Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 9, 2015


Though he certainly elicits more angst, from both the left and the right, than do other candidates, I venture to say that once the catharsis of legitimate visceral anger among Republican and Conservative Americans is played out, that Mr. Trump's star will fade. To most Americans, I just don't think he's viewed as "presidential". That's not to say that what he's now saying and doing--i.e. roiling the pot--is of no use; it's just that after awhile the pot's contents--that being the anti-Establishment angst among many Americans--will simply boil away.

My real concern is not whether or not Trump gets the nomination, which I don't believe he will, it is whether or not he can effectively debate a terribly flawed, but very slick, choreographed, double-talking Hillary, a quintessentially shameless, wily politician who also happens to be considerably more articulate than Mr. Trump.  In truth, I have some very serious doubts about Trump's ability to successfully handle such a debate and to convince a majority of voters that while he is rough-hewned he is also sufficiently presidential.

At this point, and unless his demeanor/deportment/substance--not necessarily his message--is cleaned up, clarified, I fear a Trump nomination could doom conservative hopes to capture the White House. And if we fail in that regard, I see serious tumult ahead--possibly even the country's disunion. Four more years of heavy-handed, destructive Progressivism would simply be too much for most patriotic Americans to tolerate.

The Trump Phenom is not difficult to explain or understand; however, it's outcome and effects, whether deleterious or constructive, are still very much unknown.

Very importantly, I'm not at all sure that I can trust that Mr. Trump will not run as a third party candidate if his support erodes. His ambiguous messaging on this score is very troubling.

My hope is that a real conservative, constitution-first patriot is elected, and to achieve that end I will do all I can. Conservatism's failure this time around will, I believe, finish us as a union. And if the break-up of this once venerable union is what it takes to restore constitutional order in at least a portion of that union, then I have no reservations about embracing such an outcome. I just hope such a break-up can be avoided, but NOT at the risk of permitting the further erosion of our founding principles and liberties. Unity at any price is folly.

So, a lot hangs in the balance with this upcoming election, for its outcome could well determine our fate as a unified people and country. Exaggerated concern? Not this time...

Saturday, December 5, 2015

Some of My Recent Online OPINIONATING...

Trust me. The secession movement is well underway in Texas. And thank God for that.

As for this "anti-commandeering" act which renders unlawful any State functionary to assist the federal gov't in its enforcement of unconstitutional gun laws, it's a step in the right direction, and other States are already seriously considering a similar move.

The coup de grace would be when a State actually nullifies a federal action, the difference being that nullification would criminalize enforcement by either federal or State offices/officers--more meaningful than simply anti-commandeering which merely punishes State officers.

Glad to see this resistance to federal usurpations.

 Let's just pray Texas doesn't shortsightedly submit itself to federal court rulings which might well overturn these perfectly legal State actions, something weak-kneed States have been foolishly prone to do on a whole host of constitutional issues. Let the 10th Amendment play out!!!!!

Senate GOP opens door to weakening the filibuster

Eliminating Democrat filibusters is the ONLY solution to this interminable bottleneck in the Senate.

In present circumstances--unlike the period during which the Democrats so shamelessly eliminated the filibuster while a Democrat prez (Obama) occupied the White House--if the GOP eliminates the filibuster, a Democrat president (Obama) can still nix any legislation Democrats in the Senate do not support; thus, Obama would still act as a firewall against GOP legislation. That's more than the Democrats have ever offered the GOP when the Dems were in charge in both the Senate and the White House.

McConnell, kill the filibuster and permit Comrade Obama to do the Senate Democrats' bidding by his veto! Sounds perfectly sensible, legitimate and orderly to me.

"Regular Order" should not be an end unto itself; protecting the American people and the Constitution should trump so-called "regular order".

Exclusive — Jeff Sessions: Time To Hit Brakes On ‘Radical’ Pace Of Immigration

It's about corporate America reducing wages and increasing profits AND the Democratic Party's growing the number of future Democratic voters = one-party socialist-corporate rule.

Humanitarianism has precious little to do with immigration policy these days. We're so stupid, suicidal it's laughable--if it weren't so frightening, that is. And this comment by a man who has been in the front line of resettling refugees for most of his adult life.

The self-serving beast which immigration and refugee resettlement have become today is sickening.

This Is the Fastest Growing Immigrant Community in America

The appalling stupidity of permitting an influx of aliens whose values and belief systems are incompatible with our way of life, our traditional values and philosophy of government is mind-boggling and nothing short of suicidal. It's like reading a horror story and already knowing how it will all turn out. Commonsense has been abandoned.

Carly Fiorina Showing Her True Colors With What She Just Said About Ben Carson’s Muslim Comments

I think Carson's detractors are missing the point entirely--either deliberately (for political or politically correct reasons) or inadvertently.

Carson doesn't say there should be a religious litmus test to become prez; that would violate Art VI of the Constitution. But, because to most Muslims sharia law trumps constitutional law, he says HE wouldn't vote for a Muslim to fill that position. Commonsense and a well-honed desire for survival dictates that I wouldn't either.

If we continue to placate, appease and humor Islamism, we invite our own destruction. No thanks!

Republican predicts he won’t be along with pope boycott

I applaud Rep. Gosar's principled stance.

A practicing Catholic myself, I am deeply troubled by what appear to be some clearly neo-Marxist/liberation theological/globalist views of this Pope. Though the Pope's apologists continue to loyally sanitize and spin his words on economics, global government and man-made global warming, it is clear to many Catholics where this Pope's foundational base lies.

I am reassured by the firm belief that, as in the past, the Catholic Church will survive this Pope as well. Oh, how I miss his predecessors.

