Knowing human nature as they obviously did the Founders provided for two ways to amend the Constitution. Under the provisions of Article V Congress could propose amendments which if ratified by three-fourths of the states would be come part of the Constitution. The second method for amending the Constitution was included by the Founders to insure states had a way to address and correct abuses by Washington through a convention of the states when, as Michigan Law Professor Kauper put it, “they are deeply troubled.”
There is currently a movement to call a Constitutional Convention to address what many perceive as overreach and abuse of the States by the Federal Government on a myriad of issues. This has run into a buzz saw of opposition, mainly by those who call themselves “Conservatives.”
The principle argument used for years by those opposed to a Constitutional Convention is that such a convention would not be limited and could exceed the specific purpose or “call” of the convention by introducing other amendments not germane to the call. But the conclusion of a 1987 report to then Attorney General Edwin Meese titled Limited Constitutional Conventions under Article V of the United States Constitution was that “Article V does permit a limited convention.” The report offered three arguments in support of this conclusion.
First, “Since Congress may limit its attention to single issues…the states also have the constitutional authority to limit a convention to a single issue.”
Second, “The consensus about the need for constitutional change is a prerequisite to initiating the amendment process.”
Third, “History and the practice of both the states and the Congress show a common understanding that the Constitution can be amended issue by issue.”
But what those who fear what they characterize as a potential “runaway convention” forget or ignore is that there is a lengthy process required to ratify any proposed amendment(s).
First of all, there must be a consensus by two-thirds (34) of the states on the subject of the new amendment to be proposed. Each state must, in the words of Article V, submit an “Application” to congress calling for a convention for the specific purpose of “proposing Amendments” the subject of which being clearly spelled out in each state’s Application.
Once this is achieved Congress would send to the states the language of the amendment(s) called for by the states. Each state would then call for a convention to be held to vote on the proposed amendment(s). It is at this point in the process where those who fear a runaway convention assert that the U.S. Constitution could be rewritten. But it is here that their argument falls apart.
First, the call for a convention is based on the subject submitted in the applications of thirty-four states. For any vote of convention delegates to go beyond the subject of the call would render their vote(s) null and void.
Secondly, since ratification of any amendments to the Constitution by conventions in the various states requires a consensus of three fourths (38) of the states it defies all logic to believe that thirty-eight states would ignore the subject of the original Applications made by thirty-four states and agree to rewrite the United States Constitution.
Finally, the last and only time the convention method was used was to add the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, also known as the prohibition amendment. No attempt was made then to rewrite the Constitution – so why now?
In decrying calls for a Constitutional Convention which is authorized under Article V of the United States Constitution, Eagle Forum, the John Birch Society, and the Constitution Party are in point of fact empowering a strong central government at the expense of the states. This is strange considering how often these conservative groups point to the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment when criticizing Washington’s assault on “states’ rights.”
In their wisdom the Founders included in Article V the power of the states to correct abuses by the federal government should they deem it necessary. Those who recognize the purpose of and necessity for calling a federal constitutional convention when warranted should be applauded and supported for their efforts.
Citizenship and ‘Anchor Babies’
By John R. Stoeffler
Illegal aliens apprehended by law enforcement are under the law subject to deportation. On the other hand, a baby born to illegal aliens while on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. But the story shouldn’t, must not end there. Unlike other illegals, parents of these children are normally granted instant residency allowing them to remain anchored in the country. Thus, the genesis for the euphemism “Anchor Babies.” This descriptive term sticks in the craw of many parents of “Anchor Babies” who qualify for a smorgasbord of welfare benefits, including free medical care courtesy of the American taxpayer.
Seeking to address the issue of instant citizenship, legislation was introduced in Congress thirteen years ago that sought to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by denying citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens. Typical of the many proposals that sought to address the issue of “Anchor Babies” was House Joint Resolution 698 introduced in 2005 by then Congressman, now Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal.
HJR 698 sought to forbid citizenship to any child born in the United States unless at least one of the parents is either a citizen or an alien who has been admitted for permanent residence. That same stipulation would also have been applicable to children born out of wedlock.
While many applauded Congressman Deal’s legislation others suggested that it might be unconstitutional. They pointed to what appeared to be the unambiguous language of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment to make their case. The relevant part of that amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”
On the other hand, others point to the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to make the case that the framers clearly provided an exception to what appears to be a carte blanche command.
Writing in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 465 (1999)Charles Wood observes that while the meaning of the Citizenship Clause is not clear on its face, “the clause certainly provides that some persons born in the United States are not citizens, namely those who at birth are not ‘subject to’ the jurisdiction of the Unites States” such as diplomats and foreign ministers of other nations who have legal or factual immunity from local law.In proposing the definition of citizenship for the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 U.S. Sen. Jacob M. Howard, (R-MI), stated that his definition reflected “English common law principles governing birthright citizenship.”
In crafting the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, the framers noted that to be born a British subject, a person had to be born “within the allegiance,” meaning that there was a duty of allegiance, including obedience, on the part of the person born on British soil. Exceptions also included persons born on British soil to diplomats and those “born to a foreign military force occupying the British territory where the birth took place.”
Most relevant to our current situation vis-à-vis illegal aliens is the point made by Mr. Wood wherein he noted that “in the common law the allegiance of the parents were imputed to the child born on the sovereign’s territory.” In other words, if there were no allegiance to the United States by the newborn’s parents, the same would be said of the child. Thus no citizenship would be recognized even if the child was born on American soil. This issue and salient questions pertaining to the illegal aliens and citizenship need to be addressed.Then-Congressman Deal’s legislation should be a model of what needs to be done as the issue of illegal aliens is being debated today. His model legislation should be introduced in the House, be debated, and a vote taken by Congress. If it should pass and later be declared unconstitutional then a constitutional amendment should be pursued until ratification by the states is achieved. The question of citizenship is an integral part of the illegal immigration dilemma facing our nation.
