• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Ten Important Questions for James Comey “Trial”

Byron York: Ten questions for James Comey’s Upcoming “Trial”

by Byron York  at Washington Examiner:

Members of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees will question former FBI Director James Comey Friday morning. After much wrangling, the interview will take place behind closed doors. Comey wanted it to be public, but lawmakers, unwilling to cut up their questioning into five-minute slices for a public setting, insisted on a private session. The House won. But both sides agreed that a transcript of the interview will be released quickly, perhaps as quickly as 24 hours after the meeting.

Republicans were divided about whether to interview Comey at all. He has testified many times, written a book, and publicly discussed his tenure in office at great length. Some Republicans preferred to bring in Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has been resisting an appearance on Capitol Hill. “It’s been nine weeks since the press reported that Rod Rosenstein was contemplating wearing a wire to record the president and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office,” Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told me recently, “and we’re spending time bringing in Comey for the 15th time?”

Nevertheless, Comey is coming in. Some Republicans want to ask him more about the Hillary Clinton case, but even some of them acknowledge that the case is over and done with. Others want to focus on the Trump-Russia affair. That includes a lot of material. There will, for example, undoubtedly be some questions about the Trump dossier, the origins of which Republicans have done extensive work to expose.

But one particularly useful area of questioning would be the case of Michael Flynn, the short-term Trump national security adviser who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI and who this week received a no-jail sentencing recommendation from Trump-Russia special counsel Robert Mueller. Comey spoke privately to Congress about the Flynn case on a few occasions in 2017. But so far, all the public knows about those statements are a few snippets of testimony included in a House Intelligence Committee report and a few others from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. If Comey were questioned about it in some detail Friday, and if the transcript of that conversation were released, then the pblic might finally learn more about the case. With that in mind, here are ten questions for Comey on the subject of Michael Flynn:

1. Did you read the wiretap transcripts of conversations between Flynn and then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak? If not, were they described to you or synopsized for you by other government officials?

2. Did you read the so-called 302 report written by the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn on Jan. 24, 2017? If not, was it described to you or synopsized for you by other government officials?

3. Did you ever discuss the Flynn interview with the agents? In any event, what, precisely, did the agents report on the question of whether or not Flynn was truthful in the interview?

4. Did the agents believe Flynn tried to deceive them?

5. If the agents did not believe Flynn was lying, how did they — or you — reconcile the differences between what Flynn said in the FBI interview and what he said in the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations?

6. Did Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency with a deep knowledge of surveillance practices, at any time in the interview acknowledge or refer to the fact that his conversations with Kislyak were recorded by U.S. intelligence? Did he ever acknowledge that the transcripts of his conversations were available to FBI officials?

7. What other evidence did the FBI have that Flynn lied to the agents?

8. Did you believe, a week after the interview, that Flynn would be indicted for lying to the FBI? Did you believe, by early May 2017, before you were fired, that Flynn would be indicted for lying to the FBI?

9. When did you learn that Flynn would be charged and had pleaded guilty? What was your reaction?

10. Other than the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, are you aware of any other instances in which Flynn took part in any activities as part of a conspiracy with Russia to fix the 2016 election? If so, what were they?

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-ten-questions-for-james-comey

Bernie Sanders’ World Socialist Wing of GOP Celebrate G.H.W Bush’s Sweetness!

AS USUAL, IT’S ALL ABOUT DONALD TRUMP

by John Hinderaker  at  PowerLine:

Tributes to the late President George H.W. Bush are pouring in from all points of the political compass. The tributes focus, appropriately, on President Bush’s personal qualities. But there is an obvious subtext. The liberal media, which deplored Bush when he was an active politician, is happy to praise him now because it provides an opportunity to highlight President Donald Trump’s alleged failings of character and personality. Sometimes the contrast is merely implicit, but liberals don’t want anyone to miss the point. Our friends at Grabien compiled this montage of Bush vs. Trump commentary from the liberal media. It is, I think, far from exhaustive:

https://share.grabien.com/share.php?id=515971&userid=2730&playercolor=%23000000&playersize=480&code=fb688acc762019e622b046da3f178f10

