THE NUCLEAR OPTION IS ON THE TABLE

You can’t deny empirical evidence; it teaches us that belligerent countries who sign on to treaties of appeasement do so to buy time. Those who deny history are doomed to repeat it. In most every case before the ink is dried they have violated the agreement. History is fraught with examples of countries run by rogue regimes who rule by threat. It is no different with Iran and North Korea; the fight they are itching for will inevitably occur; it has to occur. Provocation has a price.

The Boy-man of Pyongyang is in for a desperate need of gelding. To let him develop a nuclear capability any further is a grave mistake. Trump must take military action now, tomorrow is too late. The maniacal suicidal lunatic has cast the die. To bring him to heel, the only way he will understand, is by a show of force. What will this entail? A quick surprise attack from all sides targeting military installations – using our most powerful weapons, including MOABs;  bringing the fight to a quick end before it gets out of hand is the only way.

Pulverization and saturation are the key. Sand must be turned into glass. Electronic infrastructure, including power plants and military installations are the main targets. The United States has hundreds of thousands of ICBMs, medium range missiles and star war type munitions at the ready. Submarines fitted with the newest in warheads, warships fitted with the infamous rail gun are at stand-by, waiting for orders from the President of the United States.  This is not his fight, for he inherited the situation from Obama. A mess that owed its beginning to Slick Willie. Turning back is not an option.

And to Iran, the carpet weavers did a number on Obama. Or can we say that Obama did a number on the United States. Obama had no love affair for America. His biases are well known, documented in black and white. A Mullah lover of first resort, he gave them what they wanted. He was warned but to no avail, signing away the ability of a rogue regime to become nuclear in ten years. What happened? They stuck a missile in our eye. Gratitude! Now this serious situation is in Trump’s hands. However, Israel waits on the sidelines because they have no option. Their country is at stake. Iran will be the first battleground; will Israel go nuclear is the question?

 

THE ROCKET MAN – THE EXPLOSIVE RHETORIC MUST BE BACKED UP BY ACTION?

By now the world over knows who the Rocket Man is; provoking the United States with bravo, the boy-man has only one choice – put up or shut up.  Backed by Iran the Rocket Man has now set a trap for himself. Either he backs down or backs up his words with action. The latter is more apparent. To manifest his manhood Kim Jung Un has been gobbling down hundreds of E.D laced tablets a day. The thinking now is that a hydrogen bomb is waiting in the wings. Will it take flight toward Hawaii 50? We don’t know for sure. Does the United States have the capability of destroying it mid-flight? We will find out soon enough.

Hawaii reportedly prepares for nuclear attack amid heated North Korea rhetoric

North Korea’s foreign minister has said the Communist nation may test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean after dictator Kim Jong Un vowed he would take the “highest-level” action against the United States, South Korean media reported Thursday. 

Kim Dong-yub, a former South Korean military official who is now an analyst at Seoul’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, said Kim’s statement indicated that North Korea would respond to Trump with its most aggressive missile test yet. That might include firing a Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile over Japan to a range of around 4,349 miles to display a capability to reach Hawaii or Alaska.

A word to North Korea, DON’T MESS WITH TRUMP

China is the focus, will they continue to play Chinese checkers and continue their usual rhetoric by playing us us as patsies?

THIS SESSION IS OVER

Gregg Jarrett – FOX NEWS

Jeff Sessions should never have accepted the position of Attorney General of the United States.  His leadership has proven unproductive and ineffectual.

There are two reasons for this.

First, he deceived President Trump by concealing his intent to recuse himself from the federal investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.  Hours after he was sworn in, Sessions began setting his recusal in motion by meeting with Department of Justice officials to discuss stepping aside from the probe.  Failing to disclose such a material matter to the president was an egregious betrayal.

Trump was reportedly disgusted and angry with Sessions when he learned of the recusal – rightly so.  “If he was going to recuse himself, he should have told me prior to taking office, and I would have picked someone else,” said Trump at a news conference.  The president was entitled to know the truth, but Sessions actively hid it from him.  Sessions’ deception deprived him of Trump’s confidence and trust which are essential to the job of Attorney General.  This ethical impropriety renders him unfit to serve.

Second, Sessions appears either incapable or incompetent.  He has resisted producing the documents relevant to the anti-Trump dossier which were subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee.  He has failed to appoint a special counsel to reopen the case against Hillary Clinton for likely violations of the Espionage Act in the use of her email server, obstruction of justice for destroying 33,000 emails under congressional subpoena, and potential self-dealing for profit through her foundation.  The evidence is compelling.

