Use this map to see if your mayor is an anti-gun idiot! Then take action with your vote and informing your friends or relatives. You might also drop them a note about where you stand on the issues.
Outstanding article explaining why we should not now, or ever, have been granting citizenship to illegal aliens (Undocumented Democrats) in the first place. Here was an even more detailed 14th Amendment page that was written before Mr Will’s article: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Sunday, March 28, 2010
A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.
To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment’s first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, “can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.” Therefore, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry.”
Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is derived: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning — divided allegiance — applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today’s regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:
“A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment.”
Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two “principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment.” He said that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.
Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born “subject to” U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his “own will without the action or assent of the United States.” And “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”
Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”
For a counter-point, some Lefty wrote his view here. I pasted an excellent rebuttal to it below. Poster stated he left this post on the aforementioned site, but wasn’t sure it would be approved. Anyway, it’s from one of our posters and contributors to the 14th Amendment Link above:
“I thought Mr Will’s article was outstanding. It could have been longer since he left out plenty of legal precedent for showing that illegals that drop a child in America are still just illegals. Babies born to illegal aliens within our borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
In the “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens (from ANY nation) defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965
I suspect from your writings that you are a die hard liberal. Which means Mr Will’s article, my posting, nor any other facts will change your point of view for this. I am just posting for the benefit of anyone that might buy into your argument that (like all liberal) it must be a race issue when someone throws out a common sense idea that some minority doesn’t like. Im Hispanic, but I NEVER use that label if I can hep it. I’m an American, period. All the illegals from all nations are breaking my countries laws and disgracing the process for LEGAL immigration by pushing for the easy way out. I just pray we get the liberal idiots voted out this fall before Hussein can push through immunity for all those “undocumented Democrats” out there.
“
Click the image to go to signing petition. Option to donate follows too, but you don’t have to.
Elena Kagan is an awful choice for the United States Supreme Court.
She lacks the experience, she lacks the intellectual capacity for the job, and worst she is a liberal judicial activist – and NOT a constitutional conservative.
One of the hallmarks of the Tea Party movement has been a return to the proper constitutionally-defined role of the government. Elena Kagan has shown NO understanding that the job of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the Constitution. She is the worst kind of activist liberal judge – and she must be rejected.
Please join the Tea Party Express in REJECTING the nomination of Elena Kagan to the United States Supreme Court
Full Article here, in case you didn’t read the article that cost the General his career. I don’t read Rolling Stone, but I did read the article since they were firing a man over it. Yes, I know he submitted his resignation, but I can assure you he was given a choice of getting fired or submitting that.
First and foremost, I think it was a stupid move to even talk to Rolling Stone magazine. IF you were going to do that, do it without your aides and preferably have them submit their questions in writing first so you can draft a response that won’t offend your thin-skinned boss. Then you can answer any followup questions and be done with it. It seems most of the bad quotes are from his aides. I don’t really care for this man because he voted for Obama. That alone tells me he is probably more of a politician than a soldier. It also tells me he does not have a firm grasp on which presidential candidate would have followed the path of our founding fathers versus the path of hype, anti-gun pursuits, and socialism. So I am glad to see him go.
That all aside, I think he got a bad deal and was the scapegoat for Obama to make it look like he was tough leader. Hussein stated “the conduct represented in the recently published article does not meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general. It undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that’s necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan.”
I can tell you that almost EVERY veteran and active duty member I know can’t stand the sight of this President or the top 5 civilian leaders and much of Congress. Primarily because they are the enemy within that is taking this country down a path of self destruction and ignoring the wishes of the people. They see the wars going back to politicians running the war and setting unrealistic rules up so there will be failure (see Vietnam reasons for failure).
I think the aides should have kept their mouth shut around the media (like we all do) to give the appearance of support of this poor leader. Even though Hussein sucks as a leader, you can’t openly be against him or you might get fired. In this case you got your boss fired.
I wouldn’t want to be the Generals replacement. The cards are stacked against him. I hope for our troops sake, that the mid-term elections in 180 days makes REAL change for the country.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This should have been a no-brainer that WE THE PEOPLE have a RIGHT to bear arms. It really was a no-brainer until the last 3 decades or so. People have had decreasing amounts of brain capacity and common sense when it comes to the Second Amendment and politics in general. This is easy to see just by noticing almost half of America doesn’t even bother to vote in one of the most meaningful elections in the last 60 years and probably the next 60 years. Because of that, we now have an idiot socialist for President and a majority of idiots controlling congress. We will also get another left wing radical judge shoved down our throats because of the growing ignorance of America. What really scary about this ruling is how close it was. The radicals have succeeded in getting a near majority in the highest court in the country. VERY scary. Lets hope we take back Washington in the fall and in 2012. We will need to repeal some socialist laws that were past and with luck, a liberal Supreme Court idiot will die off or quit while a patriot is in office, unlike now.