I look forward to the day when something happens in the news that is not immediately spun to reflect badly on Donald Trump, but I don’t suppose that day will come soon–not until after November 2020, at any rate.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/12/as-usual-its-all-about-donald-trump.php

“Dem” Election Voter Fraud Schemes in California Flourish Among Homeless

Charges Filed In Election Fraud Scheme Involving Homeless In Los Angeles

According to a story published Tuesday by the LA Times, nine people have been charged with election fraud. The scheme involved paying homeless people living in LA’s skid row to forge signatures for ballot initiatives:

SEE ALSO: More fallout from that NY Times story about Facebook

Using cash and cigarettes as lures, the defendants approached homeless people on skid row and asked them to forge signatures on state ballot measure petitions and voter registration forms, the district attorney’s office said. The defendants — some of whom were scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday — face several criminal charges, including circulating a petition with fake names, voter fraud and registering a fictitious person.

The charges, which were filed three weeks ago but made public Tuesday, followed a Los Angeles Police Department crackdown on suspected election fraud on skid row earlier in the year.

In California, we frequently have ballot initiatives which are financial or political questions put to a direct vote during an election. This year was no exception with a number of bond questions, an attempt to repeal the gas tax, a question on rent control, and a possible change to daylight savings time among others. But each of these measures has to qualify to be on the ballot by following specific steps. The step which makes or breaks most of these initiatives is raising tens of thousands of signatures which are then submitted to the California Secretary of State for confirmation. And that’s where the temptation to cheat creeps in.

RECOMMENDED

Some of the arrests made in this case came three weeks ago, before the election. KABC in Los Angeles reported at the time:

Los Angeles Police Department officer Deon Joseph knows his way around Skid Row. It’s been his beat for the last 20 years…

“This is where they do most of the voter registration fraud,” he said, pointing to the sidewalk in front of the Midnight Mission. “It’s been going on for years.”

Joseph says it’s pretty common for people hired by lobbyists to set up tables outside the missions and illegally pay people for fake signatures used for various ballot measures from all across California.

“They say, ‘Hey, you wanna make a quick buck?” Joseph explained. “They can get a quarter, a dollar, a cigarette and sometimes food. But in the last few cases it’s been money.”

In theory, California authorities would catch these fakes. LA County’s election chief tells the LA Times that his staff compares every signature to the ones on voter registration forms. But using fraud to get things on the ballot is still a crime and charging the people involved in this case with felonies is an attempt to send a message that this won’t be tolerated anymore. The nine people charged in this scheme face up to four years, and in a couple cases, up to six years in prison if they are convicted.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/11/21/charges-filed-election-fraud-scheme-los-angeles/

Democrat Forever St. Paul, MN Turned GOP on Nov. 6, 2016?

I was born and raised in St. Paul, MN.  I  attended Horace Mann Elementary School, 1939-1948 and Central High School, 1948-1951,   when God-fearing male adult wisdom controlled  teaching knowledge of present and past, and seeking Truth were in the command of  well educated  old maid classroom teachers at a time when students, black and white, lived with their fathers and mothers.

Divorce was unChristian then and made expensive for everyone but the wealthy.  In practice, it was sold primarily in Reno, Nevada.

I remember a Jewish Democrat was elected Mayor of St. Paul…..Norm Coleman.   He eventually turned Republican and was elected as one in 2002 by defeating Vice President Mondale when the Vice President had fallen to become  a first class classic jerk.

Norm Coleman ran for reelection in 2008 facing a face, body, and incredibly  ugly condition belonging to a Jewish competitor, the king of sleaze,  Democrat Al Franken.

