It appears that the Iran deal will allow Iran to inspect itself to determine if Iran is keeping its end of the bargain. As I said, the Iran deal wasn’t to prevent Iran from getting nukes – the Iran deal was to remove sanctions from Iran so that Iran can become our “partner” in the Middle East. Partner in what remains to be seen.
So, the Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement wanted to a get a singer scheduled for a Spanish music fest to come out in favor of the BDS position. Singer refused. Singer was disinvited to perform. Usual bit of Progressive fascism for the most part – but the key to this one is that the singer in question was the only person asked to make the pro-BDS statement…and the singer is Jewish-American. In other words, the Jew was singled out for Special Handling. Anyone want to claim the left isn’t increasingly anti-Semitic? In the end, the disgusting nature of this forced the music fest to back down, apologize and re-invite the singer…but how many less famous Jews are getting ground up in this sort of thing? And how many of our Progressives even remotely realize that they are backing people who would massacre every Jew in Israel, if given the chance?
Once again – no, the e mail scandal will not force Hillary out of the race. In fact, it might even work to her advantage in 2016 with LIV. My bet is that by December or so the “investigation” will be complete and Hillary won’t be charged…this will work out in the MSM to Hillary being cleared of all wrong-doing and any GOP attempts to bring it up in 2016 will be “why are you re-hashing old news?”. Rely on it: Hillary will only be kept out of the White House by a great candidate running a great campaign. To be sure, this stuff does help a bit by attacking Hillary’s credibility in the overall public mind…but that was already a bit of a given. We have to beat her by beating her. Nothing else will do it for us.
Newest Planned Parenthood video indicates that PP may, from time to time, engage in a bit of infanticide if the child comes out alive. This has been a given in the abortion industry for a long time – you can’t be sure the kid is dead prior to extraction. Almost always, the child is dead – but there’s no way to be 100% certain about it, and so it appears that some children come out alive. The bottom line about abortion is that it is a nasty business where the end-product is a dead child and, very often, a poor woman struggling for years with the mental anguish (you’re “pro-choice” and don’t believe me about that last? Then go here and see. I dare you). Given that it is all about death-dealing, it is bound to be unpleasant in almost all respects. It has gotten a mental pass from the people because the use of euphemism has allowed people to turn aside and pretend they dont’ know what is happening. These videos end all that.
ISIS beheads 82 year old antiquities scholar – in case you forgot that these are savages who need to be defeated.
In better news, a bunch of Yazidi women have formed a military unit to kill ISIS goons. These women, by the way, risk death and worse if they are ever captured by ISIS. What saddens me is that we don’t want to fight ISIS as much as these women do.
They keep telling us that the economy in in great shape and that unemployment is dropping like a rock…but if this is so, why are wages flat? Two possible explanations:
1. There is no job growth and Uncle Sam is just faking the numbers
2. There is job growth but the importation of millions of illegals with Uncle Sam’s encouragement is keeping wages flat.
Take your pick, but either case is bad for the people.
This just in – Russia is now selling advance SAM’s to Iran. Thanks Barry. Dumbshit.
Just wait – eventually we’ll be selling SAMs to Iran…gotta protect our new friends from the Israelis, you know? It is part of the deal – we must help protect Iran’s nuclear program from any foreign attack.
You know, you joke about that, but it isn’t out of the realm of possibility.
It is not only not outside the realm of possibility, it seems pretty consistent with the attitude of the White House. It struck me as a little facetious, but with an alarming note of possibiity.
As you all know, I am concerned about some eligibility questions related to three of those who have declared an intent to run for the presidency. I was talking about this with a good friend the other day, and she asked me for some links to studies on the topic of Natural Born Citizen, and I happened upon a couple I had not yet seen. I am glad I did. Sometimes an idea can be presented from a different viewpoint, not as a different idea but seen from a different angle, and this is what I encountered.
