• 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

Of Course Patriots are Nationalists, NOT Saboteurs!

Trump’s a Nationalist. That’s What All Presidents Should Be!

By Frank Hawkins at American Thinker

 

Thomas Friedman is a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner with a distinguished career as columnist, reporter, author and TV host. I have admired him and his work for as long as he has been visible. I’ve never met him but our careers overlapped in London and we both spent time in Beirut.

Recently he wrote a column called, “George Washington for President.” The subtitle was, “Patriots put love of their own people first, while nationalists put hate for other people first.”  This came right after President Trump proclaimed himself to be a nationalist.

Friedman really teed off on the president, calling him a disturbed man whose job description – to be a healer of the country in times of great national hurt and to pull us together to do big hard things that can only be done together – conflicts with his political strategy, which is to divide us and mobilize his base with anger and fear.

 

 

With that, my admiration for Friedman took a deep dive. I had to ask myself: is this the comment of a rational or even sane person?  Here’s my problem with Mr. Friedman. He managed to avoid the real situation and in fact spun diametrically away from the real story of Donald Trump and those who would destroy him.

Oh, Friedman also said, “Our country is in danger.”  Well, at least we agree on that sound bite.

In recent times, trying to play the role of healer and unifier has been a weakness for Republicans, such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. They and others, including  Reagan and even McCain, tried to various degrees to act as healers and unifiers. But the other side had no intention of letting them get away with that.

These Republican presidents and candidates let themselves be turned into punching bags taking the crap thrown at them while trying to be perceived as “presidential” by remaining above it all.  Remember, “Bush lied, people died!”?  Remember the full pass McCain and Romney both gave Obama on so many critical issues including his relationships with Frank Marshall Davis, Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, George Soros, Sayed Hassan AlQazwini and others?

Now, the liberals and progressives are outraged that President Trump refuses to play traditional Republican, that is, refuses to play patsy. Their heads have been exploding over it. Listen to the late night talk show crowd, left wing Hollywood types, the pussy hat crowd, crazy Democrat politicians, Antifa mobs and other radical groups funded by George Soros. Tell me Tom, who is really blasting away with anger and fear?

And since November of 2016, it’s been going on non-stop day and night on a daily basis.  And then there’s the media itself, the big three broadcast networks, CNN and MSNBC. On these networks, Trump has been called a “white supremacist,” a “Nazi,” a “virus,” “unfit to be human,” a “bigot” and other lovely terms. Tom, talk about dividing the country! Hint: It ain’t Trump.

This is what Friedman is not discussing or dealing with.  The abuse and hatred aimed at Trump, starting the moment of his inauguration, has been unprecedented.   It explains perfectly why the role of healer has not only been not possible, but not appropriate.

It’s the same reason Israel has not been able to make peace with the Muslim Arabs. Much of the other side doesn’t want peace except 100% on their terms.

We are in a low-grade civil war.  These are the people who intimidated and basically destroyed the reputation and presidency of George W. Bush (who, regardless of what you thought of his politics was one of the most decent men to ever be president). He was totally disrespected and made to look weak. It set the stage for Obama.

This is why we love Trump. He is our Netanyahu. Yes, it’s a terrible time. The opportunity for healing at present is minimal. If Trump doesn’t fight to protect America from these people, our country will irreversibly slip into socialism or worse and will be totally taken over by the Antifa thugs, the leftist academics who have already shut down free speech in our universities, the progressives who are demanding open borders, the left wing media that has become a cheering squad for the Democrat Party, the Democrat election fraud ballot stuffers,  anti-Semites, and the likes of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour, Louis Farrakhan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Andrew Gillum and the rest of them. Somehow Friedman didn’t get around to mentioning all of this. Maybe there wasn’t enough space.

The Trump now infamous press conference last Wednesday with Jim Acosta was highly revealing. For those who didn’t watch it, all you probably know about it is that Trump got into a shouting match with the great grandstander CNN reporter Jim Acosta, who was subsequently barred from the White House. That sucked all the oxygen out of the story. So of course what Trump really said was ignored.