Please note this article is from 2012 and there is a PostScript of acknowledgments at the end of this article that tend to more than suggest the accuracy of a reasonable conclusion: Mitt Romney is a Progressive.
Of course we always have Senator John McCain who, in his actions, both as a Maverick who reaches across the isle, and as the voice of republicans wanting to give more power to the Executive Branch during the reign of Obama, is the epitome of all things Progressive.
But what may have been missed is the willingness of the National Black Chamber of Commerce to now use Progressivism to undo a racial smear they propagated in 2007 against Mitt Romney, in an article titled, Is Mitt Romney a Racist? Fascinating it is when the answer to their question reveals another heinous historical reality when compared to the claims of being a Conservative that have been made by the upstanding Progressive GOP candidate, Willard M. Romney (according to his tax returns) that we all know as Mitt Romney:
I posed this question in an article written back in December 2007. I left it open ended. Lately, now that there is another presidential race going oninterested people are starting to uncover this old article and make it contemporary.This is troubling to me so I guess I should put closure to the whole matter. First, let me answer the question: No, Mitt Romney is not a racist.As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case.The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights,progressive activismand an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people.Emphasis mine, http://www.nationalbcc.org/.
The author opens the next paragraph with Stunned as a question, knowing full well his answer was unexpected. Of course, he gives no link to his 2007 article, where, by asking the question Is Mitt Romney a Racist there is immediate exposure of the necessity of the NBCC to use race as the vehicle to assert itself with any relevance in regard to Mitt Romney, that to have any weight as the National Black Chamber of Commerce, they have a duty to disparage any candidate who isn’t black using the racism question. I do appreciate that the NBCC was direct about it.
Now that there is a Progressive GOP on the ticket, that could be the nominee against Obama, the latter having proven to be a bit too big for his britches, as black unemployment is twice the national average, the NBCC must make sure to correct the claim of racism they created in smearing Romney back in 2007:
Early life was rugged for the senior Romney but it instilled in him a strong work ethic. He passed that along to his children including Willard Mitt Romney whom we all know today. George Romney eventually started working for Alcoa Aluminum and the Aluminum Wares Association as a lobbyist and, thus,his political career was about to take off. He was also a genius business executive and would rise to the CEO position of American Motors. When Mitt was born in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan in 1941, George had gone up the ladder and would gain wealth that would be passed onto to his children and their families.
George joined the Republican Party and let it be known to all that he was a proponent of civil rights and would fight for equal opportunity especially for the Negro. He soon became Governor of the state of Michigan and he used his authority to help integrate the state. He demanded new, integrated subdivisions to be built near new auto plants like the Ford Willow Run facility so that Blacks could easily access the jobs that were provided. In 1963 he stated, It was only after I got to Detroit that I got to know Negroes and began to be able to evaluate them and I began to recognize that some Negroes are better and more capable than lots of whites. Michigan’s most urgent human rights problem is racial discrimination in housing, public accommodations, education, administration of justice, and employment. He thus created the states first civil rights commission.
George not only supported Dr. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement he actively cheered it on. When the Selma to Montgomery March went down, he organized a solidarity marchin Detroit to show his belief in the values being preached. Keep in mind, he was Governor of the State. People noticed and on his last re-election as Governor he won over 30 percent of the Black vote. He stood tall for justice. When Barry Goldwater ran for President on the Republican ticket in 1964, George refused to support him as the candidate was opposed to the Civil Rights Act.
During all of this advocacy, his son, Mitt, was evolving as a man. He idolized his father and emulated his legacy. Mitt Romney lived amongst Blacks in metropolitan Detroit. He went to the prestigious Cranbrook School. One of our board members, Claude McDougal, is a fellow alumnus of the school.
Perhaps the greatest thing Mitts father did as an example to his son came in 1969. He became Secretary of HUD (Nixon Administration) and he quickly implemented Section 3 of the HUD Act (Equal Opportunity and Employment Program). It gave President Nixon fits but he did it successfully and it stands today.
Let me close with a quote from Mitt that shows the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree: I do not support quotas in hiring, government contracting, school admissions or the like. I believe our nation is at its best when people are evaluated as individuals. I do support encouraging inclusiveness and diversity, and I encourage the disclosure of the numbers of women and minorities in top positions of companies and governmentnot to impose a quota, but to shine light on the situation. We should always strive for the broadest representation of people, from all walks of life, at all levels of our companies, schools, and government. Hmmm, sounds like a plan. — Emphasis mine, Ibid.
Now, it’s important to note that the Republicans had passed the 1957 Civil Rights act (Scroll to 1957 here)http://www.gop.com/index.php/issues/accomplishment/, so the emphasis in this article is to set forth that this idea of Civil Rights, as embraced by the NBCC, that paints republicans in a negative light, suggests that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the only one that matters, theCivil Rights act, as though there is only one. This appears to be to spin and couch this article about Romney in a positive light, to lay out Romney’s electability in light of his father’s Progressivism, and that Civil Rights activism is part of the Progressive plan for all the envisioned Utopian right reasons. Though I will not go into this in depth, I’ll just say that the net effect of destroying States’ Rights and eradicating any meaning to the 10th Amendment, is the meaning of Civil Rights as set forth by the NBCC as they entirely ignore the first Civil Rights Act since Reconstruction, the one the Republicans passed in 1957, signed into law by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, and all despite Strom Thurmond’s actions, a democrat who ran on the segregationist States Rights Democrat Ticket, known as Dixiecrat, completing the longest filibuster in American History, at least this is what’s in wikipedia on this January 28, 2012, and happens to be accurate,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957and
So then, George Romney, Willard M. Romney’s father, was Progressively ignoring the facts of history, the reality of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, when he, George Romney, let it be known to all that he was a proponent of civil rights and would fight for equal opportunity especially for the ‘Negro,’ after Eisenhower, in 1955, had to call in the National Guard to protect 9 school children who were attempting to integrate into a public school, George Romney was exercising the very mind of the typical Progressive: assuming the beginning of something the moment he begin to think about it, ignoring and not caring to even look at history and learn how many others took much bolder and revolutionary steps in the direction of Freedom, while upholding their servitude in government to the People.