Moreover, Sessions has taken no action to investigate the unmasking of Trump aides during intelligence surveillance by the Obama Administration.  Evidence continues to mount that the incoming president was spied upon for political reasons.  Transition officials were unmasked, perhaps illegally.  And in one case, the unmasking was leaked to the media which is a crime.  Yet Sessions is twiddling his thumbs.

And why hasn’t Sessions investigated the possible criminal conduct of James Comey?  The fired FBI Director appears to have falsely testified before Congress, stolen government documents, and leaked them to the media.

Jeff Sessions may have been a fine Senator, but he has proven to be a feckless Attorney General.  He should resign.  But before he does, he can attempt to rectify the wreckage he has wrought by initiating several necessary criminal investigations and/or appointing a special counsel to do so.

James Comey

Comey was asked, under oath, by the House Judiciary Committee if he decided not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton before or after he interviewed her.  He testified, “After.

Yet, a document uncovered by the Senate Judiciary Committee belies his testimony.  A full two months before the FBI ever interviewed Clinton and her top aides, Comey drafted a statement exonerating Clinton.  Absent some extraordinary explanation, it appears that Comey’s investigation of Clinton was nothing more than a charade and that he may have lied under oath.  If it can be proven, it would constitute the crime of perjury under 18 USC 1621 or a false statement under 18 USC 1001.

This document establishes persuasive evidence that Comey predetermined that Clinton would not be charged.  What prosecutor writes a statement absolving a suspect beforethe evidence is fully gathered, especially from the principal witnesses?   No prosecutor I know of.  Unless, of course, the fix was in.  Unless someone instructed him to protect Clinton or he decided to do it all on his own with a presidential election hanging in the balance.

Either way, it might well constitute obstruction of justice.  It is a felony to interfere with a criminal investigation.  It is also illegal to use your public office for a political purpose, if that is what Comey was doing.

But Comey’s misconduct and potential illegality don’t stop there.  As FBI Director, he converted government documents to his own personal use and leaked at least one of them to the media.  As FBI Director, he crafted seven presidential memorandums which are government property, took them into his personal possession when he was fired, and then conveyed one or more of them to a friend for the sole purpose of leaking them to the media.  Under 18 USC 641, this could be a crime.

Under no circumstances were these memos “personal,”, as Comey claims.  They were authored during the course and scope of his employment, composed on a government computer, shared with government employees, and pertained directly to meetings with the president that were central to his job as FBI Director.

Under the Federal Records Act, they are government records.  This is indisputable, regardless of what Comey and his lawyers allege.  They know this because Comey signed an “Unauthorized Disclosure Agreement” promising that, under penalty of legal action, he would not disseminate workplace documents.  If the facts are as stated, he should be prosecuted under the Privacy Act.

Finally, four of the seven memos were “classified,” according to the FBI.  If Comey conveyed any of them to an outside source, this would constitute an Unauthorized Removal of Classified Documents (18 USC 1924) or a violation of the Espionage Act (18 USC 798) under which Clinton should have been charged when Comey was FBI Director.  The irony is lost on no one.  Yet, Sessions appears to have taken no action.

Before he resigns, Sessions must open a full investigation and convene a grand jury to determine whether criminal charges should be brought against Comey.  In the alternative, he can appoint a second special counsel to investigate the case.  The current special counsel, Robert Mueller, is a long-time friend, ally and mentor to Comey.  Mueller is not likely to include Comey in his current investigation, even though he has authority to do so under the directive he received.

Hillary Clinton

The case against Clinton is, by now, self-evident.  She stored 110 emails containing classified information on her home computer server, an unsecured and unauthorized place.  It is a crime to mishandle classified information under the Espionage Act.

Yet Comey misinterpreted the criminal statute by claiming Clinton did not “intend to violate the law.”  This is not the legal standard, as any knowledgeable lawyer will tell you.  The standard is whether she committed intentional acts, such as intentionally setting up her personal server and knowingly using it for her work documents, including classified materials.  Clinton clearly intended to do these things.

Regardless, the law under 18 USC 793 requires only “grossly negligent” behavior.  Here, Comey insisted Clinton was “extremely careless.”  However, the two terms are synonymous under the law.  Indeed, there is a frequently used jury instruction which explains that gross negligence is extremely careless behavior.  So, in essence, Comey was admitting Clinton violated the law, although he twisted the statute to conclude otherwise.