But did Friedman or any of Trump’s detractors pay any attention to Trump’s important comments?  The President made a number of conciliatory statements during the press conference that any fair person would say were attempts at unifying the country.

“Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  And I give her a lot of credit.  She works very hard, and she’s worked long and hard.  I give her a great deal of credit for what she’s done and what she’s accomplished. Hopefully, we can all work together next year to continue delivering for the American people, including on economic growth, infrastructure, trade, lowering the cost of prescription drugs.  These are some of things that the Democrats do want to work on, and I really believe we’ll be able to do that.  I think we’re going to have a lot of reason to do it.”

Trump went on to say,

“I really think, and I really respected what Nancy said last night about bipartisanship and getting together and uniting.  She used the word “uniting” and she used the word the bipartisanship statement, which is so important because that’s what we should be doing.”

And then this,

“Now is the time for members of both parties to join together, put partisanship aside, and keep the American economic miracle going strong.  It is a miracle.  We’re doing so well.  And I’ve said it at a lot of rallies.  Some of you have probably heard it so much you don’t want to hear it again.  But when people come to my office — presidents, prime ministers — they all congratulate me, almost the first thing, on what we’ve done economically.  Because it is really amazing.”

I haven’t been able to comb through all of the reporting on the press conference, but my guess is none of the MSM headlined or even reported this huge olive branch that Trump threw out. Certainly CNN didn’t. The event was overshadowed by Acosta and another reporter who tried to bait the President with a white nationalist comment. Trump aggressively and appropriately pushed back.

 “Hi, Mr. President.  Yamiche Alcindor with PBS NewsHour.  On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist.  Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists.  Now people are also saying . . . .

THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know why you’d say that.  That’s such a racist question.

Q:   There are some people that say that now the Republican Party is seen as supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric.  What do you make of that?

THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I don’t believe that . . . . . Why do I have my highest poll numbers ever with African Americans?  . . . That’s such a racist question.”

Trump was understandably insulted by the question and said so. This is what people like this woman and Friedman refuse to understand about Trump. In fact, they don’t want to understand him. They hate him so badly, they can’t do their jobs. Or, in some cases, hate has become their job.

I believe Trump tends to see Americans as just Americans regardless of sex, color, gender or any other inherited characteristic. He doesn’t play the identity politics game that the left thrives on. Friedman quoted Charles de Gaulle as saying, Nationalists put hate for other people first.” Trump’s answer: “I love my country.”

That’s what they don’t want to hear. That’s the Trump message they want to bury. Yes, there are white nationalists. Our country also has more than its share of communists, socialists, progressives and anarchists. But just as all left-wingers don’t fit into those categories,  it’s unfair and outrageous to stick Trump and other nationalists with the label of white nationalist.

For America, Trump is the right man for the times we are in. He’s a fighter and a brawler. He has been belligerent and rude and, at times, even over the top. But any fair-minded person can see this is what Trump has been faced with from the beginning. Trump is both a patriot and a nationalist who puts America and Americans first. He clearly loves our country and wants to see it succeed.. That’s been apparent in all the interviews he has given over the years. But he will not be bullied by these people. That’s what Friedman doesn’t seem to comprehend or want to talk about.

Frank Hawkins is a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies and published novelist.  He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/11/trumps_a_nationalist_thats_what_all_presidents_should_be.html

Note:  In TRUTH,  Tom Friedman is a spoiled, greedy, bigoted  lefty Jewish climber guy from St. Louis Park , Minnesota seeking popularity, a drive of serious popular consequence in our nation’s leftist bondings!   THAT IS A TRUTH IN THIS MATTER!   Yet, lefty fascists will not allow this TRUTH to be told, because  Friedman’s UNTRUTHS, in this case about the President are good for lefty political souls, if they have any souls, which are needed to gain total  control over the nation’s abilities to communicate Truth to its public….an old fascistic  Soviet Communist trick!  (I’ve been there folks….twice, speaking Russian all the time.)

