. The order also prohibits any gate-crasher who circumvents this policy from applying for asylum; they will be expeditiously deported to their homelands without a hearing. He is also ending the infuriating practice of "catch & release", a remedial action long time in coming. So, under both US law and in accordance with international agreements, alien entries into the US can be restricted or altogether prohibited. That's all you need to know to successfully parry with your disinformational and faux compassionate friends on the Left who cynically view illegals in any form as electoral fodder and nothing more.

Thursday, November 8, 2018


MY REACTION to the Demonrats' takeover in the House is one of distress and of great disappointment in the perspecuity and both the ideological and moral compass of far too many Americans.
While not a Demonrat tsumani, aka "wave", such was of little comfort to me. For me, the takeover exposed our nation's Achilles' heel. In effect, too many voters embraced Demonrat incivility, mendacity and political extremism, placing in serious question Americans' faithfulness to traditional values and responsible, virtuous government. (Lesson UNlearned yet again: one doesn't consciously enable or otherwise reward bad behavior & extremism--but that's precisely what millions of American voters did. So, is Demonrat misconduct the new standard? And why not, especially if the party isn't appropriately chastised for its grossly unacceptable misbehavior, extremism?)
The takeover in the House is especially disappointing in light of the Demonrats' unprecedented and relentless thuggery, self-serving shamelessness, heavy-handedness and brazen attacks on the moral fabric and standards of decency in the country over the last two years. In truth, voters, albeit by often slim margins, effectively anointed this inexcusable Leftist misconduct, thus validating such misbehavior in the future. The terrible truth is that erstwhile intolerable and unvirtuous public behavior has now been vindicated by a disturbingly large portion of the American body politic. And that should properly frighten us all.
Following the takeover, when I heard Pelosi's victory speech which amounted to the usual cynical & mendacious claptrap about working across party lines, being transparent, and adhering to the US Constitution, blah, blah, blah, I shook my head in despair and disbelief, but also in wonderment as to how such shameless lying, an art form on the Left, has been so easily excused, unrecognized, ignored or dismissed by those voters who enabled the Demonrat takeover. Are most Americans no longer deserving of virtuous leadership? The short answer is "yes".
Will we survive this voter rejection of our basic beliefs, values and standards of public conduct? A few timely quotes which may help us answer that question:
"Our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society." Cicero
"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without conviction." G.K. Chesterton