This does explain the Progressive narrative well, that the narrative above, as expressed by the NBCC, is 100% accurate from the Progressive state of mind that Civil Rights, packaged as a form of rights of the Individual that government must be used to assert and secure, is inseparable from the Progressive movement. Progressivism ignores the fact that Civil Rights has been a government means, a government created legal fiction, solely intended to address the correction of the institution of a worldwide cultural wrong slavery. To illustrate the Progressive meaning of this term so closely with Mitt Romney, as a certain and unbroken family tie, is the whole point made by the NBCC author in establishing that Mitt Romney is a Progressive by his very upbringing. To the Progressive, the Civil Rights aspect of this is merely the Public Relations tool to accomplish the real Progressive goal of marginalizing force and effect of Our Written Constitution and its protection of States’ Rights in the interest of protecting Individual Liberty.
You read right, Mitt Romney’s father was a lobbyist… And he said he has no lobbyists in his cabinet… Pretty impossible when Romney’s memories of his father are also the memories of a lobbyist.
Now, remember also, Romneycare was the basis of Obamacare for a reason, a means of testament to a Republican Progressive Activist, George Romney, who, as the NBCC article shows, is of paramount influence upon his son Willard Mitt Romney.
It is also important to never forget, in this healthcare connection, that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are the only two people who have actually signed into law an individual mandate, compelling each American (in the State of Massachusetts, in Romney’s case) to act according to the dictates of government, and, by their signing of these bills, admitting a complete and blatant disregard for Our Written Constitution. This is a complete abandonment of the purpose of the Constitution, Our Founders’ intention to protect Individual Liberty via a charter of negative liberties, a charter creating an institution within particular limits, limitations imposed by the mere act of enumeration (Article I, Section 8), by conditional expressions (Article 6, Clause 2) that, when the conditions are met, authorize a specific, and not general, use of a particular power. (see here).
I’ll make an effort to help the NBCC author with this video:
Willard Mitt Romney is the Progressive Establishment GOP candidate, even to the point the same National Black Chamber of Commerce, who would use the race card by merely asking if he’s racist in 2007, now, deciding after the effective purpose of their previous article is no longer required, to answer the racist question against Romney with a no, in order to assure Progressives that Willard Mitt Romney is one of them, Let me close with a quote from Mitt that shows the fruit doesnt fall far from the tree…
Mitt-igating America, the principles of Our Founding Fathers in establishing this nation, is what those promoting the Progressive Establishment GOP line that Romney is electable are accomplishing. Theirs is to sacrifice our nation to Progressivism and a single Progressive party, whether these people know it or not the Progressives do not care, so long as they win from either party, it’s all the same to them, literally.
The Soros Open Society Foundations of Romania lawsuit was filed after State and USAID failed to substantively respond to an October 16, 2017, FOIA request seeking among other records:
• All records relating to any contracts, grants or other allocations/disbursements of funds by the State Department to the Open Society Foundation – Romania and/or its personnel and/or any OSFR subsidiary or affiliate.
• All assessments, evaluations, reports or similar records relating to the work of Open Society Foundation – Romania and/or its subsidiaries or affiliated organizations.
The Soros Open Society Foundations of Colombia lawsuit was filed after State failed to respond to an October 23, 2017, FOIA request seeking among other records:
• All records regarding any contracts, grants or other allocations/disbursements of funds by the State Department to the Open Society Foundation – Colombia and/or any OSF subsidiaries/affiliates, and/or OSF personnel operating in Colombia, as well as the following entities: Fundacion Ideas para la Paz; La Silla Vacia; DeJusticia; Corporacion Nuevo Arco Iris; Paz y Reconciliacion; Global Drug Policy Program; and news portal Las Dos Orillas.
• All records of communication, whether by e-mails, text messages, or instant chats, between any officials, employees or representatives of the State Department in Colombia, including Ambassador Kevin Whitaker and any officials, employees or representatives of the Open Society Foundation, its subsidiaries/affiliates, and/or those entities identified in the first bullet.
In February 2017, Laura Silber of Open Society Foundations reportedly condemned “illiberal governments” in the Balkans, such as Macedonia, Albania and Romania, for working against the Soros NGOs. In Romania, in March 2017, the leader of the governing party reportedly charged that the Soros foundations “that he has funded since 1990 have financed evil.”
Soros’ NGOs in Colombia are reportedly receiving millions from USAID:
Verdad Abierta, a web-based portal created by Teresa Ronderos, director of the Open Society Program on Independent Journalism, boasts on its website that it receives support from USAID. Abierta has helped rewrite Colombia’s history, elevating terrorists to the same level as the legitimate police and military forces, and rebranding decades of massacres, kidnappings, child soldiering, and drug trafficking by a criminal syndicate as simply “50 years of armed conflict.”
Fundacion Ideas para la Paz, once led by peace negotiator Sergio Jaramillo, now a member of the oversight “junta,” is funded by the Open Society Foundations and has received more than $200,000 in U.S. tax dollars.
The left-wing news portal La Silla Vacia, another Open Society initiative, also boasts of being a USAID grantee. Its columnist, Rodrigo Uprimny, whose NGO DeJusticia also partners with USAID and Open Society, is considered one of the architects of the peace deal.
Former National Liberation Army terrorist Leon Valencia—Open Society collaborator and grantee—has received at least $1,000,000 in USAID funding through his NGOs Corporacion Nuevo Arco Iris and Paz y Reconciliacion, and left-wing news portal Las Dos Orillas, which he co-founded.
In 2016, Soros’ Open Society Foundations gave more than $3.3 million to organizations operating in Colombia. Several of those organizations have also been financially supported by the United States government, having received more than $5 million from the Department of State, USAID, and the Inter-American Foundation (a federal agency) in recent years. One of the Soros-funded entities, an LGBT advocacy organization, was also selected by the Inter-American Foundation as a partner organization in its Colombia peace project initiative.