It is likely by uttering the above truths,  fascistic lefty Google will make this article disappear…..and eventually of us JudeoChristian conservative writers and readers too,  if you know anything about the censor googles of life past!  ghr

Sleazy Democrats Use Honduran Caravan to File Suit Against President Trump’s Efforts to Halt Invasion of Illegals

CARAVANERS SUE

by John Hinderaker  at PowerLine:

A half dozen members of the Honduras caravan have filed suit against President Trump and various other federal officials in a putative class action. You can read the complaint, which is venued in the District of Columbia, here. It is largely a Democratic Party screed against the President, with paragraphs like this:

Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners
seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump.

You may well be surprised that Hondurans currently located in Mexico have rights under the U.S. Constitution. The complaint appears to be premature at best. But the reality is that asylum represents a massive loophole in our immigration laws. Asylum is supposed to be available to people who face persecution in their home countries on grounds of religion, race, etc. It was never intended to apply wholesale to entire populations on the ground that their country is poorly governed.

But the theory of the caravan (and the lawsuit) is that anyone who makes it to American soil has due process rights as an asylum seeker, meaning, as a practical matter, that he or she has plenty of time to disappear into sanctuary regions like California. Think of it as a kind of legal illegal immigration.

As it happens, Canada, too, is faced with an illegal immigration/refugee epidemic. Reutersheadlines: “Exclusive: Canada rushes to deport asylum seekers who walked from U.S.”

Canada is prioritizing the deportation of asylum seekers who walked across the border from the United States illegally, federal agency statistics show, as the Liberal government tries to tackle a politically sensitive issue ahead of an election year.

Why would thousands of alleged refugees from the U.S. be entering Canada? Are they Hollywood celebrities who vowed to leave if Trump was elected? Heh. No:

More than 36,000 people have walked into Canada from the United States to file refugee claims since January 2017, many saying they feared U.S. President Donald Trump’s election promise and policy to crack down on illegal immigration.

So these are illegal immigrants into the U.S. who have now illegally entered Canada and are using the asylum dodge to try to remain. The Canadians aren’t buying it:

Toronto lawyer Lorne Waldman said there were good reasons for accelerating the processing and deportation of people who crossed the border: it deters people with weak claims from making refugee claims in the hopes of living in Canada for years while their case wends through the system.

“The best way of discouraging people from making frivolous claims is by having the claims processed quickly,” Waldman said.

If the Canadians can do it, we can too.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/11/caravaners-sue.php

AMERICAN PATRIOTS, THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC NEEDS YOUR REPUBLICAN VOTE NOVEMBER 6, 2018!

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS FROM AMERICAN PATRIOT, CJACK, SENTINEL OF THE GULF!

American Patriots, The American Republic Needs Your Vote… by Cjack, Sentinel of the Gulf:

“Steve Feinstein’s comments are worthy of further pursuit to unveil the network of anti-American agents intent on derailing our Constitutional Republic. But let us begin by scratching Venezuela as the financier of the Central American migrant invasion on the eve of our mid-term elections. Perhaps, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela may have played a role in the organizing of wave after wave of illegal migrants storming our southern borders…but the financing of the logistics of these waves of undocumented migrants has been furnished, to a significant extent, by George Soros through his “Open Society Foundation” and its many organizations and radical groups. No doubt we must also examine the operations of other shadow foundations such as the Clinton, the Bloomberg, the Obama, and the Koch foundation. Yet let us not forget the role of Beijing and Moscow. Keep the Kremlin’s $145,000,000 IOU on Hillary Clinton in mind.

But why haven’t we initiated the overdue legal process to revoke Soros’ naturalized US citizenship based on his subversive activities against the United States? A formal complaint against George Soros as founder of his subversive “Open Society Foundation” and its splintered radical organizations and groups—such as the American Black Panther Party, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter—can be filed by the US Justice Department, right? Soros’ subversive activities are in violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. In fact, the case against the Ku Klux Klan can be reviewed to find possible additional grounds to proceed against George Soros. We can also review the cases and decisions of Hungary and Russia against George Soros.

And we should also pursue a case of subversion and political corruption against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; there is ample evidence to begin that process. Neither Obama’s race nor Hillary Clinton’s gender should prevail against their crimes against the United States.

