TIME FOR THE 14TH AMENDMENT TO REACH THE SUPREME COURT

RBG, doesn’t stand for REDBLUEGREEN, it stands for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Yeah, you read about her breaking a few ribs, this isn’t the first time, but it stands to reason that she is reaching the end of the line. What keeps her going is the progressive expansion of “rights” not implied in the Constitution. Beating cancer twice and recovering is a sign of her resolve, however time takes its toll and her time to retire has come. This will give President Trump the once in a life time opportunity to appoint one more Justice to the Supreme Court – 3 in all.

The 14th Amendment is a RED LINE and we hope that once and for all the Court ceases the opportunity to adjudicate it.

by TED HILTON   The San Diego Union-Tribune

“All persons born and naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

Related: Birthright citizenship: Bedrock principle is good for America

President Trump is correct to challenge birthright citizenship. As we commemorate 150 years since the 14th Amendment’s passage in 1868, it is long overdue for our nation to conform to the true intent of the “subject to the jurisdiction clause” which confers United States citizenship.

It is unknown to most Americans that prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, United States Attorneys General Caleb Cushing in 1856, and Jeremiah Black in 1859, both wrote that “the doctrine of perpetual allegiance,” or citizenship determined by the soil, is inadmissible in the United States. They concluded, at the time of the Revolution our nation’s founders rejected regal government and feudal law.

Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard, the chief authors of the 14h Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction clause,” stated it grants citizenship for a birth to a parent who is under complete jurisdiction, who owes allegiance to our nation. They stated the clause does not apply to someone who is subject in some degree to the political or civil jurisdiction.

Five years after the amendment’s passage on Dec. 1, 1873, President Ulysses S. Grant proclaimed in his State of the Union address, “The United States… had led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance.”

President Trump is upholding President Grant’s and the nation’s original understanding that the 14th Amendment ended birthright citizenship.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark decision granted citizen births to Chinese parents who, under the Emperor of China, were prohibited from becoming citizens of other countries. The Ark decision concluded, “…the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ in the Fourteenth Amendment must be presumed to have been intended by Congress …, to mean the same as the words in the case of The Exchange.” This case precedence confirms inadmissible aliens are not subject to complete jurisdiction.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, the principal founder of our constitutional law system, authored The Exchange decision in 1812. Chief Justice Marshall wrote of the distinction between civil and territorial jurisdiction; persons residing with the nation’s “consent” are under civil jurisdiction. Justice Marshall clarified, “But if the property of an alien, be forcibly… carried within the territory, no consent is implied, and consequently there is no ground for jurisdiction.” The case confirms jurisdiction over things and persons is the same.

Wong Kim Ark cited defining precedence from The Exchange, “…the whole civilized world concurred that a foreigner is not understood as intending to subject himself to a jurisdiction absent his document proving the nation’s consent.” The justices understood an alien under territorial jurisdiction, without this document, is subject to “arrest and detention.”

Compliant with that legal precedent, Wong Kim Ark decided, “Chinese persons … are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here …” In the 2012 Congressional Research Service report to Congress, Margaret Mikyung Lee omitted this crucially significant section, imprecisely writing, “The holding does not make a distinction between illegal and legal presence …”

Clearly, the justices conditioned granting citizenship to children whose parents were residing lawfully with permission, signifying doubt this ruling would be granted to aliens without legal presence.

Six Wong Kim Ark justices wrongfully declared the congressional debates that govern the accurate meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction,” were inadmissible. Opposing that misjudgment, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan, a renowned civil rights activist, dissented from this ruling. They concurred with the government’s case, to grant citizenship to children of parents ineligible to become citizens defies the Constitution’s evident meaning of jurisdiction.

President Trump’s administration can also initiate a court challenge concerning citizen births of “birth tourists” and inadmissible aliens, which can ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. There is confidence a majority of the justices will comply with the 14th’s original intent, and the conclusive jurisdiction decisions of John Marshall, the most revered Supreme Court Justice in American history.

Congress must follow the relevant words of former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

All Wong Kim Ark justices concurred a citizen is born to a parent who is, or is eligible to become, a U.S. citizen. This is how Congress can legislatively define citizenship by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to follow the correct intent of the Fourteenth Amendment’s authors.

When Congress adheres to this intelligent, common-sense intent, the United States of America will at last, no longer practice feudal law and no longer silence the Founding Fathers.

Hilton, a San Diego resident, advocates for entitlement and immigration reforms.