First was an explanation of the concept of Natural Born Citizen. Part of this article stated:
“Bingham of course was paraphrasing Vattel whom often used the plural word “parents” but made it clear it was the father alone for whom the child inherits his/her citizenship from (suggesting a child could be born out of wedlock wasn’t politically correct). Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. As the court has consistently ruled without controversy, change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one.”
This was just a slightly different phrasing, but one that resonated. It says that allegiance to a nation remains intact unless and until the person in question throws off his previous allegiance and consents to a new one—that is, renounces his original citizenship and adopts a new one, or to put it another way becomes a naturalized citizen of another nation. Therefore, a Natural Born citizen, as opposed to a naturalized citizen, must be born to a father who is a citizen (“..within the allegiance of the Nation..”) at the time of the child’s birth.
“When a child inherits the citizenship of their father, they become a natural-born citizen of the nation their father belongs to regardless of where they might be born. It should be pointed out that citizenship through descent of the father was recognized by U.S. Naturalization law whereby children became citizens themselves as soon as their father had become a naturalized citizen, or were born in another country to a citizen father.
Yes, birth is prima facie evidence of citizenship, but only the citizenship of the nation the father is a member.“
So this took me to a place I had already been, just using a slightly different wording to get there.
Defining Natural-Born Citizen
by P.A. MADISON on November 18th, 2008
But then I read another article:
“…just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.” The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States . The actions and understandings of the First Congress are particularly persuasive because so many of the Framers of the Constitution were also members of the First Congress. That is particularly true in this instance, as eight of the eleven members of the committee that proposed the natural born eligibility requirement to the Convention served in the First Congress and none objected to a definition of “natural born Citizen” that included persons born abroad to citizen parents.”
So far, this is repeating what was said in the first article, with the exception of using the term “citizen PARENTS” instead of “citizen FATHER”.
“The proviso in the Naturalization Act of 1790 underscores that while the concept of “natural born Citizen” has remained constant and plainly includes someone who is a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings, the details of which individuals born abroad to a citizen parent qualify as citizens from birth have changed. The pre-Revolution British statutes sometimes focused on paternity such that only children of citizen fathers were granted citizenship at birth.
(See, e.g., British Nationality Act, 1730, 4 Geo. 2, c. 21.) The Naturalization Act of 1790 expanded the class of citizens at birth to include children born abroad of citizen mothers as long as the father had at least been resident in the United States at some point.”
Harvard Law Review Forum n the Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen”
Commentary by Neal Katyal & Paul Clement
Mar 11, 2015
128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 161
My reading of this is that, while Congress certainly does not have the authority to amend the Constitution, it does have the authority to define some terms, if such definition does not alter the meaning of the original phrasing. It appears that removing the implied restriction of birth only to a citizen FATHER and including birth to a citizen MOTHER as well is not an improper expansion of or redefinition of a Constitutional requirement, only a recognition of equality of the parents.
By this explanation, Barack Obama was eligible for the presidency, as he was born to a citizen mother, and his father had been a resident of the United States. (This kind of analysis at the time would have been helpful, instead of merely defending his eligibility by screeching RASCIST !!!! every time the question came up.) It also means that Ted Cruz meets the eligibility requirement for the presidency as his mother was U.S. citizen at the time of his birth and his father had resided in the United States, though his father only became a citizen after the birth.
I don’t know how or if this would affect the eligibility of either Rubio or Jindal, as I don’t know the citizenship status of either of their mothers, or the residency status of either of their fathers.
I do think it addresses, quite adequately, the eligibility of Cruz. And I’m glad of that, because if I could pick any person in the United States I would want to be in the Oval Office, it would be Ted Cruz.
But then, as I argue with myself, I find a different article that presents a different point of view.
From: NEW EVIDENCE: Intent of 1790 Naturalization Act
December 29, 2014 T.J. McCann (Emphasis mine)
Mr. James Madison, who had been a member of the Constitutional Convention and had participated in the drafting of the terms of eligibility for the President, was a member of the Committee of the House, together with Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts and Thomas A. Carnes of Georgia when the matter of the uniform naturalization act was considered in 1795. Here the false inference which such language might suggest with regard to the President was noted, and the Committee sponsored a new naturalization bill which deleted the term “natural-born” from the Act of 1795. (1 Stat 414) The same error was never repeated in any subsequent naturalization act.
(McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, 1967, Page 10)
Again recollect that the previous Madison 1789 quotation and the 1790 Naturalization Act both use the exact same phrasing of “considered as natural born” (citizens/subjects). By McElwee’s own report, Madison was involved in having the “natural born citizen” reference in the 1790 Naturalization Act, entirely removed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, so that the reference would not be misunderstood. Given the similar phrasing in the quotation, perhaps Madison was even influential in drafting that 1790 Naturalization Act.
What “Considered As” Actually Intends
Rather than any actual intent to expand the terms of “natural born” by statutory means, which is now known to be untrue given McElwee’s reference, these writings are actually using an archaic rhetorical device, no longer employed. The 1790 Naturalization Act’s use of “considered as”, and Madison’s 1789 quote as well, are actually employing SIMILE, comparing two inherently unlike things, to argue for the citizenship of offspring not otherwise recognized as being citizens, and not to confer natural born citizen status upon those born overseas. “Considered as” does not equate to “shall now become.” This use of simile was a common rhetorical form used in the 18th century, so as to provide a pro forma argument, in the case of the 1790 Naturalization Act, promoting the mere citizenship status of those born overseas. Such an argument for mere citizen status is more reasonably the purpose of any naturalization act, and NOT to declare them natural born citizens.
This fact would explain why the phrase was entirely removed from the subsequent 1795 Naturalization Act, never to be seen again in American statute. It certainly makes no sense that, before the ink was even dry on the Constitution, those same founders who so deliberately set the terms for President, would then leap to expanding the phrase natural born citizen to a group of persons that might never set foot on American soil. This is supported by the 1795 Naturalization Act, written by largely the same congress, which specifically REPEALS the 1790 Act, and recreates it nearly verbatim, except excluding any reference to natural born citizen, as well as the discovery by McElwee of the motivation of the House Committee for removing the phrasing, as detailed in 1 Stat 414 . ref”
If anyone has anything to add to this, I’d love to see it. I might as well get myself even more confused. If the 1795 Act removed the reference to “natural born citizen” from the 1790 Act did it also negate the natural law of citizenship being passed through the father, or both parents? By having no reference to the term “natural born citizen” at all, did it just leave this up to the accepted definition of the term? And if that is the case, it is just a slight modernization of that definition to give mothers equal status?
BTW, this also ties in with discussion about “anchor babies” as the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
If citizenship is actually transmitted through the father, or the parents, and if “..change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one…” then any child born in this country to parents who are still citizens of another country, because they have not “thrown off” their previous allegiance and “consented to a new one” (been naturalized as citizens of this country) is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore is not a citizen of the United States.
Put another way, if two citizens of Mexico, “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico, have a child, their Mexican citizenship is passed on to that child. The child is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States no matter where it is born. It is, by birth, a Mexican citizen, who happens to be in the United States.
This is an argument made about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Slaves had no allegiance to any other nation, as they were property owned by people in this country. Therefore, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of any other nation and by default WERE “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This was the purpose of the 14th Amendment—to make sure that the children of slaves would be citizens.
Great summary of a contentious issue, and I agree with you. Funny how liberals are all of a sudden concerned with babies.
But we still need an action—-a law or a lawsuit or something—-to get this out of the arena of purely academic discussion and into a solution to the problem.
BTW, Cluster, have you noticed how it freaks out the trolls when you and I disagree on an idea and still get along so well and treat each other with respect? I think the whole concept of disagreeing about an IDEA without going all Isis on someone is just so alien to them, they can’t deal with it. Maybe we need to keep them happy by fussing at each other more, you big poopy-head.
You mean keep the children entertained? 🙂