“It is time for Americans to be allowed to see State Department documentation regarding the public funding of Soros’ Open Society Foundations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The billionaire George Soros needs zero assistance from taxpayers to promote his far-left agenda abroad.”
Judicial Watch now has four FOIA lawsuits relating to the Obama administration’s funding for Soros’ operations. Judicial Watch is pursuing information about Soros’ activities in Macedonia and Albania, as well. The former Prime Minister of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski reportedly called for a “de-Sorosization” of society. In February 2017, Judicial Watch reported that the U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia in collusion with George Soros.
In a March 2017, letter to Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, six U.S. Senators (Sens. Lee (R-UT), Inhofe (R-OK), Tillis (R-NC), Cruz (R-TX), Perdue (R-GA) and Cassidy (R-LA)) called on the secretary to investigate the relations between USAID and the Soros Foundations and how U.S. tax dollars are being used by the State Department and the USAID to support left-of-center political groups who seek to impose left-leaning policies in countries such as Macedonia and Albania.
George Everett Day who, from what I can find, appears to have been a POW with Senator John McCain, was a lawyer and brought this case in the FDCNDF, but it appears because he is a Veteran too, his capacity as a lawyer was denied.
Maybe I speak jaded, maybe the notion that our nation has made commitments to soldiers, and even spread that around as a reason to join the military, that you can get free healthcare for life, as was promised to William O. Schism and Robert Reinlie, Plaintiffs, as well as other Veterans before and after these men served 20+ years in the military. But it the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a twelve judge panel sitting en banc, affirmed the opinion of the FDCNDF.
One would think the United States Supreme Court would hear this case, would want to settle this issue once and for all. Again, Congress, President, and United States Supreme Court are created by the Constitution. Veterans take an Oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States” just like the members serving in each branch of government. But no! No! No! No! SCOTUS denies certiorari (search “02-1226” or “schism” here), you’ll note a grant of substitution of Schism’s wife noting “plaintiff is deceased” as SCOTUS then denies the writ of certiorari (writ of review). Apparently, there is no immunity by any of the branches of our government to be so elitist as to not hear a case brought by a Veteran where his wife, to keep the case alive and moving forward, thought it important enough to apply for substitution so SCOTUS would review the case.
I am being too hard on the government you say? I mean they did provide Tricare, right? A system that Veterans have to PAY FOR, I mean, what’s more FREE than that right?
But, you see, the problem isn’t that government can’t afford it, or the cost etc. No matter what our budgets, there are 1700 VA hospitals, buildings standing with people inside to give care, and we’re already paying for them before the patient even comes into the building.
No, the problem is that our government has lost the fundamental understanding of the relationship here.
Governments go to war, and when the US Government ends up in war the sons and daughters of the American People are asked to defend their country. They were once drafted, but nonetheless the horrors of war, be they called “shell-shocked” to “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder” with or without the physical ails of loss, of limbs or friend(s), the scars are deep, are permanent, build character and/or suicide. The government who may have already asked us to serve will then ask our children, will make a “deal” a commitment to the person who is volunteering or enlisting for their own purposes. But in all cases the recruited to serve is doing the government a favor, is making a sacrifice of themselves, maybe on behalf of the family, or to the cause of their love for others, be they family, friends and/or merely their fellow Americans.
We owe them the bare minimum of free healthcare for life. No, the above paragraph isn’t an “eligibility statement.” It is a statement separate out what it appears the Welfare budget folks since President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society have mistakenly done, maybe in their zeal of hatred for the Vietnam War, a hatred that appears to persist into the modern day.
Veterans generally aren’t down and out folks looking for a handout (sure some are but maybe it’s because our system pools them together as though they are too, treats them the same or worse than others just looking for a handout). Veterans what was promised to them. Americans, all of us, we need to give them that and more. No matter how hard you’ve worked, nor how long, nor how much you’ve set aside for retirement, nor any of the rest of the plans you have for your life, they have no value whatsoever if America falls. Our Veterans were the soldiers who assured the future, which is the very present you live in right now! These people deserve our utmost gift for they made their utmost gift, their lives, available to our government in service to us!
Agree with the wars or not, our Veterans have secured this nation irrespective of our politicians, irrespective of political parties and ideologies. Our Veterans suffer merely being on Active Duty at any time during the duration of their service, whatever period of time that may be.
You may ask why this is so important to me, well, here’s a quote to a friend of mine who, by no fault of their own, had their “copay” end up in a collection. The quote is from a letter in response to Congressman Gosar of Arizona who my friend went to for help with relief from the United States Treasury collecting on his Veteran’s Administration debt which he had made timely payments on:
“…On November 14, 2017, he contacted us again with demands for refund of the 28% collection fees charged….”
A 28% fee is charged to our Veterans to collect their “copay.” In my friend’s case, the Veterans Administration failed to send a bill which led to him having to contact them and they immediately wanted a payment, which he paid. Nonetheless, his bill went to the US Treasury for this 28% fee, an amount instantly charged!
Congress passes a law effective immediately that all Veterans receive 100% free healthcare for life, period!
Congress amends the tax code and the IRS issues regulations that make a simple checkbox “Veteran” that verified against the 1040 Income Tax Form Filer instantly makes their wife’s income no longer a factor in determining the Veteran’s eligibility for their 100% free healthcare benefits.
Consider how many regulations will be wiped out, and how much intrusion and exploitation of our Veterans by myriad Federal and State government agencies will be wiped out by these two simple acts that should have been done a long time ago.
Consider how this mistreatment of Veterans, assuring them a part of the Welfare Budget, has violated their right to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve for being available to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Let’s call it the Schism-Day Free Veteran Healthcare Act, in honor of William O. Schism the Plaintiff in the original case, and George Everette Day, the former POW who brought the Schism case.
It’s high time this nation who has given billions, even trillions of dollars throughout the rest of the world takes care of our Veterans who make that possible.