Copyright © 2018, The San Diego Union-Tribune

 

ELECTION FRAUD – NIXON WAS THE FIRST BUT NOT THE LAST

ElectoralCollege1960.svg

In 2008 Al Franken was first elected to the United States Senate in 2008 as the nominee of the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, defeating incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman by 312 votes out of nearly three million cast (a margin of less than 0.01%). Preliminary reports on election night, November 4, were that Coleman was leading by over 700 votes, but the official results, certified on November 18, 2008, had Coleman leading by only 215 votes. As the two candidates were separated by less than 0.5 percent of the votes cast, the Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, authorized the automatic recount provided for in Minnesota election law. In the recount, ballots and certifying materials were examined by hand, and candidates could file challenges to the legality of ballots or materials for inclusion or exclusion. On January 5, 2009, the Minnesota State Canvassing Board certified the recounted vote totals, with Franken ahead by 225 votes.

Now we have Florida, remember Florida, the Democrats lost the presidency to George W. Bush by 1 chad. After an intense recount process and the United States Supreme Court‘s decision in Bush v. Gore, Bush won Florida’s electoral votes by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost six million cast and as a result became the president-elect. The process was extremely divisive, and led to calls for electoral reform in Florida.

We are again back to the future in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. Fraud at the highest degree is taking place on our watch. The governorship and the Senate seat are at stake. CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST DEMOCRAT PLOT IN FLORIDA AND GEORGIA. What the Democrats are trying to do as they have in the  past is win through fraud by going to the liberal Democrat courts to overturn an election.

CAMPFIRE BLAZE OUT OF CONTROL

When a family loses their home, their belongings, their love ones it is a tragedy beyond description . We feel sorry for those who face this predicament, one that no one would chose for them self. We are seeing this play out in California.  At last count 6400 homes have been destroyed.  Paradise California will never be the same as a once home to  25,000 has been devastated beyond recognition; 29 are dead at last count, killed by the fires, 300,000 evacuated area wide.

Gov. Jerry Brown said California is requesting aid from the Trump administration. President Donald Trump has blamed “poor” forest management for the fires. Brown told a press briefing that federal and state governments must do more forest management but said that’s not the source of the problem.

“Managing all the forests in everywhere we can does not stop climate change,” Brown said. “And those who deny that are definitely contributing to the tragedies that we’re now witnessing, and will continue to witness in the coming years.”

VETERAN’S DAY – WE ARE FREE BECAUSE OF THE VET

PRAISE THE VETERAN FOR HE HAS SET US FREE

We are free because of the Veteran. To say otherwise is a falsehood. For us here in America the bell of freedom continues to ring.  We owe a debt of gratitude to a Veteran. Would any of us like living under a Communist dictatorship or perhaps an ISIS run government? We think not.

The victory of General George Washington’s army with French(click here for President Trump commemorating WWI) support at Yorktown was the final victory in the War of Independence. His army comprised the first veterans, they endured hardships like no other; setting an example for future soldiers and generations to come, many who are alive today are  Veterans of the most grueling of wars, WWII.

Our freedom is not free, daily we strive to defend ourselves from the evil forces out to destroy us. So today, when you celebrate Veterans Day, remember why you are here and who you are. Perhaps you may come across a veteran in your daily routine, stop for a moment, shake his/her hand, thank him for a job well done.

flag1776

LET THE WAR BEGIN – WE CAN PLAY THE GAME TOO – LOCK THEM UP

First casualty was Jeff Sessions, but don’t be surprised if others will follow. Our guess is that members of the FBI will be sure to join them. The enemy uses gorilla tactics that stretched beyond the norm, it is now Trump and company to bring in the big guns. We expect a wrecking ball type to enter the fray. As we have alluded to previously, the talk now is to bring in former Attorney General Chris Christie to replace the pink Sessions. As Christie said when referring to criminals in New Jersey, “it was like shooting fish in a barrel.” “So let it be written so let it be done.”

The question we all have is why not one Democrat has been indicted. That in itself is prima facie evidence of a cover-up which goes beyond the pale.

To rehash the previous FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton we give you James Comey a progressive liberal sympathizer. “Exremely Careless”, but not “gross negligent” were his words.

YOU WANT WAR – WE WILL GIVE YOU WAR – BRING IT ON

FROM THE NY POST – TRUMP HAS EVERY RIGHT TO TURN THE CARAVAN AWAY

US has every reason to turn the caravan away

Former President Barack Obama is ridiculing President Trump and Republicans for vowing to stop the caravan of 4,000 Central American migrants heading toward our border. Republicans are “trying to convince everybody to be afraid of a bunch of impoverished, malnourished refugees,” says Obama. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blasts Republicans for stoking “baseless fear” in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election.

Baseless fear? Democrats aren’t leveling with youabout the welfare, health benefits and education resources these migrants will consume, if they’re allowed in.

Democrats are also claiming the US has to let the migrants in, because they’re seeking asylum. The truth is, the US Constitution and federal law give the president the authority to block their entry.

Trump’s critics portray migrants as families fleeing for their lives. Don’t believe it. Few are truly legitimate asylum seekers. Mexico launched a “Make Yourself at Home” program, offering migrants shelter, food, work and schools for their kids. Most turned it down. They’re heading to the US for a lifestyle upgrade, knowing that uttering the words “asylum” and “credible fear” to a US border agent is a get-in-free card.

