All articles written by ClinicalThinker
Here is a truth for all to accept, reject or ignore.
I , HE/SHE, YOU, WE, CAN’T is an excuse for mediocrity.
IT IS a position of weakness and is equivalent to I CHOOSE NOT for cowards probably 99% of the time.
For the most part it is used by those hoping there are fools that will follow along willingly.
Unless there is a physical or mental reason making someone truly incapable then CAN’T is a CHOICE.
The CAN’T term is a quick indicator of who is strong and who is cowardly.
The REASON/EXCUSE matters only to the INTENDED INDIVIDUAL SWAYEE and how he/she CHOOSES to deal with it OR NOT.
Well much to his surprise Jorge Ramos got a swift kick of the Trump security boot.
When I watched the clip I had to laugh out loud.
It was reminiscent of the disgusting take over tactics by 3 “Black Lives Matter” twits at a Bernie Sanders gathering.
Apparently Jorge Ramos expects to be treated with respect when he acts like an interrupting thug.
Apparently the opposition can not lock on to the Trump appeal.
The public is tired of the government running renegade with their own agenda and not that of the people.
Trump is simply out-loud, sometimes in a rude manner saying what the public would say themselves if they had a chance.
Finally Jorge Ramos is allowed back in the conference and is finally ALLOWED by Trump to ask his questions.
Trump patiently tried answering but as usual Ramos either did not understand or chose not to listen. It is clearly hard for these guys when confronting those who SCORN POLITICALLY CORRECT. Being kicked to the curb so easily can be a definite dent to the ego 😉
Whatever it was that Ramos hoped to achieve looked to be a failure unless THUGGISH FOOL was his objective.
The next day Jorge Ramos ends up on CNN whining about his treatment. Most notable to me was that Trump has granted everyone an interview BUT HIM.
WELL BOO HOO! Now that is really sad!
If you are interested in the close to 5 minute exchange between Donald Trump and Jorge Ramos after his return you will find it HERE.
I have to admit he is refreshing. At least ONE PERSON running for President is knowledgeable on the US Constitution. The FRAMERS VERSION … not that of some wingnut revisionist.
This time the ANCHOR BABY “sacred cow” of both Democratic and Republican … so called “intellectual elite” … is the target.
Last night while being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly the issue was brought up. O’Reilly has apparently fallen sway to those he claims to be part of the “intellectual elite”. O’Reilly INSISTED ON calling the ILLEGAL BORN here in the states US CITIZENS. Well if you want to be labeled ignorant in front of a few million viewers? Be my guest!
I have written over and over about the “natural born citizenship” definition according to the framers. That connects also to the simple concise definition of who is a citizen of the US and who IS NOT.
For those wanting knowledge first hand read the writing of the framers first hand yourself. It is straight forward and simple. That being said trying to discuss this simple straight forward material with these supposed “intellectual elites” straight forward simple does not seem to compute.
My question is why?
Simple ignorance by not reading the definitions for themselves?
Are they not actually as “intellectually elite” as they expect us to believe?
Are they simply parrots for some other faux-expert on the matter?
Do they have some corrupt agenda?
This you will have to figure out for yourselves.
Anyway just as I was ready to sift AGAIN through a ton of data I have collected over the years and write on this matter I found an article by Jim Delaney that already had just done it for another forum.
Here is his article in total with his gracious permission.
It is a long read … but if you want to be informed vs. ignorant it is well worth the time.
“Birthright Citizenship”: Revisionism v Rule of Law
by Jim Delaney for americac2c.com August 23, 2015 at 9:06am
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 both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment as well.
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 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 scary. But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads can really be.
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 assertions to the contrary from both the left and right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to an “anchor baby”. 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 restate the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed.
Toward that 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) amends section 301 of the Immigration & 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 is 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 was 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 alone in the US would not render him/her under the “complete jurisdiction” of the US. Simple enough.
The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be illustrated by the fact that American 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 sovereignities 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 (1898), 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.
In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” However, and as can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided a 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 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—was woven into 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 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 divergence from 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, gobbledeg***, 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 activists 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.
Mark Lavine has also weighed in on the Anchor Baby “birthright citizenship” matter and you can hear what he had to say below.
In that search I landed on youtube as well as politico.
While lurking around reading the comments and opinions and the responses to them. Again I was struck with the comment/response stupidity level (lack of common sense, logic and ability to connect the dots) that goes on about serious subjects facing this nation.
On Politico the other day I made a response on a Ben Carson thread.
As usual the liberal/progressive/no-tingle comment style was raising its ugly head.
Do I care that some numb-nut does not have that tingly feeling about Carson therefore he is not worthy to run for President?
My first thought was who the hell are you Mr. numb-nut? … and why should anyone who knows you or otherwise care about your tingly feelings?
The answer is simple I DO NOT … do you?
This is the second incident (first on youtube) in less than a week where I have encountered this.
For the life of me I can not figure out exactly what is going on. Have we finally reached the tipping point where stupidity is what rules the mass?
Has someone secretly been spiking the water with some “stupidity elixir”?
From personal experience I know some of these wing-nuts are pretty intelligent At least one would hope so for the amount of money they put out becoming educated. Were the tables turned on any one of them … they would immediately be bursting a carotid.
Another stupidity example is the blind support of Hillary Clinton no matter how corrupt her actions are.
And about half of the people polled do not have a problem with her?
Where on an average does that leave we the people?
Could it be, blind, stupid or corrupt ourselves?
Stupidity defined HERE.
This time he is voicing his opinion of Megyn Kelly and her dust up with Donald Trump during the Fox debate.
Like many watching the debate his opinion is Kelly slipped a cog on this one (though he does not say it quite that way). His comments in the beginning are crass but Ted Nugent can be crass.
As the interview progresses it becomes clear Nugent likes Kelly but is disappointed in her actions. He is definitely not the lone ranger here.
I expect the media will be offended to the max. Honestly it is getting tiresome watching all of the media faux-outrage over politically correct bullshit.
I must say personally I do not agree with everything Ted Nugent says or how he says it but I do respect anyone with the guts to stand before thousands and consistently (without fear of reprisal) speak their mind.
Ted Nugent this time is stating why he is a Trump supporter. Interestingly he is dead on accurate on why so many others support Trump and why his poll numbers continue to rise.
On WIBX’s Keeler in the Morning show, Ted Nugent slams Kelly’s debate questions to Trump. He further states “the gorgeous, stunning, otherwise professional and tuned-in” Kelly “absolutely fell off the cliff of political correctness” when she posed “obnoxious” questions to Donald Trump.
Nugent did say that normally Kelly’s great at what she does, but she “broke all of our hearts” at the debate by playing into the status quo:
“She isn’t status quo, but she started acting, and sounding, and looking like one, and I don’t believe she is. I think she is playing some games, either that or she’s getting bad advice, either that or she’s just getting stupid.”
Here is the audio interview from that show.
Don’t know but want to know more about Ted Nugent HERE?