There is strong evidence that Clinton obstructed justice.  All of her emails were under a congressional subpoena.  She was required to preserve and produce every single one of them.  She did not.  Instead, she deleted roughly 33,000 emails in defiance of the subpoena and cleansed her server of any incriminating evidence.  Destruction of evidence under a lawful subpoena constitutes obstruction.  Under the law, it is no excuse to claim that some of the emails were personal in nature.

Growing evidence suggests that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to donors and foreign governments in exchange for financial contributions to her foundation and cash to her husband.  If proven, it would support various crimes of corruption.

It has been reported that Clinton helped UBS avoid the IRS.  Thereafter, Bill Clinton got paid $1.5 million and the Clinton Foundation received a ten-fold increase in donations by the bank.  It has also been reported that Clinton’s state department approved billions of dollars in arms sales to several nations whose governments gave money to the Foundation.

And then, there is the infamous Uranium One deal.  After the State Department under Clinton signed off on the U.S. sale of one-fifth of our nation’s uranium production capacity to the Russians, millions of dollars from Russian sources connected to the Kremlin began to flow to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.  Coincidence?  Or criminal “pay-to-play?”

In his confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any matter involving Hillary Clinton.  Therefore, before he resigns, Sessions must appoint a special counsel to reopen the Clinton investigation and decide anew whether criminal charges are merited.

Susan Rice

In March, the former National Security Adviser to President Obama insisted she “knew nothing” about Trump transition officials swept up in surveillance at the end of the Obama administration.  Her statement was not true, and not the first time Rice conjured a false narrative.  When confronted with evidence to the contrary, she admitted she knew of the incidental collection and, further, she is the one who requested that names be unmasked.

If Rice or UN Ambassador Samantha Power or any other person requested the unmasking of names for a reason other than national security, it is a crime.  And so too is the leaking of those names to the media which clearly occurred.  Under the Hatch Act, it is against the law for a public official to use his or her office for a political purpose.

Congress is vigorously investigating Rice and others.  Yet Sessions seems detached and unconcerned.  As the nation’s top lawyer, he is duty-bound to pursue such a substantial breach of intelligence operations.

Before he resigns, Sessions should launch a criminal investigation into the unmasking of names or appoint a special prosecutor to do the same.

Jeff Sessions either wittingly or unwittingly bungled his confirmation hearing, which led to the recusal that is said to have angered Trump and alienated the AG from the president.  Regardless, Sessions’ performance as Attorney General ever since has been notable only for a series of failures to act when action is demanded.

The moment the President of the United States no longer has confidence in his Attorney General, it is time for him to submit his letter of resignation.  But first, Sessions can restore integrity to the Department of Justice and salvage his own tattered reputation by taking aggressive action against Comey, Clinton and Rice.

Then he should quietly bow out.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/19/gregg-jarrett-sessions-should-resign-but-not-before-taking-action-against-clinton-comey-and-rice.html

GOD SPARES MAR a LAGO

All of the progressive hate groups were wishing – not praying – because they don’t believe in God, that Hurricane Irma would destroy Mar a Lago. “Didn’t happen folks.” It was an active of Divine intervention.

The hypocrisy now is that the same progressive hate groups are asking President Trump to open up the resort to those who lost their homes, belongings and in some cases loved ones. Believe us, this is an invitation to looters, rapists and gang bangers.

0421_trump_mar-a-lago_01

TRUMP DEALS WITH THE RINOS

A stab in the back is rarely pleasant, but to be the recipient of one while mortal enemies are present is no laughing matter. This is called a learning experience; as the old saying goes “the enemy of my enemy may turn out to be my friend.” And this is the case with Trump breaking bread with the Libtards. He is putting the RINOs on notice that those who opened their big mouths in 2016 to get elected are liars; he calling them out. When push came to shove Obamacare lived for another day.

So here we have it; a three month extension to keep the government going, PLUS funds for the hurricane victims. Expect FEMA to be under water in short order. Who will bail them out? Of course WE, who else?

The cognoscenti have noticed the dollar diving off a steep cliff, gold ascending to new highs and the Euro, we thought it was dead and buried has suddenly come to life, rebounding about 20% against the greenback. We wonder if the 20 trillion in debt that is on the books is becoming an issue.