More than half never apply for asylum, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They just melt into the US interior. Of those who apply, only a minuscule 8.3 percent qualify.

These migrants are making a mockery of asylum.

Trump is halting this hoax. At the White House last Thursday, he previewed an executive order expected this week. Step One: targeting migrants who cross the border illegally.

Every month, thousands wade across the Rio Grande or scale fences, then plead asylum to a border agent. They’re taken into custody briefly, released and told to appear at an immigration hearing. Surprise: They almost never do.

Trump announced an end to this “catch and release” fiasco. Soldiers are laying barbed wire to deter illegal crossings, but those who get through will be detained in tent cities until their claims are heard.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Amazingly, attorneys for six Hondurans in the caravan sued the Trump administration last week for violating their constitutional rights. History shows they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
In 1981, President Reagan deployed the US Coast Guard to turn back boatloads of migrants trying to enter illegally and claim asylum. Reagan called the attempted mass migration “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”Attorneys for the seafaring migrants sued, but the US Supreme Court backed up Reagan, ruling the Executive Branch has the “discretion” to grant or not grant asylum (Sale v. Haiti). Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to come in, period. Even to seek asylum. Whether they’re on boats or in caravans on land.

What about migrants who line up at official border entrances instead of sneaking in? Trump skirted the issue on Thursday but he has the authority to deny them entry, too. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad discretion, even in the case of refugees and asylum-seekers.

Last year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court confirmed that the president can turn away aliens who are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Using that test, who can doubt the right thing to do? Already, there may be 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to new research by Yale and MIT statisticians, double what is commonly acknowledged. Federal taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year to fund community health clinics primarily used by illegal immigrants, while local taxpayers foot school bills for their children.

When migrant children lacking English skills and school experience are placed in public schools here, they require enormous resources. Too bad for the rest of the kids.

Worse, dozens of Central American migrant children have been arrested as “suspected gang members” of the violent MS-13 street gangs, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

How can anyone so easily dismiss the problems migrants bring to our nation?

 

Former President Barack Obama is ridiculing President Trump and Republicans for vowing to stop the caravan of 4,000 Central American migrants heading toward our border. Republicans are “trying to convince everybody to be afraid of a bunch of impoverished, malnourished refugees,” says Obama. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blasts Republicans for stoking “baseless fear” in the lead-up to Tuesday’s election.

Baseless fear? Democrats aren’t leveling with you about the welfare, health benefits and education resources these migrants will consume, if they’re allowed in.

Democrats are also claiming the US has to let the migrants in, because they’re seeking asylum. The truth is, the US Constitution and federal law give the president the authority to block their entry.

Trump’s critics portray migrants as families fleeing for their lives. Don’t believe it. Few are truly legitimate asylum seekers. Mexico launched a “Make Yourself at Home” program, offering migrants shelter, food, work and schools for their kids. Most turned it down. They’re heading to the US for a lifestyle upgrade, knowing that uttering the words “asylum” and “credible fear” to a US border agent is a get-in-free card.

More than half never apply for asylum, according to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They just melt into the US interior. Of those who apply, only a minuscule 8.3 percent qualify.

These migrants are making a mockery of asylum.

Trump is halting this hoax. At the White House last Thursday, he previewed an executive order expected this week. Step One: targeting migrants who cross the border illegally.

Every month, thousands wade across the Rio Grande or scale fences, then plead asylum to a border agent. They’re taken into custody briefly, released and told to appear at an immigration hearing. Surprise: They almost never do.

Trump announced an end to this “catch and release” fiasco. Soldiers are laying barbed wire to deter illegal crossings, but those who get through will be detained in tent cities until their claims are heard.

Amazingly, attorneys for six Hondurans in the caravan sued the Trump administration last week for violating their constitutional rights. History shows they don’t have a legal leg to stand on.
In 1981, President Reagan deployed the US Coast Guard to turn back boatloads of migrants trying to enter illegally and claim asylum. Reagan called the attempted mass migration “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”Attorneys for the seafaring migrants sued, but the US Supreme Court backed up Reagan, ruling the Executive Branch has the “discretion” to grant or not grant asylum (Sale v. Haiti). Illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to come in, period. Even to seek asylum. Whether they’re on boats or in caravans on land.

What about migrants who line up at official border entrances instead of sneaking in? Trump skirted the issue on Thursday but he has the authority to deny them entry, too. Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president broad discretion, even in the case of refugees and asylum-seekers.

Last year, in Trump v. Hawaii, the Supreme Court confirmed that the president can turn away aliens who are “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Using that test, who can doubt the right thing to do? Already, there may be 22 million illegal immigrants in the United States, according to new research by Yale and MIT statisticians, double what is commonly acknowledged. Federal taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year to fund community health clinics primarily used by illegal immigrants, while local taxpayers foot school bills for their children.