OK, on to the ruling. The most important part is below. Read the actual ruling if you want all their citings or want to read the dissenting idiots views (again, very scary).
“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our caselaw, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
This post is in regard to the actual Overton Window concept, not Glenn Beck’s book that was released this month. I did post a link regarding the book here.
To explain what the Overton Window is, lets go right to the source. Mr Joe Overton (left) died in a plane crash on June 30th, 2003 but continues to be a source of inspiration. He worked in a “Think Tank” at the Mackinac Center. Mr Overton thought the Think Tank should focus on education of the people and lawmakers to evoke change in politics. At this point, I should note this Think Tank is labeled as “Far right” by the “Far Left.” This should come as no surprise but, in fact, they are “a nonpartisan research and educational institute dedicated to improving the quality of life for all Michigan citizens by promoting sound solutions to state and local policy questions.”
The Mackinac Center explains the window as Joseph Overton’s observation that “in a given public policy area, such as education, only a relatively narrow range of potential policies will be considered politically acceptable. This “window” of politically acceptable options is primarily defined not by what politicians prefer, but rather by what they believe they can support and still win re-election. In general, then, the window shifts to include different policy options not when ideas change among politicians, but when ideas change in the society that elects them.” Mr. Overton’s theory has some basis in complex public choice economics yet it’s very easy to grasp.
The window slides up and down, NOT left and right. This was done on purpose so it would not confuse people. Most of us think in terms of left and right politics. A blog here, wrongly shows the window as moving left and right. It also attempts to show that the window is way over to the right. I have to digress some so please bare with me.
Assuming it even worked this way, it has never been on the “right” unless you were actually a person with far left beliefs. This diagram was made under President Bush Jr so I can see a liberal, socialist, or just radical extremist thinking it was way over to the right. For example, if you were an anti-war idiot that thinks nothing is worth fighting for, then the window would appear to you as shifted way to the right. Again, this is NOT the Overton Window, but a modified use of his window. If this same graph reflected reality in the current political environment of 2010, it would actually look like this:
My views are based on our Founding Fathers ideas for our country. It is also based on documents critical to keeping the correct course for the United States. This includes, but not limited to; The United States Constitution, The Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, and any similar documents I could read that would let me peer into the minds of some of the greatest men to ever walk this earth. These views will undoubtedly get labeled as “Far Right” thinking to people with ideas of government that have never worked anywhere. Ideas that the Founding Fathers seemed to go out of their way to avoid. These Socialists, Communists, Liberals, progressives, (insert radical, anti-American ideology here), all seem to think of the U.S. Constitution as some sort of Wikipedia for them to mold on the whims and wants of a small portion of the populous. When it becomes the U.S. ConstiWiki, our country will fall shortly after and rightly so. Digression’s over.
Now, a little more on the ACTUAL Overton Window. This interactive illustration explains it best. Basically Mr. Overton put a range of policies in a vertical column or axis. Overton’s Window covers a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable at a given point in time.
If it’s acceptable in the eyes of the public, then the window brackets or covers it. Political decisions inside this window can be made without fear of losing public office. He also placed Most Freedom (i.e. less government control) at the top and Least Freedom (i.e. more government control) at the bottom. The example above is from the Mackinac Center. I placed the window where I think it currently is in regards to gun ownership in the USA. Yes, it could shift down a bit more, but this is just an example. This is on a federal, not local level. As a side note, gun ownership is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but several states and cities defy this document and our federal government in an attempt to shift the Overton Window down. If this can be done, Americans might look the other way as a constitutional right is taken away. More likely some extremist Supreme Court Justice will change the definitions of the Constitution and pretend you never had a right in the first place.
If you can move the window, then ideas that are currently considered outside the window can become acceptable. Mr. Overton gave degrees of acceptance:
-Unthinkable
-Radical
-Acceptable
-Sensible
-Popular
-Policy
The Overton Window can be applied on smaller scales like city, state, or personal. It is generally used in reference to policies of the United States federal government. The Overton Window of a state may be well out of sync with the nation. California, for example, has put gay marriage inside their Overton Window, but the national Overton Window still considers it in the Radical range.
The window is moved by the people, not the politicians. Joseph Lehman, President of the Mackinac Center, wrote “many believe that politicians move the window, but that’s actually rare. In our understanding, politicians typically don’t determine what is politically acceptable; more often they react to it and validate it. Generally speaking, policy change follows political change, which itself follows social change. The most durable policy changes are those that are undergirded by strong social movements.” Mr. Lehman further stated “lawmakers who support policies outside the window are one of two kinds — true leaders [Ronald Reagan perhaps?] who have the rare ability to shift the window by themselves, or politicians who risk electoral defeat because they are perceived as out of touch [Obama, Reed, Biden?].”