Norm won by a couple thousand votes….perhaps more, but the  Democrat establishment in Minnesota, the good and the crooked, have owned the state for years….They are the hired who do the counting.    GUESS WHAT?  Their recount gave the Senate to Dem Al Franken….Newly elected US President, Barack Hussein Obama,  needed one more Senator to reach 60 votes in the Senate, a Super majority, to make Republican  politically sterile throughout his first term.

Please read both articles below…..the first sent by Mark Waldeland:

https://www.twincities.com/2018/11/12/st-paul-went-red-here-and-nowhere-else-inside-the-one-and-only-gop-dominated-precinct-in-st-paul/

AL FRANKEN WON HIS SENATE SEAT VIA VOTER FRAUD!

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud

Lefty Fascistics at CNN to Sue White House for Withdrawing Obnoxious Lefty Fascist Acosta’s Pass

Sam Donaldson claims CNN suing over White House pass for Acosta

by Thomas Lifson  at Amerian Thinker:
.

According to Sam Donaldson (video below) CNN is preparing  a lawsuit over the denial of a White House “hard pass” to Jim Acosta. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday, the former ABC News correspondent claimed that he had been asked to prepare an affidavit for the suit, and had done so. Donaldson added (via the Washington Examiner):

“I hope I’m not mistaken, but it’s my understanding that CNN and Acosta have sued, that there will be a court hearing on Tuesday on this very matter that we’ve been discussing,” Donaldson said.

Remarkably, the host of the program, a CNN employee with the media beat, denied knowing of the lawsuit:

Host Brian Stelter replied that he was not aware of such a case.

And CNN denied that a suit had been filed, but not asking for an affidavit (or other preparations):

 A CNN spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that a lawsuit has not been filed yet. “No decisions have been made. We have reached out to the White House and gotten no response,” the spokesperson said.

On the surface, a lawsuit contesting the decision to permit or deny a press pass seems silly, as there is no constitutional right to have a press pass. But we live in an era in which certain federal judges see their function as being the all-powerful second-guesser of executive branch authority, substituting their own judgment for that of the office-holders, including the president. But Donaldson sees it differently, arrogantly concluding his segment by saying:

….the president does not understand a lot of things about our Constitution, but I expect and I believe the courts will instruct him.

Watch below. Donaldson’s interview begins at 2 minutes 20 seconds:

 

According to Sam Donaldson (video below) CNN is preparing  a lawsuit over the denial of a White House “hard pass” to Jim Acosta. Appearing on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday, the former ABC News correspondent claimed that he had been asked to prepare an affidavit for the suit, and had done so. Donaldson added (via the Washington Examiner):

“I hope I’m not mistaken, but it’s my understanding that CNN and Acosta have sued, that there will be a court hearing on Tuesday on this very matter that we’ve been discussing,” Donaldson said.

Remarkably, the host of the program, a CNN employee with the media beat, denied knowing of the lawsuit:

Host Brian Stelter replied that he was not aware of such a case.

And CNN denied that a suit had been filed, but not asking for an affidavit (or other preparations):

A CNN spokesperson told the Washington Examiner that a lawsuit has not been filed yet. “No decisions have been made. We have reached out to the White House and gotten no response,” the spokesperson said.

On the surface, a lawsuit contesting the decision to permit or deny a press pass seems silly, as there is no constitutional right to have a press pass. But we live in an era in which certain federal judges see their function as being the all-powerful second-guesser of executive branch authority, substituting their own judgment for that of the office-holders, including the president. But Donaldson sees it differently, arrogantly concluding his segment by saying:

….the president does not understand a lot of things about our Constitution, but I expect and I believe the courts will instruct him.

Watch below. Donaldson’s interview begins at 2 minutes 20 seconds:

https://share.grabien.com/share.php?id=501437&userid=2948&playercolor=%23ee1a3b&playersize=600&code=beae3c2c9b29cf1eb0f112128f169c0c

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/sam_donaldson_claims_cnn_suing_over_white_house_pass_for_acosta.html

THE WALK AWAY MOVEMENT

K-12: Walk Away

by Bruce Deitrick Price   at  American Thinker

.