When migrant children lacking English skills and school experience are placed in public schools here, they require enormous resources. Too bad for the rest of the kids.

Worse, dozens of Central American migrant children have been arrested as “suspected gang members” of the violent MS-13 street gangs, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

How can anyone so easily dismiss the problems migrants bring to our nation?

Betsy McCaughey is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research.

FILED UNDER       

SHARE THIS ARTICLE:

 

COLUMNISTS

THEY WERE ALL LIES –

A woman who accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of rape has admitted she made it all up.

When investigators confronted leftwing activist Judy Munro-Leighton, she admitted it was all just a “ploy.”

To stop the nomination.

It nearly ruined a man and his family.

Which is easy to do, when one entire party rejects due process. All you need is a postcard to Dianne Feinstein. It’s easier than registering to vote.

Chuck Grassley has referred this creep for criminal prosecution – as well as Julie Swetnick, and her horrible lawyer Michael Avenatti  for also making false claims.

Now, it’s important that all of these people get what’s coming — after due process, of course.

Because what they did to Kavanaugh, could be done to you.

It’s also despicable, how much press that the allegation got, versus the press it isn’t getting now – once it’s debunked.

Which it raises another question.

If the Dems actually believed in these charges, why aren’t they pursuing them now? I mean, so what if he got confirmed? Why stop justice?  Why aren’t they presenting evidence and witnesses?

Could it be they knew the charges were false from the start?

Could it be they were willing to stand by a false smear that would destroy multiple lives – just to score a political win?

You know the answer.

Remember it on Tuesday.

TO THOSE OF THE JEWISH PERSUASION – A VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IS A VOTE AGAINST A JEW-A VOTE AGAINST ISRAEL

So to our Jewish friends, we advise you to think twice before voting Democrat; it is not in your best interest.

Anti-Semitic rhetoric is prevalent in the Democrat community, but condemned by most if not all Republicans.

Democrats have refused to distance themselves from Louis Farrakhan who has referred to Jews as the “synagogue of Satan.”

“Report: Notorious Antisemite Louis Farrakhan Leads ‘Death to America’ Chant on Solidarity Trip to Iran,” by Benjamin Kerstein, Algemeiner, November 4, 2018:

Nation of Islam leader and prominent antisemite Louis Farrakhan chanted “Death to America” and claimed that “America has never been a democracy”

Several prominent American activists and politicians have been linked to Farrakhan in recent years. Tamika Mallory, a leader of the Women’s March, praised him as “GOAT” or “Greatest of All Time.” Linda Sarsour, another leader of the March, attended an event with Farrakhan and has repeatedly refused to condemn him.

Farrakhan has led the black nationalist group Nation of Islam since 1977 and is known for hyperbolic hate speech aimed at the Jewish community.
During the speech in Chicago, Farrakhan made several anti-Semitic comments, including, “the powerful Jews are my enemy.”
“White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” he later said.

The May 27 sermon was his first major public speaking appearance since February, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

Farrakhan also claimed that contemporary Jews are responsible for promoting child molestation, misogyny, police brutality and sexual assault, among other social ills. In addition, he asserted that contemporary Judaism is nothing but a “system of tricks and lies” that Jews study in order to learn how to “dominate” non-Jews.

CONSPIRACY – SLICK WILLIE MAKES AN OFFER THAT LORETTA LYNCH COULD NOT REFUSE – DEMOCRAT CRIMINALS MAKE A MOCKERY OF THE LAW

Just a coincidence that both of them were on the tarmac in Arizona.  azcentral

(CLICK)It was a 110-degree day in Phoenix and the U.S. attorney general was getting ready to leave her plane at Sky Harbor International Airport when, as she remembers it, someone told her former President Bill Clinton wanted to chat.

As detailed in a report released Thursday by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice, Loretta Lynch, then the attorney general, expected not much more than a quick hello.

Clinton, on the other hand, seemed in the mood to chat on that June 2016 evening.

Lynch, according to her interview in the report, said she felt increasingly uncomfortable as the minutes ticked by and Bill Clinton showed no signs of leaving.

Meanwhile, her aides, sitting in a vehicle on the Sky Harbor tarmac became fidgety, the report says. Finally, one aide bolted from the vehicle and announced she was heading into the plane.

That meeting at the Phoenix airport would prove consequential. At the time, Lynch’s Department of Justice was investigating presidential candidate Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified information sent through emails.

The 20 minutes with Bill Clinton would cement then-FBI Director James Comey’s decision that he, and not Lynch, would be the person to publicly announce that Clinton would not face criminal charges. Comey, in that July statement, said that while Clinton did not break the law, her handling of classified material was “extremely careless.”