God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this. I urge you to do all you can to get this to President Donald J. Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Veterans Administration Head David Shulkin, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for our Veterans.
The blacks in America have a terrible history. Coming here as slaves in the early 17th century and remaining largely in that state until the mid 19th century. Slavery was followed by a century of oppressive segregation which didn’t end till the middle of the twentieth century.
However, the Irish American experience, which grows out of a general multi century religious persecution in Ireland, is also terrible. These Irish began to come under persecution in the 16th century when Henry VIII invaded and began to subject the indigenous Catholic population to persecution. His daughter Elizabeth I continued in her father’s footsteps as did Cromwell during the long Parliament. The Catholics rebelled periodically and were crushed again and again. England wanted land for its growing aristocracy and Catholic lands in Ireland were available. All that was needed to get the land was to subjugate the Irish and throw them off their lands.
The Irish became more and more dependent on the potato until in the 1840 a potato plight began wiping out their one life sustaining staple. This triggered massive emigration, over two decades, to the US on rickety sailing vessels (many of which sank in transit). Luckily many got to America and where they began by living in slums in North Eastern coastal cities where they experience profound discrimination.
Then the Civil War started and the draft included an opt-out provision where richer men could pay poor men to take their place. Needless to say a disproportionate number poor Irish men ended up fighting to end a slavery they had nothing to with. In this War which was conducted in a way that assured a maximum of casualties, Irish men suffered disproportionately.
After the War the discrimination against Catholics, in general and the Irish in particular, continued. Although the Irish, following the war, were now more widely spread across the country. They found more ways to use their natural skills to move ahead. Their religion began slowly to gain acceptance in Protestant America, and by the mid 20th century a Catholic was elected President.
The blacks emerged from the period of segregation with more disadvantages than the Irish Catholics had from their period of discrimination. The greatest advantage the Irish had was a religion that almost required learning to read (i.e. the services were conducted in Latin so Catholics had to read translations of the scripture readings and words of the Mass). Their religion has a deep attachment to history because Catholics have to understand the lives of the saints, the ways Catholics spread Christianity around the world and how Christianity was defended against Islam’s invasions by Catholics. The importance of the liturgy, the saints and history has stimulated Catholics to become good readers and thus to develop skills useful in the world at large
Black Americans have generally adopted a simplified Christianity religion that focuses on singing and emotion.
So it is apparent that both Irish Americans and African Americans have had a hard go. The British wanted to either starve the Catholic Irish to death or induce them to leave; the potato famine played into the British hands because it served both these ends. The slave holders felt slaves were property that they needed for field labor. They might have preferred to starve the slaves to death but their need for labor forced them to feed and care for the slaves at least enough to keep them functioning. So the slaves got some attention from their owners while the Catholic Irish, though they have had some legal freedom, were presented with few good options. …..(prepared by Hugh Murray on 3/3/2018)
The deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) immigration brouhaha is about to hit its peak.
Congressional Democrats and some Republicans are willing – eager, in fact – to shut down the federal government if 750,000 illegal immigrants don’t get an amnesty that will grant them lifetime work authorization, Social Security numbers and other affirmative benefits.
A government shutdown inconveniencing thousands, however briefly, on behalf of a small contingent of illegal aliens is preposterous. The shutdown threat is tantamount to a holdup with illegal immigrants reaping the ill-gotten gains.
The federal government is funded through December 8. But unless the new budget includes amnesties for not only DACAs but also DREAMers, two different categories, the Democrats vow in unison not to vote for a new spending bill. Democratic leadership, Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, and House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi are adamant.
House Speaker Paul Ryan, usually an amnesty advocate, tried to inject a modicum of common sense into the Republicans versus Democrats wrangling when he noted that DACA already has a deadline, the cutoff President Trump imposed when he gave Congress until March 5 to come up with a legislative solution.
DEMOCRATS SETTING THEMSELVES UP FOR A FALL
Making the Democrats’ position more untenable, at least in the public eye, is that they appear unwilling to make the slightest compromise to get what they claim to want so urgently. If a DACA amnesty is paramount, then they should offer in exchange to cut chain migration, eliminate the lottery visa or mandate E-Verify. No dice – the Democrats insist on a clean amnesty.
While much ado is made about the potential electoral disaster that awaits the GOP unless they get on board with amnesty, the Democrats’ hardline may be more hurtful to their party, a party no longer willing to identify illegal immigration as a grave concern to most Americans.
Even though President Trump campaigned and won on tougher border enforcement, and tighter interior enforcement, Democrats have moved further left on immigration – so far left that Pelosi hailed mothers who defied the law to bring their children to the U.S. as having done “a great thing.” Statements like Pelosi’s may resonate in her home state of California, but in the heartland, they provide evidence of how extreme Democrats are on immigration.
Here’s an interesting takeaway from ultra-immigration advocate and CNN correspondentFareed Zakaria about the immigration tightrope Democrats are walking. Zakaria analyzed the Democracy Fund’s survey done after the 2016 election and focused on Obama 2012 voters, as well as Clinton and Trump 2016 voters. The biggest policy divergence among the candidates was immigration. Many Americans who are otherwise sympathetic to Democrats’ ideas think that, on immigration, the party is out of touch.
Fareed concluded that Democratic immigration skeptics “are right,” and pointed to compelling facts. Legal immigration has expanded over the last four decades. In 1970, 4.7 percent of the American population was foreign-born. Today it’s 13.4 percent. The large shift in a short period causes anxiety among voters.
With less than a year until the 2018 mid-terms, it is surely in the best interests of pro-amnesty incumbents to stop talking to each other in a Big Government echo chamber and to start listening to voters.
Here’s how the Dream Act/DACA amnesty struggle shapes up as of today…
Each side wants something, and has vowed to remain steadfast on demands. But as is always the case with immigration legislation, there are three sides, not two. There are traditional, conservative anti-amnesty Republicans, passionate Republican immigration advocates, and liberal Democrats, united behind amnesty and in opposition to all things President Trump.