When Brandon Straka founded the WalkAway movement in May, hardly anyone imagined that several hundred thousand longtime Democrats could turn against the party of their family and friends.  Although it’s a big, difficult decision, many Walkaways made videos aggressively explaining their decisions. They often conclude: “I’ll never vote Democrat the rest of my life.”

What made these people walk away with such passion?  Certainly, Trump’s success and charisma explain a lot.  The “lying media” are also a major factor.  One woman attended a crowded Trump rally.  When she reached home a half-hour later, CNN was showing a half-empty stadium where she had been standing.  She knew that the place had been jammed.  At that moment, she walked away from CNN.

Perhaps the most important factor is that leaders on the left, for many decades, became increasingly socialist/communist in their perspectives.  The rank and file are more sophisticated now and realize that their party bosses walked away from them long ago.

So here’s the picture that Straka has brought into focus.  Namely, lots of people are mad as hell and determined not to take it anymore.

We need this exact same spirit in K-12.  You’re mad as hell and refuse to continue the same destructive relationship.  You know what the schools are doing to children: keeping them ignorant and illiterate.  You hate this.  You don’t want it being done in your name.  Or with your taxes.

So walk away.

Democrats, heretofore passive, are showing you how to do it.  Just do it.  The liberal leaders at the top of the Education Establishment are exactly the same people whom working-class Democrats have learned to scorn.  (Indeed, studying K-12 education is a great way to understand the warped politics of the party.  Same people, same goals, same collectivist thinking.)

You’ve heard the rumors, or you have seen the results yourself.  Kids can’t read, not fluently.  Incoherent Common Core homework makes them cry.  Students don’t know the simplest things about geography, history, science, or anything else.  Jay Leno, Jesse Watters, Mark Dice, and now Jimmy Kimmel have shown this over and over.

The incompetent, ideological extremists perpetuating this educational malpractice should be rejected or at least rebuked.  What’s a simple way to do that?  You don’t need to send them a card.  Just walk away…if not physically, at least emotionally.

Parents with kids in a public school have to deal with teachers and school officials.  But you can withhold support; you can show disdain for programs you don’t like.  Let the Education Establishment know that you don’t approve of their dumbing-down strategies.  You would like to see children educated at the highest level that each one can handle.  The main thing is to stop tolerating what you sincerely feel is unacceptable.  (Some people say homeschooling is the only option.  I argue that being an informed, demanding parent contributes greatly.)

Teachers in particular know the dark secrets about ideological maneuvering  and financial chicanery.  The result is that textbooks and methods that didn’t work 25 and 50 years ago are still used today and still don’t work.  The dysfunctional gimmicks that made New Math useless can still be found in Common Core Math.  Someone is making more money.  But the students are losing.  Don’t support what you wouldn’t want for your own kids.

According to one of the popular sophistries of the past 75 years, if you criticize public schools, the professors will say you are “opposed to public education.”  You may have to spell it out.  You’re not at all opposed to public education.  You’re opposed to ineffective, screwed up education that keeps many children as ignorant and illiterate in the 10th grade as they were in the 4th grade.

The point is not to give support to something not worth supporting.  Our Education Establishment has grown increasingly wacky and reckless over the past 90 years.  The country had near universal literacy in 1915, then Progressives started to take over.  By 1955, a book titled Why Johnny Can’t Read became a huge bestseller.  Apparently, millions of people knew “Johnny” personally.  Many social critics wrote books with titles such as Quackery in the Public Schools and Educational Wastelands: The Retreat from Learning in Our Public Schools.  Sixty years later, the steady decline slithers on.  Prof. Patrick Deneen at Notre Dame recently accused our public schools of creating “cultural illiteracy” intentionally.

Now is a good time for everyone to start being judgmental.