Texas Nationalists Reportedly Try to Get Secession Question Onto GOP Primary Ballot

Per the 10th Amendment, Secession is a time-honored, reserved constitutional right of the States.

We've had two wars of secession: the Revolutionary War and the deliberately miss-named "Civil War", or, more correctly, the "War Between the States" or the "War of Southern Secession".

It matters not a whit what the prejudicial, radically revisionist 1869 court ruling said about a State's right to secede; no simple-minded, agenda-driven court ruling can overrule this fundamental right of the States.

The Founders would, to a man, support a State's authority to secede from the union it helped create.
Since the North's costly victory in 1865, successive generations of Americans have been brainwashed into believing that secession is somehow unlawful and unconstitutional. Glad to see that some Americans have actually studied our founding principles.

Personally, and given the tyrannical direction of this union of States, I wish the secession movement in Texas--and elsewhere--enormous success. Secession sure beats bloody revolution. And let's face it: we need somewhere to run if we want to escape oppression and restore constitutional order.
Go, Texas Nationalist Movement!!!!

After Banning Confederate Flags, Amazon Decided to Sell This Shocking Item

Political correctness in any form is both S-I-C-K and subversive of our way of life.

The black T-shirt is tasteless and offensive; but, not being a wild-eyed, intolerant Progressive without a life I don't demand that Amazon pull that product from its lineup. Let stupid people buy stupid things. T-shirts don't kill people; people kill people. Those who are offended, boycott Amazon. It's that simple.

That said, in the interest of commonsense and fair-and-balanced, the Confederate line of products should be fully restored by Amazon. IF not, they should be boycotted.

Why are people and companies so stupid? And I thought 3 yr olds were a handful. Duh.

Muslim Immigration and How to Handle It

We are in the West are so horribly stupid. History teaches that the source of Muslim problems is Islam itself. Why import those who have no interest in acculturating? Compel Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Arab states to set up "refugee safe zones" where these "Muslim refugees" can live a decent life until they can safely return to their homelands. The air-conditioned tent city in Saudi Arabia intended to accommodate hundreds of thousands of Haj participants is a perfect "safe zone" where all refugee basic needs can be provided until those refugees are able to safely return to their countries of origin.

But, this makes too much sense, so it can't possibly work. Dumb Dumb Dumb.

Muslim ‘Refugees’ and Terrorism in America

IF I thought Obama was a humanitarian, I'd be able to somewhat excuse this insanity. But, Obama is NOT a humanitarian. He's a notoriously and shamelessly unprincipled, self-serving Marxist. So, what prompts his decision to permit 10,000--maybe more--questionable Muslim refugees to resettle in American communities? That's rhetorical, of course. I think we know his insidious intentions. There can be no other reason.

No matter how you cut it, the 9th and 10th Amendments clearly underscore that all powers/authority not granted to the feds or specifically prohibited to the States are vested solely in the States. Same-sex marriage is not an inherent right or a statutory right and is not protected by the 14th's equal protection clause; by original design, defining marriage falls within the exclusive authority of the States. It's really that straightforward. In any event, the Supreme Court has absolutely no constitutional sway in such a matter. None.

For the federal gov't to define marriage, the Constitution would need to be amended so that this authority is included in Art I Sec 8 of the Constitution. With Obergefell, the constitutional options left open to the States/People are civil disobedience, state nullification or pressing for a reversal of the Obergefell "ruling".

The Supreme Court is empowered to review legislation and to opine if that legislation fully comports with the clear meaning of the Constitution. In so doing, the court is enjoined to exercise legal JUDGEMENT--not personal WILL, as this court clearly did in the Obergefell "ruling".

In 1911, the Court said, "Among the powers of the state not surrendered--which powers therefore remain with the state--is the power to so regulate the relative rights and duties of all within its jurisdiction as to guard the public morals, the public safety, and the public health, as well as to promote the public convenience and the common good." Subsequent and unconstitutional federalization of State powers/responsibilities/rights has been destructive of our republican fabric.

Per Chief Justice Roberts, "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to [the court]. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, NOT what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise 'neither force nor will but merely judgement. The truth is that today's decision rests on nothing more than the majority's own conviction that same-sex couple should be allowed to marry because they want to, and that 'it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right. Whatever force that belief may have as a matter of moral philosophy, it has no more basis in the Constitution than did the naked policy preferences adopted in Lochner. 2. Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. 3. The majority's decision is an act of WILL, not legal JUDGEMENT. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent.The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with 'the whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.' " He went on to warn that this errant/gratuitous ruling will inevitably lead to the lawful efficacy of plural unions since such unions, unlike same-sex unions, have deep roots in some cultures. Thus, the doctrine of "equal protection" is inapplicable since same-sex marriage is not a constitutional right. The court clearly overreached its constitutional authority by its inovativeness vs faithfulness to the Constitution..

The problem for me is that I see no evidence that the "right" of marriage, gay, polygamous, heterosexual, is defined either positively or negatively as a specific right in the Constitution. For the Founders,this as alluded to by Hamilton in Federalist #78, the well-established mountain of cultural tradition and biblical foundational precepts rendered the need to codify the institution of traditional marriage unnecessary. The right was a cultural given. Thus, since there is not an expressed right to marriage of any kind in the Constitution, in Obergefell the justices relied on personal will to grant/legalize, out of whole cloth, the right to gay marriage. Also, inherent rights as borne out by firmly establish cultural traditions/norms don't require reliance on "equal protection" safeguards since such rights are inherent. Too, the Court may not GRANT rights not expressed. Read #78 and see if you derive the same understanding.