Back to reality. Republicans have done nothing since regaining Congress except collect their fat pay checks; welfare for the rich! Obama rolled over them like a Caterpillar, flattening one RINO after another. Compactors The likes of McCain, Romney, Ryan, a bunch of losers who hated Trump from the get-go. He beat them at their own game.  Trump is very much aware of the game these backstabbers play; they forced his hand, he outed them, the do nothing Republicans who can’t fight themselves out of a paper bag.

2018 election is at hand, many of these RINOs will find it difficult to hold onto their jobs. Maybe the others remaining will wake up and do the job they were hired to do; WORK. Expect Trump to campaign for those who can do the job we pay them to do.

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

Click here for the FINAL COUNTDOWN.

Expect the unexpected! The world is full of those who SHOOT OFF with the mouth never to face the consequences. Yes we are talking about the Boyman goon of North Korea. For some reason the hair up his ass has triggered a high degree of animosity toward the United States; after all we have given him?. (sorry about the detailed description). Like a mad dog, foam urinates between his lips.

He will find out the answer to his prayers in short order. It will come when least expected, in the dark of night a dream come true will shutter his bunker bed.  An all spectrum suntan lotion will be no match for the blazing fireball of energy expected to vaporize KIM. The show of force not seen for seven decades will turn him and his phalanx into dust.

Previous administrations have thought best to give more and more sweeter candy to North Korean egomaniacs, grandfather, father and now son. Their succor has resulted in more hostility, bringing us to the Mother of all confrontations.

Back in 1994, President Clinton prepared to confront North Korea over CIA reports it had built nuclear warheads and its subsequent threats to engulf Japan and South Korea in “a sea of fire.”

Enter self-appointed peacemaker Carter: The ex-prez scurried off to Pyongyang and negotiated a sellout deal that gave North Korea two new reactors and $5 billion in aid in return for a promise to quit seeking nukes. Way to go Jimmie!

Clinton embraced this appeasement as achieving “an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula” — with compliance verified by international inspectors. Carter wound up winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his dubious efforts. Sounds like Obama!

But in 2002, the North Koreans ’fessed up: They’d begun violating the accord on Day One. Four years later, Pyongyang detonated its first nuke.

Now, the Obama administration (long content to kick the North Korea can down the road) says it will never “accept” a nuclear North Korea. Funny: The president said the same thing about Iran, then cut a deal that guarantees the ayatollahs go atomic.

MOAB upon MOAB will rain down on this impotent dictator come lately, finding that his pants turn yellow in a flash. There will be nowhere to hide. “Hands up don’t shoot” is not in the Jong Un lexicon.

In a series of tweets, President Trump threatened to halt all trade with countries doing business with the North, a veiled warning to China, and faulted South Korea for what he called “talk of appeasement.”

At this point in time “Mad Dog” Mattis is preparing for the worst, defensively and offensively. The reaction by us will most likely be offensive because to expect KIM to crater to our demands  is not on in his playbook. However, Trump is not a Jimmy Carter, expect him to put the clamps on trade with China and India too. This will certainly get their attention very quickly.

There is no time to waste here, there is a danger in patience. Lives are at stake, acting fast to prevent the ultimate calamity is a virtue. Are we to wait until a fireball erupts in South Korea, Guam, Hawaii or the Mainland? 

The words of Barry Goldwater, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

OBAMA’S CIVIL WAR

There is no mistake about it, Obama was the most divisive President ever. Receiving the Peace Prize was a fallacy. Obama didn’t know how the world worked. “Might makes Right,” Words without backup mean nothing. Obama’s Red Line turned into a White Flag; he alone is responsible for 400,000 plus killed in Syria, not counting the havoc placed upon another 12 million or more. Obama, when history is written, will go down as the twenty century (Peace of Our TimeNeville Chamberlain .

His speeches inflamed minorities to revolt. Most if not all of Obama’s interpretation of events was biased in one way or another in support of race bating tactics that he hoped would ignite the civil war; he always longed for the final battle. Obama took the minority position when a White vs Black confrontation developed and that was before the facts were known. In other words he had a preconceived notion on White bias from the beginning.  The problem with Obama, he is half white; why did he turn against his other half? Because of his Mother who hated White people; simple as that.

Moving on to the Trump era we find hostility beyond the pale. Antifa gangs roam the streets, hired by alleged thugs from the Soros foundation; they are well organized, funded and armed with various weapons. Their aim is to take down capitalism. Former Attorney General Holder and Obama work behind the scenes.  Recently California hired this race provocateur to defend the state against Obama’s policies that they deemed harmful to the state. They are subversives hell bent on taking us down.  But wait, our time is now, Kennedy or Bader-Ginsburg are coming to the end of their careers, in Ginsburg’s case, life too. So the possibility of 6-3 Supreme Court decisions are in the realm of possibility. Can’t wait for the gloves to come off.