Twenty years ago, a congressional faction called the Blue Dog Coalition had 27 conservative Democratic members that, if it were still in existence, President Trump might be able to count on. But the Blue Dogs slowly faded as a force, and, on immigration, Democrats solidly favor amnesty.
The Democrats want amnesty for the so-called Dreamers, and also for the DACAs, two distinctly separate groups that the media will often conflate. A Dreamer amnesty would grant about 3.6 million aliens lifetime employment authorization, Social Security numbers, and eventual citizenship. About 700,000 DACAs would receive the same benefits.
Moreover, every year, one million legal immigrants enter the U.S. and become immediately work authorized. The complete immigrant worker tally is into the millions, and also includes illegal immigrants, temporary guest workers and blue collar employment-based visa holders like H-1B.
For the tens of millions under-employed, unemployed and the four million newly graduated young Americans hoping to get a decent job, the prospect of adding through amnesty more than five million new potential workers into a slack labor market makes their challenges harder to overcome. More jobs competition is the last thing struggling Americans need.
Worse, the resultant chain migration from either or both amenities would bring millions of the new immigrants’ relatives to the U.S., all work authorized. On average, each new legally arrived immigrant petitions 3.4 family members to come to America.
Conservative Republicans want a pro-America immigration package that is best represented in a new bill that Virginia U.S. Rep. Dave Brat recently introduced. Called the three-in-one billbecause it draws from three previously introduced bills, Brat’s legislation would, first, mandate American job-protecting E-Verify. Second, it would end the lottery visa whose fatal flaws were exposed when it became known after the October New York terrorist attack which left eight dead that Uzbekistan national Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov had entered on that visa. Third, it would end chain migration.
When polled on whether they would like more immigration, and an expanded labor market that has depressed wages for decades, or immigration reductions that help U.S. workers, Americans even in traditionally blue states overwhelmingly chose less immigration. Honest polling taken on the importance likely voters put on passing a DACA amnesty shows dramatically declining support.
The rub is that big business, the Capitol Hill lobbies and Wall Street love amnesty. Collectively, they wield more influence than citizens. But President Trump holds the veto hammer. The question is, as it always is with President Trump, what will he do next?
On Laura Ingraham’s new Fox News show, the Ingraham Angle, President Trump said repeatedly that any amnesty bill that reaches his desk “must have” an end to chain migration. The way things are shaping up in Congress, however, the bill President Trump gets might have amnesty, but without the Republicans’ conditions.
President Trump may veto an amnesty bill or he may waffle, sign and, as he did with his pledge to end DACA on Day One, disappoint millions of his supporters.
The so-called Trump Dossier, financed by the Hillary campaign and provided by the KGB through a former British intelligence agent, has fizzled out. It has been supplanted by the Moore Dossier, concocted by Washington Post reporters working for their billionaire owner, P.T Barnum-like Jeff Bezos. This variation of the ploy, with a new target, seems to have legs. Many Republicans and conservatives are falling for it.
But is there really any reason to believe the Moore Dossier has any more validity than the Trump Dossier?
A big red flag appeared when feminist attorney Gloria Allred raised her head in the Roy Moore case. Suddenly another accuser surfaces, under suspicious circumstances, and even “conservative” Republicans are running for the hills. It stinks.
Why do the liberals need the Southern Poverty Law Center when Republicans will pin “guilty as charged” labels on conservatives?
Look at Colorado Republican Senator Cory Gardner and the rest. Senate Republicans are so scared of being charged with a “war on women” that they have decided to wage war, with no moral or legal basis, on the GOP Senate candidate in Alabama. They deny him due process and have accepted unverified claims of sexual harassment against him. Some are threatening to expel him from the Senate if he wins.
No wonder these Senators can’t get anything done. They are too busy posing for the cameras and looking politically correct. Why don’t they just put on dresses and pretend to be feminists? Perhaps this will win them the transgender vote.
The Washington Post, the source of the charges, is a partisan Democratic paper which thinks billionaire hedge fund operator and Democratic Party money bags George Soros is a blessing for America. It said so in an editorial. Yet this paper is dictating what Republicans should be saying and doing in the Moore case.
The Post hates morality and traditional values. Its religion columnist, Washington insider and party giver Sally Quinn, believed in the occult and admits casting hexes on her enemies.
The Washington Post once published a Pulitzer Prize-winning story about a child heroin addict that turned out to be a total lie. Google the name “Janet Cooke.” Her editor was Watergate reporter Bob Woodward. Perhaps she used a Ouija board to write her stories.
Referring to the Post’s initial story, legal expert and commentator Gualberto Garcia Jones says, “The obvious question is who informed The Washington Post of the allegations? And who located the women and put them in touch with Washington Post reporters?” He adds, “It is simply impossible to believe that their simultaneous allegations happened organically after nearly 40 years of silence.”
The follow-up accusations, fed to the media by Gloria Allred, make the whole thing even more questionable.
Garcia Jones writes, “The Washington Post’s political motivations to destroy the reputation of Judge Roy Moore are evident and the tactics used against him uncannily resemble those used against President Donald Trump. A month before the presidential election of 2016, The Washington Post published accusations of sexual misconduct against candidate Donald Trump while endorsing his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.”
Yes, indeed, why not probe the motives of the paper that helped usher Barack Hussein Obama into the presidency and has been working to destroy the Trump presidency? The Post had endorsed Moore’s opponent while working on the hit piece against Moore. The same modus operandi was evident in the Trump case.
It didn’t work with Trump but it looks like it could work with Moore. Which means that if they destroy Moore, they will return to undermining Trump, probably with new sex charges. Or perhaps they will try something else. The new Janet Cookes at the paper are probably working on that right now.
We’re heard the mantra about frightened women scared to take on a powerful man with sex charges. But Moore has been powerful for decades in Alabama. Only now they decide to come forward, when Moore is leading in the polls and about to become a Senator on the national stage?