Many believed that the republic, as originally designed, wouldn't last beyond the first quarter of the 19th century. And to the extent that errant case law has all but nullified the original Constitution, they were right. Constitutional Supremacy long ago gave way to Judicial Supremacy, and that has pretty much sealed our sorry fate as a constitutional republic. That said, we must persevere and restore constitutional order as best we can. The alternative is too dark to contemplate.
Final Note: The Framers and the State Declarations of Understanding issued by the ratifying States preceded Marbury v Madison. Let the erudition and meaning of the former be our guide going forward. Subsequent case law is a poor measure of original intent and understanding.

Obama Orders That America Take In 70,000 Islamic “Refugees,” But Now John Kerry Says That The Number Will Be Up To 100,000 Muslims. Be Prepared For ISIS Massacres To Happen In The US Soon

The Gulf States should be strong-armed to take in these refugees--NOT Europe or the United States!!! Sadly, of course, the U.S. no longer has the credibility or moral force to apply such leverage.

For me, the influx of in adequately vetted Islamic "refugees" is but a Trojan Horse intended to undermine and weaken the West. I'm an 'ole refugee worker and worked with refugees here and abroad for over 20 yrs, but I am deeply alarmed by this "invasion".

 Barry Obama's predictable inclination to open the floodgates to potential Islamists is nothing short of criminal.

Another option to is to set up a well-funded, well-guarded refugee resettlement containment area in Syria where these so-called "refugees" can live until conditions permit them to return to their homes. From the reports I've read, so many of these people are arrogant, demanding, insulting and simply unappreciative. And most would rather be in Syria than be resettled elsewhere.

I've dealt with such refugees in the past, and they are monstrously difficult to handle and seldom, if ever, assimilate. This whole thing makes me sick to my stomach.

Obama's feckless foreign policy in the ME bears SOLE responsibility for this disaster, but, sadly, our allies in the ME won't help out because they don't trust--nor respect--the bozo in the White House. If ever there is a time for IMPEACHMENT of this lawless ideologue, it is NOW!!! Il Duce Obama must be stopped!
The very concept of amendments per Art V of the Constitution illustrates the obvious: that man is imperfect and that his creations are necessarily subject to thoughtful reconsideration and either subsequent clarification and/or alteration. As well done as the Constitution is, it required some re-working and fine-tuning as witnessed by the 27 amendments which followed ratification. The key here is that the Constitution cannot and should not be whimsically misinterpreted out of existence. It should only be modified by a formal amendment process.

Historically, the 14th was a follow-on to the 13th, this to better ensure that freed slaves were able to exercise their rights as citizens of the US and the States within which they resided. For context, read the 14th framers' words and some relevant historical accounts of that period. The meaning and intent are crystal clear.

The citizens in each state, in convention, ratified the US Constitution which it's representatives created on their behalf in 1787; thus, by original design, the people in each State are the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. And the People and their immediate fiduciary agents, that being their States, are, therefore, duty-bound to ensure that their federal representatives are faithful to the Constitution which the People, thru their representatives, created. ALL power emanates from the People. Without that, there is unbridled tyranny.

The Constitution has carefully and clearly restricted the powers of the federal government, inclusive of all its three branches, and any power not specifically delegated by the States to the federal government or prohibited to the States in the Constitution rest solely with the States. This is not rocket science. Honest. If it were, I wouldn't understand it either.
Lesson 1: to understand original meaning and intent of this and all other provisions of the Constitution, you must take the time to read what the framers of those provisions intended. The 14th, like the 13th, was specifically aimed at freed slaves. Not my opinion, just the truth.

Huckabee on Court Clerk: 'The Only Law She's Following Is Kentucky Law'

The role of the courts is not to "let the states do whatever they want", nor is it to arrogate undelegated powers unto themselves or to the other branches of the federal government. Read Art 1 Sec 8, Art 3, and then the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Plain as day what the framers had in mind.

The legal scope of the court is, per Art 3, to review legislation to determine if, in the opinion of the court, that legislation fully comports with the Constitution--not to interpret or re-interpret the clear meaning of the Constitution, and most certainly NOT to make law.

The authority of the Supreme Court is deliberately narrow in scope, and that was the intention of the framers. Read it for yourself. Point in fact: each branch of the federal government, not to mention the governments of the several States, are empowered to opine on the issue of constitutionality. This was never, ever left to the Supreme Court alone. Checks and balances, separation of powers = Republic.

We have strayed so very far from the Constitution that to believe we actually live in a constitutional republic today is utterly delusional. That may elate many dissemblers and transformationists on the left, but for us lonely constitutionalists with families to protect, it is painfully sobering.

The 14th was narrowly intended to ban the unequal treatment of freed slaves. Nothing more nor less.
And, please, carefully note that the Constitution prohibits the federal government, a creation of the States, from exercising any authority not specifically granted to it. Per the Supremacy Clause neither States nor the Federal Government may usurp each other's authority. Federal powers are restricted to Art 1 Sec 8. Any and all other powers, whether expressed, implied or unstated, rest with the States. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land--not the feds and not the States.

The real point here is that SCOTUS cannot make law; it can only opine as to what they understand the original meaning and intent of the Constitution to be--great challenge they continue to dodge. They are demonstrably fallible human jurists. Nothing more. Why so many of us treat them as omniscient deities is mind-numbing and self-destructive. Doing so certainly does not reflect their purpose as defined by our Founders. They've become a law unto themselves, and by our routine compliance we are digging our republic's grave.

Our allowing these 9 judicial oligarchs such unbridled authority is suicidal.