The $145MM Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation—following the sale of the Obama administration sale of 20% of US uranium deposits to Russia’s Rosatom Corporation—during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State; the $500M ex-US President Bill Clinton was paid for a speech to Russian bankers in Moscow following the aforementioned sale of U.S. uranium deposits; Obama’s bogus $150B payment to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program plus the $1.5B he paid Iran for the release of American hostages; and the hasty “special counsel” investigation against Trump based on the fabricated “dossier” (funded by Hillary Clinton) of a Trump-Russia collusion to negate Hillary Clinton the U.S. presidency…should be enough for the U.S. government to legally proceed.

Isn’t this enough said for us to realize why Soros, Obama, and the Clinton crime syndicate are so busy funding the DNC candidates to unseat the GOP in the House and Senate? The life of our Republic is on the line. And the old pachyderms must again rumble to trample the jackasses.

I, well aware of my role, have already garnered a good number of early Conservative Republican votes for the GOP. They have all voted early “red” down the line. Have you done your duty?

Clack, Sentinel on the Gulf, November 2, 2018

Steve Feinstein’s comments are worthy of further pursuit to unveil the network of anti-American agents intent on derailing our Constitutional Republic. But let us begin by scratching Venezuela as the financier of the Central American migrant invasion on the eve of our mid-term elections. Perhaps, Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela may have played a role in the organizing of wave after wave of illegal migrants storming our southern borders…but the financing of the logistics of these waves of undocumented migrants has been furnished, to a significant extent, by George Soros through his “Open Society Foundation” and its many organizations and radical groups. No doubt we must also examine the operations of other shadow foundations such as the Clinton, the Bloomberg, the Obama, and the Koch foundation. Yet let us not forget the role of Beijing and Moscow. Keep the Kremlin’s $145,000,000 IOU on Hillary Clinton in mind.

But why haven’t we initiated the overdue legal process to revoke Soros’ naturalized US citizenship based on his subversive activities against the United States? A formal complaint against George Soros as founder of his subversive “Open Society Foundation” and its splintered radical organizations and groups—such as the American Black Panther Party, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter—can be filed by the US Justice Department, right? Soros’ subversive activities are in violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. In fact, the case against the Ku Klux Klan can be reviewed to find possible additional grounds to proceed against George Soros. We can also review the cases and decisions of Hungary and Russia against George Soros.

And we should also pursue a case of subversion and political corruption against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton; there is ample evidence to begin that process. Neither Obama’s race nor Hillary Clinton’s gender should prevail against their crimes against the United States.

The $145MM Russian donation to the Clinton Foundation—following the sale of the Obama administration sale of 20% of US uranium deposits to Russia’s Rosatom Corporation—during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as U.S. Secretary of State; the $500M ex-US President Bill Clinton was paid for a speech to Russian bankers in Moscow following the aforementioned sale of U.S. uranium deposits; Obama’s bogus $150B payment to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program plus the $1.5B he paid Iran for the release of American hostages; and the hasty “special counsel” investigation against Trump based on the fabricated “dossier” (funded by Hillary Clinton) of a Trump-Russia collusion to negate Hillary Clinton the U.S. presidency…should be enough for the U.S. government to legally proceed.

Isn’t this enough said for us to realize why Soros, Obama, and the Clinton crime syndicate are so busy funding the DNC candidates to unseat the GOP in the House and Senate? The life of our Republic is on the line. And the old pachyderms must again rumble to trample the jackasses.

I, well aware of my role, have already garnered a good number of early Conservative Republican votes for the GOP. They have all voted early “red” down the line. Have you done your duty?

(from Cjack, Sentinel on the Gulf, American Patriots, The American Republic Needs Your Vote on November 6, 2018!)

(Thank you so much, Cjack, for this more than important NOTICE to all freedom loving Americans!  ghr.)

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

Caravan Folk Seek Comfort While Invading America.