Look no further than Obama’s kissing cousins, the Muslim Brotherhood and don’t forget the golf game with the premier of Malaysia on Christmas day. Oh sure he is a Christian over our dead body.  “We are no longer a “Christian nation” speech was double talk.  We are a Christian nation in philosophy, maybe not religion, but that isn’t the point – the Judeo-Christian ethic reins supreme, always has, always will. Obama wanted to get in his Muslim two cents by combining it with other religions.

Click here for Dr. Ben Carson on Political Correctness (PC). Very important read; Great speech! Notice Obama’s posture! Dr. Ben Carson, a true American. Thank you. And don’t forget Obama and the progressive liberals (all Democrats) vigorously protect the education industry run by the TEACHERS UNION.
The thugs running Cuba received the blessing of Obama before he left office, soon after the guns were reloaded. But don’t forget the Zelaya affair in Honduras; Zelaya supported by Clinton and Obama against the Supreme Court of Honduras. Another example of the Obama administration supporting a left wing Communist government.

So when it is all said and done, Patriots like yourself know what end is up. We Americans truly believe in the law, freedom of speech and the 2nd Amendment, but will not sit still until the illegals are rounded up and sent back to their country of origin. Remember these criminals who broke into our country are responsible for 30 to 40 million anchor babies. This is an insult to our justice system. Once the Supreme Court addresses the 14th Amendment and they will, the decision and interpretation of it will right the wrongs of the past two centuries.

Read about it here; This article addresses are Sovereignty as a Nation.

“Birthright Citizenship”: Revisionism v Rule of Law

Started by Jim Delaney

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 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 (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.

 

 

TRUMP ACCUSED OF INCITING CIVIL WAR

BIAS ALERT

This is CNN: Don Lemon accuses Trump of inciting ‘civil war’

A CNN host accused President Trump of “trying to ignite a civil war” following his raucous speech to a rally in Arizona in which the commander-in-chief blasted the news network and defended his response to racial strife in Virginia.

Don Lemon, host of “CNN Tonight,” made the remark before a  packed panel of anti-Trumpers assembled to react to the president’s speech in Phoenix.

“He has given oxygen to racists,” Lemon said. “He hasn’t really said anything [to] denounce the alt-right … He is clearly trying to ignite a civil war in this country. He has not tamped down race.”

Lemon’s guests all heartily concurred, and the discussion moved on to speculation about Trump’s mental health, an increasingly  recurring theme on CNN.

“It was an astounding chain of lies tied together by lunatic asides by a man who obviously is mentally unstable,” Republican political consultant Rick Wilson said, adding it was “Castro-esque” and calling him “bat crap crazy.”

Democratic strategist Maria Cardona applauded the “majority of Americans who did not vote for this man.”

“Tonight, Don, America’s enemies are laughing and America, the country, is weeping and we need to do something about it,” Cardona said.

Later in the show, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence and now CNN national security analyst, echoed similar sentiments about the president.

“I don’t know when I’ve listened and watched something like this from a president that I’ve found more disturbing,” Clapper said, adding that it was “downright scary.”

“This behavior and this divisiveness, intellectual and moral and ethical void that the president of the United States exhibits,” Clapper said. “And how much longer does the country—to borrow a phrase—endure this nightmare?”

Trump’s remarks in Phoenix were reminiscent of candidate-Trump on the campaign trail, slamming the media over its coverage of his presidency—specifically noting his response to recent violence in Charlottesville, Va.

“They are sick people,” Trump said of the media. “You know the thing I don’t understand? You would think … they’d want to make our country great again. And I honestly believe they don’t.”

Trump continued to trash the media’s coverage of him, calling out CNN and saying “you wonder why CNN is doing poorly,” as the crowd chanted “CNN sucks!”

The president has repeatedly slammed CNN as “Fake News,” and in May, called Lemon “perhaps the dumbest person in broadcasting.”

JAMES CLAPPER – NOT FIT TO BE DOG CATCHER

WHITE HOUSE

Gregg Jarrett: Trump vs. crooks, liars and the liberal media

Gregg Jarrett

 

President Trump’s speech in Phoenix brought out the usual cast of misfits and miscreants.