The court is empowered to render an opinion. It is not enforceable law. Or at least it's not supposed to be. We permit this judicial tyranny at our own peril.

Like personal opinions, Court precedent doesn't trump the Constitution. If that were the case, the Constitution would be an irrelevancy, a soiled piece of worthless paper, a relic. Come to think of it, it has become irrelevant. And therein lies our sorry fate.

There are constitutional precedents and unconstitutional precedents. And the fallibility and constitutional faithlessness of jurists have been on full display for decades. Court "rulings" are not law! They are opinions. Whether you like it or not, defining marriage IS a residual constitutional power of the States alone--not of the federal government.

Loving v Virginia banned the prohibition of interracial marriages. It did NOT--and could not--provide that the institution of marriage is/was a fundamental constitutional "right". Note: Case law "rulings" are not law if in violation of the Constitution. No fundamental right to marriage is stated or implied.

No amendment, no matter how it is twisted and misinterpreted, can nullify another stand-alone Amendment. In short, the 14th CANNOT abridge the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution until those amendments are constitutionally amended or repealed via a formal amendment process. Period. These particular amendments were intended to safeguard the powers of the States and nothing more. Among those powers are, quite literally, thousands of implied powers specifically denied, or otherwise not delegated, to the federal government--defining marriage as an institution being one of those countless powers.

Also, if you do a modicum of research on the 14th, you will find that it has been terribly--criminally--and unconstitutionally misinterpreted over the years merely to advance political/ideological agendas. ALWAYS diligently look to original meaning and intent, not to the self-serving words of
politicians and advocates of all manner of causes.

James Madison (Federalist #45): "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are FEW and DEFINED (See Art 1, Sec 8 enumerated fed powers). Those which are to remain in the State governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE". Thus, defining marriage, among countless other unenumerated State powers, is a function of the State alone--NOT of the
federal government. (The "Supreme Court" got Dred Scott wrong--among so many other cases--and, true to form, it got this ruling wrong as well. Remedy: ignore or nullify the ruling.)

And in case you want to throw the Supremacy Clause (Art VI Para 2) at me, this is what it clearly says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United StatesWHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall bebound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding." As can be readily seen, the Founders rendered federal power very narrowly here, effectively limiting it to those powers specifically granted to it by the States in Art 1, Sec 8. Thus, since State and Federal powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, States may not usurp federal powers and the federal government may not usurp State powers. Thus, they are each supreme within their respective spheres of authority. And, again, federal authority is severely
restricted to Art 1 Sec 8 ENUMERATED powers, whereas the powers vested
in the States are "numerous and indefinite"--limited only by the citizens of the States.

By the way, the 9th Amendment reads as follows: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment was intended to protect rights not specifically enumerated as federal powers. The 10th Amendment merely underscored that all matters over which the federal government was not specifically granted authority rested with the States and the People. Again, the 9th does NOT grant marriage as a constitutional right.

Thus, defining marriage is one of the countless powers reserved to the States.

While you or I can certainly opine, that doesn't make our opinions constitute enforceable law. SCOTUS cannot limit State authority. Only the Constitution, as written, can do that. The court's job, this per Art 3, is to review laws and to weigh whether or not, in the court's opinion, those laws comport with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. They may only opine; they cannot "rule" nor enforce. And if their opinion is at odds with the original meaning and intent of the Constitution, it is null and void and of no effect.

No amendment, no matter how it is twisted and misinterpreted, can nullify another stand-alone Amendment. In short, the 14th CANNOT abridge the authority of the 9th and 10th Amendments of the US Constitution until those amendments are constitutionally altered via a formal amendment process. Period.

Also, if you do a modicum of research on the 14th, you will find that it has been terribly--almost criminally--and unconstitutionally misinterpreted over the years merely to advance political/ideological agendas. ALWAYS diligently look to original meaning and intent, not to the self-serving words of politicians and advocates of all manner of causes.

James Madison (Federalist #45): "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are FEW and DEFINED (See Art 1, Sec 8 enumerated fed powers). Those which are to remain in the State governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE". Thus, defining marriage, among countless other unenumerated powers, is a function of the State alone--NOT of the federal government. The "Supreme Court" got Dred Scott wrong--among so many other cases--and, true to form, it got this ruling wrong as well. Remedy: ignore or nullify the ruling.

And in case you want to throw the Supremacy Clause (Art Vi Para 2) at me, this is what it clearly says: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." As can be readily seen, the Founders rendered federal power very narrowly here, effectively limiting it to those powers granted to it by the States in Art 1, Sec 8. Thus, since State and Federal powers are clearly defined in the Constitution, States may not usurp federal powers and the federal government may not usurp State powers. Thus, they are each supreme within their respective spheres of authority. And, again, federal authority is severely restricted to Art 1 Sec 8.

Understanding the "real Lincoln", I'd say the "party of Trump" would be a significant improvement.
Now, let's get back to the Hillary emails and scuttle her obvious attempts to distract.

Donald Trump wants to deport 11 million migrants: is that even possible?