Walk away from dangerous, chaotic schools.  Walk away from sight-words and the functional illiteracy they cause.  Walk away from  Common Core nonsense that makes little children cry.  Walk away from dysfunctional theories and methods that never seem to work as promised.  Walk away from imperious superintendents who tell the parents what they can have, not what they need.

Walk away from elaborately engineered pedagogy that diminishes children.  Walk away from Constructivism, which dictates that children must figure out everything for themselves while teachers stand idly by.  Walk away from Self-Esteem, a cute little sophistry that basically freezes every class at the level of the slower students.  Walk away from Multiculturalism, which dictates that American children have to know more about foreign rivers than about American rivers.  Walk away from all the clever gimmicksthat undercut real education and replace it with “progressive” – actually regressive – folderol.

In particular, walk away from so-called educators who see education as indoctrination, not enlightenment.  That is John Dewey’s malignant legacy.  We need to walk away from all that.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/k12_walk_away.html

TIME TO END PRIMITIVE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP INTERPRETATION!

Ending Birthright Citizenship

..
by Daniel John Sobieski at American Thinker:
..

History, as the saying goes, is a lie agreed upon, and there has perhaps been no bigger lie detrimental to the future  national security and economic well-being of the United States that the 14th Amendment, clearly written to protect the rights of African-American slaves liberated by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, somehow confers citizenship on the offspring of anybody whose pregnant and can sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.

U.S. citizenship is rendered meaningless if it is defined as an accident of geography and it is the clear that this was not the intention authors of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and shepherded it into the Constitution. President Trump has rightly targeted birthright citizenship as an historical error that needs to be corrected:

President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil — a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle…

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that “there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

“What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”

Anton is stunningly correct and clearly echoes the sentiments and legislative intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. The only question is whether this historical error is better corrected though a clarifying amendment, legislation, or through a Trump executive order. GOP Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has proposed legislation:

In January of this year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (HR 140) that seeks to amend current law by making requirements for citizenship more narrow, and, in King’s opinion, more constitutional…

“A Century ago it didn’t matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda,” King said. “When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal immigrants. That has got to stop.”…

King’s bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill states that a person born in the United States is a citizen if one parent is “(1) a citizen or national of the United States, (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.”

But some would argue that no clarifying legislation is necessary and that as a result of President Trump’s appointment of originalist interpreters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the original intent of the 14th Amendment can be restored.

The Supreme Court has never said birthright citizenship is constitutional and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote it.

Peter H. Schuck, Yale University’s Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law Emeritus and self-described “militant moderate,” reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Though opposed to many of the president’s positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy…

On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump. In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called “anchor-babies” — those born to illegal aliens — was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters. Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, “We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.”

This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

Trump during the campaign correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration.  He would end it and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As The New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.

“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration”. Once of age the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth.

Critics have said that the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment — only correctly interpreting it — perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The 14th Amendment, passed, on July 3, 1866, reads, “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.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision had held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens:

John Eastman of the Claremont Institute testified before the subcommittee, saying, the Supreme Court has never actually held that anyone who happens to make it to U.S. soil can unilaterally bestow citizenship on their children merely by giving birth here.

Although such an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has become widespread in recent years, it is not the understanding of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, or of those who ratified it, or of the leading constitutional commentators of the time. Neither was it the understanding of the Supreme Court when the Court first considered the matter in 1872, or when it considered the matter a second time a decade later in 1884, or even when it considered the matter a third time fifteen years after that in the decision many erroneously view as interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, whether their parents were here permanently or only temporarily, legally or illegally, or might even be here as enemy combatants seeking to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

Eastman argues that the modern view of the Fourteenth Amendment ignores a key phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Mere birth on U.S. soil just isn’t enough. “A person must be both ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ and ‘subject to its jurisdiction.’”

During debate on the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

HR. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system, a very costly one.

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right — becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the Border Patrol.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/ending_birthright_citizenship.html