And no, I’m not just referring to the “Antifa” anarchists who were, for the most part, denied their typical practice of wielding clubs, hurling feces, throwing rocks, setting vehicles ablaze and destroying buildings.

I’m talking about chronic Trump critics like James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence.  Spouting off on CNN immediately after the speech, Clapper said he questioned the president’s “fitness to be in this office.”

Lying to Congress is a felony. Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one.

Clapper seems to be making a career out of trashing Trump.  He’s like a guy who can’t resist cramming a cannoli in his mouth every time he passes a pastry shop.  Whenever Trump speaks, Clapper starts yapping.  It is no coincidence that his mouth, and the lie that came out of it back in 2013, is what should have landed him behind bars.

While testifying before Congress, Clapper was asked, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”   The DNI responded, “No.

It was a breathtaking lie, of course.  Soon thereafter, the story broke that the National Security Agency had, indeed, been doing exactly what Clapper denied under oath.  When confronted with his lie, he told a reporter, “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or at least untruthful manner by saying ‘no.’”   Huh?

Later, Clapper apologized for his “clearly erroneous” answer, but explained he had simply forgotten all about the massive government operation to secretly collect metadata on hundreds of millions of U.S. citizens.  That’s like saying Christmas slipped his mind.

Lying to Congress is a felony.  Yet Clapper managed to avoid prosecution for criminal perjury by hiding behind President Obama. Obama’s pal, Attorney General Eric Holder, made sure the case was tossed in a broom closet somewhere, never to be seen again.

The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values. Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own.

So, when Clapper decries the “complete intellectual, moral or ethical void” of President Trump, the irony is lost on no one.  Clapper became the poster child for ethical decay when he served as the nation’s chief intelligence officer.

At roughly the same time Clapper was spewing his usual drivel, Hillary Clinton was attempting to sideswipe Trump with her own revisionist rubbish.

Clinton, who mangled her presidential aspirations with acts of self-immolation unmatched in modern political history, is at it again.  Old habits are hard to break.  You’ll recall that she famously blamed her husband’s infidelity with a young intern on a “vast right-wing conspiracy” two decades ago.  She has been playing the narcissistic “blame game” ever since.

Her latest incantation is really quite laughable.  In a breathless recitation of excerpts from her new book “What Happened,” Clinton bemoans that the mere sight of Donald Trump during the campaign made her skin crawl.  It is the tripe of dime novels, but no less hypocritical.

Wouldn’t Hillary want to crawl out of her own skin because of her self-destruction? Wouldn’t she blame herself for the utterly unnecessary, but fatal, scandal of her own making? When she looks in the mirror, does she see a crook staring back? How could she not?

Like Clapper’s lies, Clinton managed to escape prosecution and prison for what appears to be a clear violation of the Espionage Act in the mishandling of classified documents.  Once again, Obama’s Justice Department provided cover, with a significant assist from then-FBI Director James Comey.

Perhaps Clinton’s most revealing line in her book is when she recounts her “lifetime of dealing with difficult men trying to throw me off.”  While it is intended to be a swipe at Trump, it sounds more like an angry confession of living a tortured life in the company of Bill Clinton.

There will be more self-serving excerpts to come.  Lucky us.

But Hillary Clinton and James Clapper are like pesky flies compared to the mainstream media.  Driven by its pronounced liberal bias, they immediately condemned Trump for denouncing them at the rally.  The president knows he can provoke them into revealing their prejudices.  And when he did so during the speech, they reacted like Pavlov’s dogs.

The gnashing of teeth at CNN was predictable, if not comical.  Calling the president “unhinged” and “wounded,” anchor Don Lemon declared that Trump “came out on stage and lied directly to the American people.  His speech was without thought, without reason, devoid of facts, devoid of wisdom.”  Lemon blathered on and on, but you get the picture.  He seemed to light up like a pinball machine when his guest, Clapper, launched into his “unfit for office” shtick.  Is it any wonder that the convention hall crowd began chanting, “CNN sucks?”

The pompous media has never understood why much of America does not embrace their liberal values.  Most members of the press are too insular and dogmatic to ever conceive of any intelligent beliefs beyond their own.

Which is why journalists never imagined that Trump would be elected president.  When it happened, they lapsed into something akin to “septic shock” from which they have yet to recover.  Likely, they never will.  They will persist in predicting Trump’s imminent demise and assert their own intellectual and moral superiority.

In so doing, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction.  Not as a professional endeavor.  There will always be journalists.

But America will no longer hold them in respectable regard.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and former defense attorney.