What’s surprising is the reaction of Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, whose father was charged with being involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. Cruz says, in the case of Roy Moore, that “as long as these allegations remain unrefuted,” Cruz is “not able to urge the people of Alabama to support his candidacy.” How does one refute charges from decades ago, for which there is no evidence in the first place? You would think Cruz would have more sympathy for Moore, considering that Cruz’s father was unfairly targeted with the JFK allegations. How is Moore supposed to “refute” the charges against him? Go back in time in a time machine to take pictures?
Cruz, a lawyer, says Moore “needs to come forward with strong, persuasive rebuttal demonstrating” that the charges are untrue. I am not a lawyer, but since when does the accused have to prove his innocence about charges from decades ago concerning his dating habits? I thought the burden of proof was on the accusers.
Do Moore’s accusers have anything other than a signature on a high school yearbook? So far, they rely on claims, accusations, and charges. These are easy to make. Tears can be faked. All of this is supposed to carry more weight than his decades of service to the cause of traditional values and God-given rights?
Garcia Jones says, “It should come as no surprise that people like the editors of National Review and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would publicly convict Judge Roy Moore in less than 12 hours solely on one article published by a politically partisan publication.”
True. It’s no surprise. These are cowardly “conservatives” and Republicans. In McConnell’s case, he’s actually an enemy of Moore, having supported one of his Republican opponents in the primary race.
Why does McConnell fear Moore? As Garcia Jones told me in a phone interview, Moore is a doer, not just a talker. Moore actually gets things done. Because of that, he has made real enemies, such as those in the Southern Poverty Law Center. Moore can be expected to actually force conservatives in the Senate to do something about the issues we face as a nation. He will embarrass McConnell & Company.
Moore would be more than justified, if he wins the Senate seat in the face of this bipartisan assault, to go to Washington and fight to get his reputation back. Let Moore challenge his accusers, in and out of the liberal media and the Republican Party, to produce the evidence against him. Let’s get to the bottom of this.
11/15/17 – Latest Update…
IT’S A FAKE! Analyst Says Judge Roy Moore Signature Inside Gloria Allred Accuser’s Yearbook Was FORGED https://t.co/hqTyG7hqNN
AP News recently cited this aforementioned BBC article and the DM attached above in its recent report from November 2017. That report noted that Guccifer 2.0 in the DM was thrilled that WikiLeaks had finally followed through, quoting Guccifer 2.0 as saying that “Together with Assange we’ll make america great again.”
The AP News article also notably made the following claim: “But there were signs of dishonesty from the start. The first document Guccifer 2.0 published on June 15 came not from the DNC as advertised but from Podesta’s inbox , according to a former DNC official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press.
A newly discovered report from the firm that was hired by the DNC to investigate the DNC breach says that the hackers were looking for information that would hurt Donald Trump and other GOP candidates. The report says:
“Based on the data exfiltrated from the DNC, one of FANCY BEAR’s goals appears to have been to collect opposition research the DNC’s research staff had gathered on President Elect (then Republican primary candidate) Donald Trump and other Republican (GOP) presidential candidates.” (page 11).
According to the Crowdstrike, Fancy Bear is the alleged hacking entity that stole data from the DNC and leaked it to Wikileaks. Crowdstrike’s findings have been used by the DNC and the US Intelligence Community to claim that Russian was involved in the election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. The newly revealed information appears to contradict that narrative by showing Fancy Bear was allegedly helping Clinton by hurting Trump and the GOP.
According to Palo Alto Networks, a spear fishing attack on May 26, 2016 “to a U.S. government entity” was successful, while Crowdstrike says the virus was in the DNC system in April 2016. The attack was allegedly passed on to targets through infected RTF files. Crowdstrike appears to contradict the report of Palo Alto Networks on the timeline of when the DNC was breached.
Roger Stone, having just testified before a closed-door meeting before Congress regarding the DNC security breach on September 26, is claiming that Congressman Schiff and Speier told him at the hearing that the DNC did, in fact, give over its server to the FBI. This contradicts James Comey’s testimony, when he stated that the DNC never handed over the server for investigation.
“The most interesting about the hearing was that, in my statement, I strongly asserted my suspicion that the Russians never hacked the DNC and, of course, one of the central arguments, to that effect, is that the DNC refused to turn over their computer servers to the FBI, instead having it inspected by CrowdStrike, a forensic IT firm controlled directly and paid by the DNC. When I said that, Congresswoman Speier from California corrected me and told me that the DNC servers had been turned over to the FBI, and then Congressman Schiff essentially confirmed that, after which, Trey Gowdy said, ‘wait a minute, James Comey came before this committee, secretary Johnson came before this committee, and testified under oath that the servers were not turned over to the FBI, so what are you talking about?’ Schiff tried to change the subject and said, ‘well, we’ve got a lot of information that we learned during the recess and maybe we should talk about this privately.’ Gowdy seemed furious and stormed out of the hearing, so somebody’s lying.”
The question is, did the DNC turn over its server during the summer recess?
The Washington Post article, “National Security Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump” from June 14, 2016, states that the hacking group known as Fancy Bear “broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said.” The article then states that “The DNC said that no financial, donor or personal information appears to have been accessed or taken, suggesting that the breach was traditional espionage, not the work of criminal hackers.” The article continues, quoting DNC lawyer Michael Sussman of the Perkins Coie firm: “But at this time, it appears that no financial information or sensitive employee, donor or voter information was accessed by the Russian attackers,” he said.
However, in the subsequent article the following day, June 15, entitled “‘Guccifer 2.0’ claims credit for DNC hack“, the Washington Post reports that Guccifer 2.0 posted to a website some of the allegedly stolen documents. They included a file titled “Donald Trump Report,” dated Dec. 19, 2015, and a list of what was purported to be million-dollar-plus donors to the Democratic Party.”