Now The Caravan Is Demanding Transportation

As we discussed here yesterday, the Honduran caravan has a daunting, 1,000-mile journey ahead of them if they plan to reach the Texas border. (Much further if they decide to try for the Tijuana crossing.) Traveling on foot, that will take the better part of two months under the most optimistic circumstances. So what can the caravan organizers do about it? Their latest plan is to demand that the Mexican government provide transportation for all four thousand of them, at least as far as Mexico City. (Associated Press)

The migrant caravan slowly advancing through southern Mexico is demanding the Mexican government help its 4,000 participants reach Mexico City even as a smaller group of Central Americans entered the country, presumably with the intention of joining it.

The Mexican government has shown no inclination to assist, however, with the exception of its migrant protection agency giving some of the caravan’s stragglers rides to the next town over the weekend.

Pueblo Sin Fronteras, a group supporting the caravan, has said it hopes to hold meetings in Mexico City with federal lawmakers and authorities as well as representatives of the incoming government to discuss migrants’ rights and the caravan’s future.

Asking is one thing but receiving is another. While Mexico still isn’t doing as much as they could to stop the caravan entirely, they’re also not going out of their way to assist them in reaching the American border. Even if they wanted to, arranging transportation across the country for that many (non-paying) passengers on short notice is no easy feat.

RECOMMENDED

This lack of transportation is actually having a beneficial effect in terms of protecting our border. The Associated Press has reporters embedded with the caravan and they’re reporting that many of the migrants have grown weary of the long journey. Significant numbers of them have dropped out, either heading back home or deciding to take Mexico up on their offer and apply for asylum or permanent residence there. At this point, the caravan’s numbers have been cut nearly in half from just a week earlier.

If they somehow succeed in convincing the government to provide transportation as requested, that will change the entire formula significantly. The caravan is currently in the small town of Niltepec in Oaxaca state. Getting a lift to Mexico City would cut out nearly a third of the trip to the Texas border. It would also put them on some major transportation routes to either Texas or California with a better chance at jumping some trains or finding willing supporters with trucks.

But if these efforts fail, America’s problem in all of this will be greatly diminished. At the rate people are dropping out with a thousand miles to go, there may not be much of a caravan left by the time they arrive. And with an additional 5,000 troops waiting to greet them at the border, this threat may not be insurmoutable after all.

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/30/now-caravan-demanding-transportation/

“Democrat” California is already Poverty Stricken Socialist Venezuela

Democrats have made California one of the poorest states in the nation

By Rick Moran  at American Thinker:

 

They used to call California “The Golden State.”  That was before the modern Democratic Party got a hold of it.

This, from Matt Margolis writing at PJ Media:

Despite all the wealth in the state and the Democrat control of state government, California actually ranks as the poorest state in the country after costs of living are factored in.  A whopping 19 percent of Californians live below the poverty line.  While California represents just 12 percent of the nation’s population, Californians represent a third of all Americans on welfare.  The average monthly cost of rent in the state is 43 percent higher than the national average.  Nearly a third of Californians spend more than half of their earnings on housing.  The situation is made worse by skyrocketing energy costs.  “Residents who can afford rent or a mortgage are on the hook for electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017.”

Some of these stats are mind-boggling.

The Hill:

California renters pay an average of $1,440 per month, much higher than the national average of $1,010 per month.  In 2015, more than 40 percent of Californians spent over 30 percent of their income on housing.  Today, 29 percent of them spend over half their earnings on housing.  Median home values, at $529,000, are more than double the national median of $239,800.  Residents who can afford rent or a mortgage are on the hook for electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017.

“Not In My Backyard” development and construction restrictions mean that California cities are much more expensive for the poor, with Los Angeles having the highest proportion of income going towards rent in the nation.  The state and its cities use environmental and zoning laws to restrict housing, which often disallows large scale development of apartments.  The result?  Less access for middle class residents.

“California society represents a modern feudal system of robber barons and the poor.”  Democrats in the state have set about to deliberately sabotage the economy by placing non-economic concerns over growth.  Not surprisingly, the middle class is deserting the state – a gold rush in reverse.

How did it happen?

In many ways, California has long been an example for the rest of the nation.  But the middle class conservatism that propelled national figures like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is gone.  It has been replaced with virtue signaling and policies by the wealthy that hurt struggling families.  Both sides of the coin, from technology executives to families unable to pay rent, vote for Democrats that only make the problem worse.