Easiest way to handle the 11 million+ is to 1) secure the "southern sieve", aka southern border, 2) grant work authorization/legal residence to "qualified" illegals (no criminality, successfully complete a closely monitored English language trng course, pay a substantial fine and any back taxes), 3) disallow any of these folks from ever becoming US Citizens UNLESS they leave the country and return in a lawful manner. This applies to visa over-stayers who comprise about 40% of all illegal aliens in the country, 4) establish a full-proof system for tracking ALL illegals, both gate-crashers and visa over-stayers, and deport them when there is no record of their having departed the country when required, 5) any illegal re-entry should result in imprisonment for no less than 5 years. A second illegal re-entry draws a 15 yr prison term followed by permanent bar from re-entry, 6) a stringently enforced E-Verify/I-9 procedure to ensure employer compliance with the law.
No need to deport them en masse

GOP: Clinton must turn over server

It's so flaming obvious that Hillary has deleted or otherwise hidden sensitive emails of interest to the American public. Betcha' she gets away with it too. They're all self-serving elitist thugs !!!! The law applies to the unwashed masses, not the political elite.

And the lawlessness continues with utter impunity. Obama tastes unchecked executive power, and he thrives in it. Thanks, GOP, for your faithlessness and spinelessness. You are all complicit in our republic's demise.

Is John Roberts ready to take down ObamaCare?

Hey, Roberts, don't worry so much about the public's perception of whether you lean liberal or conservative. Be focused like a laser on original meaning and intent. Don't "interpret" or divine a meaning not clearly expressed. The Constitution is what it says, and the Obamacare debacle is as written. Don't forget your oath of office. Nothing else should matter. Right now, I trust your judiciousness and wisdom as much as trust Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Zilch.

House chaos leaves GOP senators fuming

McConnell and McCain, if you're unwilling to fight for the Constitution, you are unfit for leadership, no less than is the Thug-in-Chief currently squatting in the White House.

The battle isn't about "going along to get along", it is for the very survival of what little remains of this tattered republic. Wake the F*#@* up, you jerks!!!

FCC: You Won’t Know What’s In Net Neutrality Until We Force It Upon You

IF Rep. Clyburn breaks with his fellow FCC Democrats, then, perhaps, this net neutrality debacle can be prevented.

But, what really deeply and painfully disturbs me is the fact that 5 little unelected bureaucratic oligarchs can have the power to unilaterally regulate the internet without congressional approval.
Congress should defund FCC and Wheeler should be held in contempt--and impeached/removed.

And the GOP caves yet again! So reassuring to know we have representatives in DC who are committed to preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution. One more nail in our Constitution's coffin. 

Senate Republicans eye new strategy in immigration fight

The solution is painfully obvious: abandon the fillibuster rule until a more trustworthy chief executive is sworn in 2017.

Which is more important to the nation: the GOPs restoring regular order in the Senate and permitting a Progressive fillibuster of the DHS bill OR the GOPs upholding the Rule of Law and faithfully defending the Constitution?

For a patriot, the choice is obvious. It's not rocket science, folks.

If the GOP permits the DHS bill to pass, inclusive of the amnesty piece, the GOP is complicit in undermining Judge Hanen's ruling and the Constitution of the United States.

Oh, and by the way, DHS will NOT be shut down even with Comrade Obama's veto. 80% of DHS personnel have been deemed essential. They will show up for work.

Clarence Thomas: 'Another Example of This Court’s Increasingly Cavalier Attitude Toward the States

Many, both on the left and right, don't understand the meaning of the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment as originally conceived by the Framers and understood by the ratifying States. Please carefully read both.

I draw your attention to the words "which shall be made in Pursuance of thereof" in the Supremacy Clause. In other words, if a power is not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal gov't in the Constitution, then that power, whether implicit or expressed, is vested in the States, unless that particular power is expressly prohibited to the States.

The scope of Supreme Court authority is also severely and clearly limited in Art III to reviewing defined areas--but NOT enforcing its will on States or superseding State constitutional authority.

Again, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land--not the federal judiciary! When in doubt as to the powers of the central gov't and the States, ALWAYS refer to the Constitution itself. Do NOT rely legal misinterpretations/opinions.

No amount of revisionist rulings/opinions by a gaggle of unelected, black-robed judicial oligarchs can alter the fact that the CONSTITUTION, as written, is the Supreme Law of the Land--NOT the federal government or of any of its usurping branches. The Constitution severely limits federal authority, while it vests enormous powers in the States. And that is what the Founders intended.
Owing to the  revisionism attending this matter over the years plus the ignorance of We the People, we've lost our constitutional republic. It's almost irrelevant to any longer discuss it unless, of course, one is determined to restore constitutional order and original intent.

Marriage--vs civil union-- is NOT a legal relationship, only insofar as it may generate income for the gov't by gov'ts insinuating itself into  marriage. Marriage is more a spiritual, religious act, quite apart from a legal act. To generate income, gov't has involved itself in marriage for the express purpose of collections


In the Supremacy Clause, please note the words "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof", meaning, of course, that Federal law trumps State Law when the law or power in question is specifically delegated BY THE CONSTITUTION--not by errant and revisionist court opinions/rulings--to the federal government. Those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government reside with the States. Couldn't be more unambiguous no matter how diligently one may tease the clear meaning.

To wit, per Madison in Federalist #45: " The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are FEW AND DEFINED. Those which remain in the State governments are NUMEROUS and INDEFINITE." He was referring explicitly to Art I Sec 8.

To underscore this understanding as to the limitations on federal authority, the States compelled adoption of the 10th Amendment: "The powers NOT DELEGATED by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People." Crystal, Crystal clear. Very difficult to deliberately or inadvertently misinterpret the meaning of the 10th.

In short, federal powers are limited to Art I Sec 8 and Art 1 Sec 10. All other powers, explicit or implied, are reserved to the States.

From a constitutional legal standpoint, it matters not at all that a gaggle of unelected, black-robed, unaccountable judicial oligarchs have come to view themselves as the final arbiters of what is or what is not constitutional at every level of jurisprudence in these united States. Art III permits the Supreme Court to review laws, but Art III does not grant the Court permission to issue "rulings" or to enforce their rulings/opinions. Art III clearly and carefully limits the scope of the Court's authority.