Questions the DNC must answer are, 1) Why did the DNC say that only two opposition research files were taken, and not donor information, when Guccifer 2.0 did indeed take both the opposition files and the donor files? 2) Why did Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research files, when those files could prove to be harmful to Donald Trump, if he was indeed a hacker on a mission to elect Donald Trump? 3) Did the DNC collude with Guccifer 2.0 in directing him to release the opposition research files? 4) Why did Guccifer 2.0 continue to release opposition research files, when he later released an archive of Sarah Palin’s Twitter messages on July 14, and the first page of the Trump Foundation’s income tax form and the Trump financial report on October 18, if he had already proven that he had hacked the DNC? and 5) What specific part of the software Crowdstrike used to analyze the DNC server would show that only two files were taken, when presumably hackers were in the DNC system for weeks on end?
If the answer is that the DNC or Crowdstrike did not have full visibility into the scale of intrusions on their security infrastructure, is it a coincidence that the only files the DNC or Crowdstrike thought were missing at the time were the two opposition research files, which if released would be damaging only to Trump and not Clinton, and that Guccifer the next day did indeed release those two opposition research files that are harmful to Trump but not Clinton? Those two files were entitled “Donald Trump Report” and “2016 GOP presidential candidates” in the releases. Are these opposition files that Guccifer 2.0 released the same ones that the DNC is referring to, or was Guccifer 2.0 holding on to even more harmful information, and released the Trump report and GOP report to deflect from it? All of the information from the Trump report comes from public sources. On the other hand, why would Guccifer 2.0 release the opposition research if he was supposed to be helping Donald Trump, if he could prove that he has hacked the DNC by sharing any of the 38 other files he subsequently leaked in later months?
President Trump’s 9.19.17 speech at the UN was powerfully clear – the three foundational missions of the United Nations are the three foundational missions of the United States and every member nation: to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.
Sovereignty security and prosperity are the three pillars that support world peace. The United Nation’s stated mission relies on the nationalism of cooperating sovereign nation states to preserve security, promote prosperity, and make the world a safer place. Here is the problem. Globalism is antithetical to nationalism.President Trump is surrounded by globalist advisors and the United Nations has become an advocate of globalism.
Globalism is antithetical to sovereignty – it is a contradiction in terms. The globalist goal is to internationalize sovereign nation states and bring them into a new world order of one-world government without defined national boundaries, without distinct cultures, and without national armies. The globalist goal is one-world order ruled by one-world government enforced by one-world army. In other words, the sovereignty, security, and prosperity advanced by President Donald Trump is diametrically opposed to the globalist objectives of world leaders who embrace globalism and to the globalist objectives of the inner circle who are now advising President Trump.
President Trump’s UN speech presented his theory of world cooperation but what about the practice?
The acknowledgement of “other” is the beginning of ethical living. When a child recognizes that he/she is a separate self it marks the beginning of that child’s ability to interact cooperatively with others. As long as the child remains completely self-absorbed he will be unable to play amicably. Self-absorption is the center of tyranny and the core of intolerance. White supremacists, black supremacists, Islamic supremacists all share an infantile attitude of complete self-absorption. There is no “other” that is equal to self – there is only self.
Every parent knows it is impossible to have a rational conversation with a screaming out-of-control emotional two year old. The child is completely self-absorbed and totally intolerant. The child is a supremacist. Cooperation whether among individuals or sovereign countries requires the acknowledgement of “other.” If sovereign countries are going to cooperate they must first acknowledge the legitimate existence of other sovereign nations. Tolerance and cooperation among nations begins with the acknowledgement of “other.”
Supremacists are the epitome of infantile intolerance. There is no “other” as equal to self for white supremacists, black supremacists, or Islamic supremacists. Tolerance is an adult ideal because it requires the emotionally developed ability to acknowledge and accept other that is absent in infants and young children. Democracy is an adult construct. Democracy requires the individual to acknowledge and accept “other” as equal to self. Democracy supports freedom and tolerance.
Supremacist systems demand conformity or conquest. The Leftist movement in America is a supremacist system that demands conformity to its political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. The Islamist movement in America is a supremacist system that demands submission to its intolerant sharia law. Obama’s Leftist/Islamist axis supports his ongoing “resistance” movement designed to topple President Trump’s government and America’s democratic system.
Obama is directing an insidious insurrection from the bowels of his fortified compound in Washington designed to destroy the presidency of President Donald Trump. Obama’s leftovers are pursuing Obama’s Leftist policies in concert with his Muslim Brotherhood operatives still actively undermining any serious effort to protect America. Lawfare is being waged against President Trump by Obama’s activist judges and their unlawful sanctuary city supporters.
The anti-Amerrican, anti-Semitic, pro-Muslim presidency of Barack Obama and his continuing “resistance” movement is a campaign designed to destroy American democracy from within. Obama is a left-wing radical pro-Muslim puppet of the globalist elite. He was hand picked for his Leftist/Islamist politics to bring down America. Obama is far too arrogant to realize that he and the left-wing liberal lemmings who follow him are useful idiots in a far grander plan. The globalist elite are determined to socialize and then internationalize the world under their exclusive control. Any young person foolish enough to believe that Obama’s lawlessness will benefit them in the long-run is not a student of history. History teaches us that tyranny begets tyranny.
President Donald Trump’s vision of cooperating sovereign nations is being opposed at every conceivable level because sovereignty is the enemy of globalism. President Trump believes in Americanism and American sovereignty. The world has a choice. America has a choice. Grow up and participate in the extraordinary benefits of national sovereignty, security, and prosperity by accepting “other” and being able to cooperate peacefully. Or regress back to the infantile intolerance offered by Leftist supremacists and Islamic supremacists determined to impose their own megalomaniacal vision of the world. The Leftist believe they will bring John Lennon’s song “Imagine” to the world. The Islamists believe they will bring a worldwide Islamic caliphate ruled by sharia law.
The globalist elite puppet masters just sit back smiling. The infantile Leftist supremacists and the equally infantile Islamist supremacists are useful idiots being funded and fomented to create the social chaos required to implement the globalist elite plan. There will be no room for any political opposition in the completely intolerant New World Order of the globalist elite.