Being a liberal in California is now a matter of survival.  Government largesse is necessary to live even reasonably comfortably.  Government goodies have replaced the work ethic and a desire to better oneself by one’s own devices.

As long as the super-rich continue to prop up the system, California will muddle through.  Eventually, even the tech billionaires will be forced out, and then the apocalypse.

Perhaps they could turn Los Angeles into a prison, as John Carpenter did in Escape from L.A.  It just might be an improvement.

They used to call California “The Golden State.”  That was before the modern Democratic Party got a hold of it.

This, from Matt Margolis writing at PJ Media:

Despite all the wealth in the state and the Democrat control of state government, California actually ranks as the poorest state in the country after costs of living are factored in.  A whopping 19 percent of Californians live below the poverty line.  While California represents just 12 percent of the nation’s population, Californians represent a third of all Americans on welfare.  The average monthly cost of rent in the state is 43 percent higher than the national average.  Nearly a third of Californians spend more than half of their earnings on housing.  The situation is made worse by skyrocketing energy costs.  “Residents who can afford rent or a mortgage are on the hook for electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017.”

Some of these stats are mind-boggling.

The Hill:

California renters pay an average of $1,440 per month, much higher than the national average of $1,010 per month.  In 2015, more than 40 percent of Californians spent over 30 percent of their income on housing.  Today, 29 percent of them spend over half their earnings on housing.  Median home values, at $529,000, are more than double the national median of $239,800.  Residents who can afford rent or a mortgage are on the hook for electricity rates burdened by green initiatives and regulation that grew 500 percent faster than the national average from 2011 to 2017.

“Not In My Backyard” development and construction restrictions mean that California cities are much more expensive for the poor, with Los Angeles having the highest proportion of income going towards rent in the nation.  The state and its cities use environmental and zoning laws to restrict housing, which often disallows large scale development of apartments.  The result?  Less access for middle class residents.

“California society represents a modern feudal system of robber barons and the poor.”  Democrats in the state have set about to deliberately sabotage the economy by placing non-economic concerns over growth.  Not surprisingly, the middle class is deserting the state – a gold rush in reverse.

How did it happen?

In many ways, California has long been an example for the rest of the nation.  But the middle class conservatism that propelled national figures like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan is gone.  It has been replaced with virtue signaling and policies by the wealthy that hurt struggling families.  Both sides of the coin, from technology executives to families unable to pay rent, vote for Democrats that only make the problem worse.

Being a liberal in California is now a matter of survival.  Government largesse is necessary to live even reasonably comfortably.  Government goodies have replaced the work ethic and a desire to better oneself by one’s own devices.

As long as the super-rich continue to prop up the system, California will muddle through.  Eventually, even the tech billionaires will be forced out, and then the apocalypse.

Perhaps they could turn Los Angeles into a prison, as John Carpenter did in Escape from L.A.  It just might be an improvement.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/democrats_have_made_california_one_of_the_poorest_states_in_the_nation.html

 

Can D.C. Minnesotans Ever Return to Civility in Congress after Years of A Klobuchar and A Franken?

Can Republicans Flip Two House Seats In Minnesota?

The Democratic path to a House majority depending on winning a net gain of 23 seats in the upcoming midterms. Every seat Republicans can flip makes that task more difficult in an environment that suddenly doesn’t look as friendly to Democrats. Two open seats in Minnesota might give the GOP a head start on protecting its majority, Politico reports this morning, as two retirements in Trump country leave the DFL vulnerable:

SEE ALSO: Dear conservatives (and liberals)…be better

In a congressional debate last week, Republican Jim Hagedorn touted his support for “extreme vetting” of immigrants, took shots at California Rep. Maxine Waters and at times sounded as though he was running against Hillary Clinton, saying that if she had won in 2016, “we would’ve lost the country.”

In short, he’s running as a local version of President Donald Trump — and banking on the president lifting him to victory in a Democratic-held House district for the first time in his three congressional campaigns.