As Founder Archibald Maclaine and others asserted in 1788, "It is plain a thing as possibly can be, that Congress can have no power but what we expressly give them." And then, there was Mr. Pinckney of SC who, in 1788, noted "No powers could be executed or assumed by the federal government, but such as were expressly delegated [by the States]." And, of course, there was Jefferson who asserted that "To consider the Judges of the Supreme Court as the ultimate Arbiters of a Constitutional question would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. I see no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves." And, as Justice Chase noted in 1789, "The several State Legislatures RETAIN all the powers of LEGISLATION, delegated to them by the State Constitution, which are not EXPRESSLY taken away by the Constitution of the United States." Even Hamilton, a big gov't advocate, asserted that "NO legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. Whatever is not EXPRESSLY given to the federal head, is reserved to the members."

I could go on, but these guys knew what they were crafting and the States understood what they were ratifying, that being a severely limited central government and more powerful State governments. Of course, you wouldn't know that today. The Court, like all other branches of the federal government, have usurped authorities never, ever envisioned or sanctioned directly or indirectly by the Founders or the Supreme Law of the Land. And We the People, by our ignorance and submissive silence, have permitted it.

The US Constitution--NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT--is the Supreme Law of the Land. When either the State or the Federal Government usurps powers not constitutionally granted to or otherwise vested in them, the Supreme Law of the Land is thus violated.

Thanks to decades of violations, we are no longer a constitutional republic. And we never will be again until the People resist this insidious transformation and restore constitutional order.

While it wasn't always like this, most lawyers and judges are trained to win cases and to advance their agendas, not to defend the Constitution. Faithfulness to and familiarity with the Constitution are, at best, afterthoughts to many of these fellows.

Like motorcycle helmets, marijuana and infinite array of other matters not expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the States, gay marriage and, as said, a whole host of other matters fall within the constitutional authority of the States. We'd best understand this, or we lose what precious little remains of our tattered Constitutional Republic.


And only today on FOX I heard Judge Napolitano assert that whenever there is a judicial clash between State and Federal authority on a particuLAr issue, in this case gay marriage, that the Supremacy Clause dictates that federal authority prevails. WHAT???????????????

Napolitano is clearly a product of a liberal law school education.

The Supremacy Clause grants supremacy to the US CONSTITUTION alone--not to either the State or Federal authorities. In short, unless the federal government is specifically granted a particular power by the Constitution, the federal government MUST defer to State authority in the matter, this per the US Constitution (10th Amendment), aka the Supreme Law of the Land.

Napolitano's a good man, but on this fundamental point he is painfully and acutely at odds with the Founders and the Constitution they crafted and ratified. His grotesque misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause is as much a threat to constitutional order as is Liberalism and Progressivism.

Judge Roy Moore: 'The law is very clear'

Any imperious "ruling" by the Supreme Court which violates State sovereignty per the 10th Amendment and, therefore, the Constitution of the US, the latter being THE supreme law of the land, is null and void and should be summarily ignored by Alabama and every other State. Alabama should NOT submit to judicial overreach. Submitting is enabling federal tyranny. Without question, gay marriage, like myriad other issues/areas falls squarely within the constitutional powers of the States--NOT NOT NOT the federal government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've given up trying to figure this guy out. He's just plain mentally ill. Someone to be totally ignored--except if you're a mental health caregiver.

Insider Warns of Imminent Attack: ISIS Planning Something Much Bigger Than 9/11

Perhaps such an awful attack on the homeland will finally awaken the millions of mindless or otherwise soporific American robots to the threat posed by ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood and their apologist in the White House.  But, don't count on it. The ignorance in this country is dangerously pervasive and foundational.

Obama Declares War on Alaska: Designating 12+ Million ANWR Acres Off-Limits “Wilderness”

Am getting mighty sick of States whining about lawless federal seizures of their real estate. Mighty sick!

Stop the hand-wringing, Alaska, and IGNORE/NULLIFY the royal White House edict!!!!!!!!

Regarding federal control of State land, do you want to know your authority as a sovereign State? For starters, check out the post entitled "Federal Imperialism vs State Sovereignty" on Opinerlog.blogspot,com.

The solution to this brazen federal overreach is as plain as the snow on your face! Stop roiling, whining, grovelling. JUST SAY NO BLOODY WAY !!!!!!! Am just so sick of States unwilling to stand up for themselves and their citizens!!!!! SICK!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Syrian Entry ONLY if US Security Agencies Certify No Threat

(My editorial to local paper 11-24-15)

Despite repeated warnings by our own security agencies against a Syrian refugee 
influx-- 80% of whom are military aged males--the Administration remains 
recklessly determined to resettle these refugees in communities across our 
That said, my solution is this: the US and its allies should provide adequate 
food, medical care, education, housing and security to Syrian refugees currently 
on hold in refugee camps overseas until they can be safely repatriated 
to their homes in Syria. 
And if repatriation is impossible, NOT until each of our security agencies 
certifies that these refugees have been fully and properly vetted--thus 
precluding their posing a potential terrorist threat to our communities--should 
their entrance into the USA as either visitors or refugees be permitted. 
Anything less would be inexcusably short-sighted and irresponsible. 
In this critical matter let’s rely upon commonsense--NOT empty-headed political 
correctness, self-interest, delusional ideology and tedious sophistry. 
There is a time at which we need to listen to the American people; that time is 

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Retired Refugee Administrator Calls for Syrian Refugee Moratorium

For most of my adult life, I have worked with refugees both overseas and in the US. So, I DO understand the plight of refugees and the challenges of successfully resettling them in their new American homeland.