So with the Overton Window explained, I’d like to make some comparisons to the current political environment. The current administration feels that because they won the election, they have a good handle on where the Overton Window currently sits. The Obama administration and Congress continues to pass legislation that is clearly unpopular with the majority of Americans. This leads me to believe he sees himself as a “true leader.” When in fact, I think he easily falls in the “out of touch” category. I think most of Congress falls in that category now. The rise and growth of the Tea Party is good evidence of the backlash from action after action taken outside the Overton Window. Instead of reversing their course, the Obama Administration and Congress has increased its radical actions. The socialization of medical care, spending increases that dwarf any administration in the history of the U.S., H.R. 5175 attacks on grassroots efforts and free speech, and numerous other acts of idiocy [many mentioned on this blog in other topics].
The Obama administration won an election where only 56.8% of the voting population turned out. That number is nothing unusual. Irresponsibly, about half of America doesn’t even care to vote. So anyway, they convinced approximately 27% of American voters to vote for them. Much of this was done with the help of the media to convince the “ignorant masses” to vote for “change” and “hope.” I don’t mean the people are ignorant per se, just that many American’s are ignorant of politics and history.
Those that don’t vote are the most ineffectual of citizenry. These individuals are ignorant of history and what a privilege it is to vote. They are also unaware of how remarkably important every vote is, even in our electoral system. They wrongly assume the right decisions will be made for them by others. The other piece to the ignorant masses is the portion of the population that was taken it by what even I have to admit was an excellent marketing campaign. The problem is, NO ONE that researched the candidates should have even considered voting for him. Many of these people (or sheeple) only watched CNN and others who gave 80% of their coverage to Obama. They let the media influence their vote rather than research it themselves. The only votes Obama SHOULD have received would have been from the fringes of society. Those with racial prejudices (a “black” man is running so I have to vote for him because I’m black too), the far left, and those with extremist ideology. That is not all the vote he captured. Many self proclaimed Independents voted for him because they fell into being influenced by the media. Luckily, many recognize their mistake now. Some got swept up in the hype of logos and slogans for “change.”
Several others said they were “Blue Nose Democrats” so they felt obligated to vote that way. Even a few (not all) of my black friends voted for him. Conservative, military guys! One guy is so caught up in the hype that he is actually still defending Obama, trying to justify socializing medicine, justifying spending trillions, and justifying redistribution of wealth. If President Bush had done these things they would be ready to fight over it. One asked me if I was racist! I explained I hate Obama’s white half as much as his black half, so no. Seriously though, I hate his beliefs and traitorous behavior. I could care less about his skin.
The Obama administration and supporting liberal congressmen are aware of the Overton Window. They continue to enjoy the aid of most major news stations to keep pumping the ignorant masses with propaganda. They know the only way to “shift the window” is to influence enough people. This can be done if the people stay part of the ignorant masses. If the people don’t read history, historical documents, and compare where we were supposed to be going with where we are now, then we are doomed to stay on the same destructive path. The Obama administration sugar coats reality with words that camouflage the truth. Like calling illegal immigrants undocumented workers or it’s no longer a War On Terrorism its whatever the politically correct word is for that now. They chocolate coat fecal matter and tell you its a chocolate bar.
I am hopeful that Obama and the radical left congressmen have awakened the sleeping giant again. I’ve talked to Independants that admit they made a mistake voting for Obama or some other liberal. I see and attend the Tea Parties and witness patriots with similar values, not the monsters portrayed on what seems to be state run media. I’ve also talked to and read about some Americans that have finally woken up to the fact they need to vote. Better late than never.
The bottom line is all of these anti-American radicals must be defeated in this fall election and up through 2012. Preferably not replaced with fresh patriotic faces, not the dirty politician that changes sides just for votes. If not, that means we are left with a divided country. I don’t just mean a difference of opinion, I mean the differences that start civil wars. I mean a government that no longer represents you or your beliefs and that forces their values of socialism on you. I mean destroying the military by forcing them to openly accept homosexual behavior as normal. I mean destroying the rights, beliefs, and vision initially given to us by the Founding Fathers!
I am not advocating a civil war, but I am noting that if we can’t get the radicals under control, then all the elements are there for some dark days ahead for our country. After we get our country back and under control, we should be able to repeal most of the damages caused by the radicals. Perhaps we can convince the socialists and other radicals to move to a country that practices what they believe in. Most patriots can’t leave this country as this is the last truly free Republic in the world. Once its light is extinguished, there is nowhere else to go.
I hope the explanation of the Overton Window was helpful. I also hope my opinion was well received. If not, get access to your own blog and influence the ignorant masses. After all, what do I know? I’m just a guy that would actually read a bill before signing it. I’m also the kind of guy that would actually read about history and our republic before I changed it.
copyright 2010 K-ROD
No liberals were water-boarded in creating this post.
Opinions are that of the posters, not necessarily TPF’s
Latest News-Fox News Mark Levin Drudge News Feed Politics-Fox News Trump Tweets