Most House Republicans around the country are playing defense this election, as Democrats try to flip 23 districts and take the House majority. But Hagedorn is one of two Minnesota Republicans seeking to flip rural, Democratic-held districts in the other direction — a key piece of Republicans’ narrow hopes of retaining the House.

Winning those districts would mean that Democrats have to beat another couple of incumbent Republicans elsewhere in the country, potentially making the difference on a close election night. And even as many of those Republicans try to stem shrinking GOP support in the suburbs in the Trump era, Hagedorn is hoping that he can build on the president’s supercharged rural appeal in 2016, when Trump carried Minnesota’s 1st District by double-digits while Democratic Rep. Tim Walz narrowly won reelection.

Democrats appear to have already written off one seat in Minnesota. A recent NYT/Siena poll puts Republican Pete Stauber up 15 points over DFL candidate Joe Radinovich, 49/34, three weeks out from the election. The Cook index in MN-08 is R+4, but except for one term in the 112th Congress by Chip Cravaack, it has been a Democratic seat for the last 72 years. Rick Nolan, the Democratic incumbent, retired from Congress to run for lieutenant governor on Lori Swanson’s ill-advised gubernatorial ticket, losing badly in the DFL primary.

RECOMMENDED

The key in MN-08 is Donald Trump’s popularity. He won the district by 15 points too, 54/39, over Hillary Clinton two years ago. Trump also won MN-01 by 15 points with a Cook index of R+5, although Walz just barely hung on to beat Hagedorn by less than a percentage point in 2016. This time around, the DFL doesn’t have the advantage of incumbency, and thanks to the Kavanaugh effect, the advantage of low turnout and enthusiasm among Republicans. His DFL challenger Dan Feehan is trying to counter these currents by running a more local campaign, but with Democrats talking about impeachment and investigations into Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, these races have been nationalized enough that even a reversion to type in MN-01 will likely give Hagedorn at least a narrow margin of victory.

If Republicans pick up both seats, they may only net a gain of one, however, or perhaps even a wash. Another NYT/Siena poll taken in the middle of the Kavanaughcalypse put incumbent Republican Jason Lewis down 12 points to DFL challenger Angie Craig, 51/39, in a rematch from 2016 in MN-02. That one looks more outlier-ish; a Survey USA poll from mid-September only had Craig up three, 48/45. The 2nd CD was a Republican stronghold while John Kline held the seat, but the district has been drifting politically to the DFL for years. More of the state legislative seats in this district have gone to Democrats. Lewis’ long history as a provocative radio talk-show host has given Craig more soundbites, and she’s running heavy in the ad cycles so far in the Twin Cities market. Lewis is far from out of it, but he’s got a tough row to hoe.

Similarly, Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker are sounding warning bells in MN-03, where incumbent Republican Erik Paulsen faces a tough challenge from Dean Phillips. Paulsen’s a more experienced candidate than Lewis, with more of a track record of beating expectations in his suburban district, which has also begun to drift away from the GOP. The NYT/Siena poll that put Phillips up nine was taken in early September, well before the Kavanaugh debacle and the resurgence of Republican enthusiasm. The later Survey USA poll — still before the big shift in enthusiasm — put Phillips up five. Both of these seats are still winnable, but it will take a lot of work.

There is, however, a slight possibility of a third GOP pickup. Dave Hughes is challenging Democratic incumbent Collin Peterson in MN-07, an R+12 district that covers most of western Minnesota and which routinely runs red in presidential races. Trump won by 31 points two years ago, while Peterson beat Hughes by only five. There is no public polling aggregated in this race at RealClearPolitics, perhaps a function of how strongly assumed it is that Peterson will win the race. Hughes believes that the winds are behind his back, and to the extent that the Kavanaughcalypse nationalized House races, he may have a shot.

If the GOP can pull off the trifecta of out-state districts, losing MN-02 won’t sting nearly as badly. More importantly, a net gain of three, two, or even one seat in blue Minnesota will put a big dent in Democrats’ hopes to regain the House majority.

 

 

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/20/can-republicans-flip-two-house-seats-minnesota/