That said, I just read a lengthy article in the local newspaper in which the mayor and the local refugee resettlement director discounted the Syrian refugee threat by sweepingly equating the reaction of those of us with legitimate concerns about the flawed vetting process of Syrian refugees with "knee-jerk reactions of politicians". I was understandably irked. The very idea of my being a politician is offensive. But, at least those who share my concerns weren't characterized as bigots, racists, xenophobes or Islamophobes. Very surprising, indeed.

In the article, the local director was quoted as saying that "all refugees go through a rigorous review process before being allowed to come to the U.S." He went on to say that "we shouldn't allow terrorists and criminals to dictate changes to our great tradition of welcoming the stranger", pointing out that local resettlement agencies "can't pick and choose whom to accept."

Those quotes smacked of talking points--not reasoned arguments--for permitting the influx of inadequately vetted Syrian refugees into our community. I immediately questioned that if the threat of "terrorists and criminals" should not dictate how we tackle the question of welcoming potential terrorists and criminals into our midst, then what exactly should dictate whom we permit to resettle next door to us.

His also stating that local agencies "can't pick and choose whom to accept" is, for the most part, false. In the case of refugees entering to join family members already here, then, yes, the agency is expected to accept them into our community; however, so-called "free cases", or those refugees without anchor relatives already in place in the community, may be rejected for resettlement by the local agency. Bear that mind.

He went on by asserting that "Syrians coming to the US will likely come through an orderly process from refugee camps," again adding that "it is a very secure process." Likely? Not reassuring.

Obviously he has ignored or entirely discounted the remarks of our security agency heads who have consistently and unambiguously warned about the flawed vetting process of Syrian and other Middle Eastern refugees.

Since I'm sure the local resettlement program has come under considerable pressure of late, and not wanting to pile on, I contacted an old colleague and friend at the national refugee resettlement agency with which the local agency is affiliated.

I explained that local community groups with whom I am closely affiliated have understandable concerns about the resettlement of Syrian refugees in our community, and went on to cite the quotes of the local director which appeared in the newspaper.

His first reaction was that it was not true that the local agency cannot reject refugees. Those who are not arriving to join family members already resettled in the community may be rejected by the local agency. This would certainly describe all the Syrian refugees earmarked for resettlement in this community.

Throughout the cordial conversation--we hadn't spoken for years--I sensed a inclination on his part to adroitly skirt the potential threat posed by the resettlement of Syrian refugees. When queried about the inadequate vetting process for Syrian refugees in particular, he seemed unaware of the DIA's, FBI's and DOD's warnings about the absence of an adequate database to properly vet these refugees. Has there been a news blackout?

He emailed me an updated version of the 13-step vetting process currently in use, and seemed convinced that the process was adequate. I pointed out that the vetting process is fine as it applies to non-Middle Eastern refugee groups, but that we're talking about Islamic refugees, some of whom could well be ISIS or Al Quaeda infiltrators; that it only took 8 radical Islamists to slaughter 129 people in Paris. He gingerly acknowledged this threat, but quickly went on to point out the obvious: these refugees have been in camps for up to 4 years and are badly in need of help; that after such a prolonged period of time "one would think" that [even without a database with which to work] that the wheat could be effectively separated from the chaff.

I opined that merely hoping that such is the case is one thing, but asked if on that hope alone were we willing to risk a terrorist attack which might otherwise have been averted. He again gently agreed, but kept returning to the genuine suffering of the bulk of Syrian refugees. That was his fallback position throughout the conversation. He could never really bring himself to fully grapple with the real threat of improperly vetted Syrian refugees. For him, compassion alone trumped caution.

We both worked in refugee camps in Southeast Asia and were both involved in interviewing and otherwise screening SEA refugees before they were finally approved for entry into the US. Clearly, these were entirely different refugee groups--no terrorist inclinations among them at all. Thus, the vetting process for SEA refugees proved to be adequate and no warnings from our security agencies about the vetting process were necessarily forthcoming.

We agreed that the suffering Syrian refugees needed help, but we couldn't agree that a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian refugees was the responsible course of action to take.

We then spoke about the difficulty we all had with smoothly resettling Somalian refugees in the past, but he couldn't recall but two Somalians being arrested for terrorist related activities after arrival. I reminded him of a substantial number of Somalian refugees who had been resettled in Minnesota who had linked up with ISIS; that although they are likely under close surveillance by the U.S. government they are still free and their legal status here unchanged. In short, I reminded him that they remained a serious potential terrorist threat to the homeland. Again he agreed, but was indisposed to grasp the true nature of the threat. Like so many companies and organizations, it is difficult for resettlement agencies, local or national, to see things as they really are, in this case to clearly see the threat attending a flawed vetting process. As always, agency and organization culture and those inevitable talking points pretty much dictate an employee's outlook and opinions. So, while his stance was unsurprising, when weighing the validity of refugee program commentary, from the start we must all bear carefully in mind this ingrained myopia.

Possible remedy: if a refugee is a "Free Case" (with no familial US ties), the local resettlement agency CAN, in fact, say no. Thus, the remedy for those of us who are pushing for a moratorium  on the resettlement of Syrian refugees may be to pressure the local resettlement agency to reject Free Syrian cases. In most communities without Syrian refugees already in place, such an effort would most certainly stop the influx. Thus, a moratorium can be accomplished on the local level.

With this in mind, I drafted the following editorial for local consumption. The newspaper's being a seriously liberal newspaper, who can say if it will be published:

"Dear Editor:

Though ISIS has dubbed the Islamist terrorist attack on Paris as but the
“first of the storm”, Pres. Obama continues to mystifyingly describe “global
warming”, coal and CO2 as THE most profound threats we face as a nation; worse,
he continues to vigorously push for the entrance of thousands of inadequately
vetted Syrian “refugees” into our homeland.

Despite the existential threat of Islamic terrorism, and warnings against such a
Syrian influx by our own security agencies, the Administration remains
recklessly determined to resettle these refugees in our communities.

I've worked with refugees both here and abroad for most of my adult life, so no
one can honestly discount my compassion when it comes to helping suffering
refugees; however, until our security agencies verify that an adequate vetting
process is in place a moratorium on the resettlement of Syrian “refugees” is a
no-brainer.  Anything less would be terribly irresponsible.

Moving past empty-headed political correctness, delusional ideology and faux
compassion, let’s properly safeguard our homeland and families from the menace
of radical Islamic terrorism."

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Bullying Migrants or Bonafide Refugees?

By now, it must be painfully obvious to all but the willfully ignorant or ideologically disabled that the flood of Muslim migrants into Europe is the result of a terribly flawed US foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 6-7 years. That said, per international agreements what are we in the West supposed to do?

First and foremost, since these migrants haven't been properly interviewed by the UNHCR to determine if they meet the internationally accepted definition of "refugee", it is unclear if these people are, in fact, refugees at all. Second, if, owing to a "well-founded fear of persecution", a person flees his country of origin into a neighboring country, the UNHCR is, per international agreements, tasked with the responsibility of interviewing, vetting, housing, feeding and providing for their medical needs until a third country offers them a firm resettlement opportunity. (Note: not even a UN-approved refugee has the option to choose to which country s/he will emigrate. In fact, should a refugee refuse a legitimate resettlement offer from a third country--whether it be the refugee's first choice or not--s/he is automatically disqualified from resettlement anywhere.) Third, prior to a third country's offering a resettlement opportunity, the refugees in question must be interviewed yet again by that country, and prior to final approval each refugee must undergo a thorough medical and security screening as well. Fourth, so long as the conditions in the first country of asylum to which the refugee has fled remains safe and accepting of the refugee's temporary presence, or until it is determined that they are not refugees, they may remain there (under UN auspices) until such time that a firm offer of resettlement is forthcoming or until conditions in their country of origin permit them to safely and voluntarily repatriate to their home. The first asylum county may also offer the inducement of local integration, though that is not all that common. (Note: in no case can a UNHCR-approved refugee be forcibly repatriated to his country of origin if doing so jeopardizes the refugee's safety.)

Thus, before trying to sensibly deal with this current flood of displaced persons from the ME and the Subcontinent, it must FIRST be determined IF the persons in question are, in fact, and per international protocols, refugees! Tragically, for this wave of migrants, this simply hasn't been done by either the UN or the West! In short, we have no idea with whom we are dealing. None!

What we see today are thousands of people (overwhelmingly young males, by the way) forcibly entering neighboring countries and aggressively gate-crashing their way to those countries which most appeal to them as choice resettlement sites, e.g. Germany. Kinda' like a disorderly "black Friday" swarm of shoppers at the local shopping center.  Folks, this is completely at odds with the way refugee resettlement is--per international agreements--intended to work. The behavior of this unruly influx of unvetted migrants into Europe today smacks of bullying, a far cry from those "huddled masses yearning to be free" for whom we should all have compassion.

Finally, there is absolutely no reason why these migrants--temporary sojourners, displaced persons, asylum seekers, whatever--should be resettled in Europe or the United States. There's really no need for such a massive and essentially unregulated resettlement undertaking by the West. Why? From a financial, geographical and cultural standpoint, the Gulf States, admittedly not known for their compassion and generosity toward their fellow Sunni and Shiite Muslims, are more than fully capable of housing, feeding, clothing, educating and medically caring for these displaced persons until they are able to safely return to their homelands in the ME and the Subcontinent. The problem is no one in the Administration or in Congress is convincingly advocating for this much more sensible solution. Why? Because Obama has ZERO influence, trust and leverage with these, our fallen away and disenchanted Gulf State "allies".

So, should the US of A go ahead and resettle improperly interviewed or hastily screened Muslim refugees from the ME or from any other corner of the world? Duh. NO! More precisely, for national security and economic reasons, I strongly recommend an emergency moratorium on the resettlement of Muslim refugees/migrants/displaced persons in the United States. We can continue to generously help them while they are safely housed in perfectly habitable refugee camps in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

Finally, the way the American government as well as the Europeans have dealt with this "crisis" is so bone-headed, insane and knee-jerk as to be downright mind-boggling. So much for enlightened leadership.

I've worked directly with refugees nearly all of my adult life both here and abroad, so I'm NOT saying don't help needy refugees. I'm  all for that. But, what I AM saying is to help legitimate refugees in an orderly, intelligent and professional manner so that our own security and economic interests are properly safeguarded as well. 

Thursday, August 20, 2015

"Birthright Citizenship": Politics vs Rule of Law

We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants 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 an ideologically-motivated 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, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the 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 childand 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: at least these parents weren't gate-crashers; unlike illegal entrants, they were "known to the government"; thus, legally present. However, per Sen. Howard's definition of "jurisdiction" above, like illegal entrants they were not under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Thus, the ruling was a capricious and revisionist judicial contrivance. Nothing more.)

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, this per Art I Sec 8, to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.