Vast Write Wing - July 2010

[lwoolley]

When the Constitution was ratified Massachutsetts and Connecticuit both
forced citizens to a pay taxes to the Congregationalist Church. The
Constitution's 1st amendment was the first compromise between the different
regions of the country. There was freedom of religion but the national
government didn't seek to interfere with local [state]customs.

Unsigned,
Waco

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

The solution to illegal immigration is three (3) words.
"GUNPOWDER AND LEAD".
When the bodies got three deep there would be no more attempts to enter illegaly

Keep up the god work,


Shorty in Midland

[lwoolley]

dear lynn,
i certainly respect your right to conservative opinions. but its really wrong to accuse all progressives
of being in politics for "power". you may not understand that some people really do have concern for
others and want to help the less fortunate. ted kennedy is an excellent example. i am extremely busy.
the time i spend on the peace movement is in no way for power. its a matter of conscience. and if
you demand term limits for politicians, then you should have a term limit as well as a talk show person.
no difference.
alan northcutt

[lwoolley]

i dont see politics as power at all. it takes so much work and compromise to get the smallest thing done
think of how much more real power a ceo has--they can make decisions and they get done immediately.
particularly the legislative type you criticize such as kennedy and byrd. it must be nice to be all knowing to
tell kennedy what to do. now he had a terminal brain tumor. instead of just giving up or considering
his own leisure etc. he used the time left to work for the causes he believed in. personally, i find that admirable. i wonder who will be remembered thru history--people who talk for hours, or people
who work to improve the lives of others.
alan

[lwoolley]

Rush Limbaugh? Are you serious? He was laughed off of his Roger Ailes produced show in 1996. He's no friend of TV and TV hasn't been kind to him. However, he is chasing King on the marriages. King 8 Limbaugh 4.

Why don't they choose YOU? You'd be perfect! What a great rags to riches story it would be. Sign me up as one who would support the idea of you replacing Larry King!

With your powerful background, your ties to WND and your grasp of the American political scene, CNN would be foolish NOT to choose you.

LS

[lwoolley]

in our complex world this "small govt" mantra is an absurd hoax. no money to care for people, but endless money
and huge govt for endless war and
occupation. only 37% people in us now
approve afgh war, but billions for
war profiteers never stop flowing.
jesus would reject us priorities.
Alan

[lwoolley]

Lynn, when Bush stated it was practical to deport 11 million illegals, I suggested that a journey of a 1000 miles started with one step. Now we have the new guy saying the same, but now I recomend a vast ad hoc agency set up deport the 11 million illegals squating here. Imagine the jobs this would create. Also, if he is all about getting votes, he probably would get mine.

Mike Licavoli
Harker Hts, TX

[lwoolley]

College texts by Nath & Cohen and by Luis Rosado teach that being "color blind" is a bias and that teachers should definitely take color into account when working with students.

[lwoolley]

Re: Erik Rush and Negrophilia from Robert in Killeen:

This Guy is Underground KKK. You see he says talk radio loves him. The New klan.

[lwoolley]

I never want to have to defend Obama again. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I can't say that I know the context of his remark but negative liberties are good things.

Positive liberties say what you can do.

Negative liberties say what the government can't do to stop you.

The framers of the constitution intenionally made the constitution "a charter of negative liberties" to best proteect our rights.

I wouldn't have it any other way.
Please address this, thanks.
Bryan: Waco

[lwoolley]

In 1998 Clinton was hanging by a thread w/ the Lewisnky scandal.The press had an agennda so they spun every piece of info that came out and even commissioned a push-poll that told us that "found" that college students don't consider oral sex to be a sexual relation.The Republican party were spun as bedroom snoopers,"budding in" on a private affair that was none of their business.Gov Arnold was embarrassed at being Republican and you had too many Republicans wondering why there was such a big stink about... who 's sleeping with who?

These were the tip of the iceberg,distracting from the real issues and i saw them ...as a pending disaster,despite the smugness of real conservatives who were convinced of Clinton's guilt & demise.
The whole thing ended w/ Lindsey Graham's bungling the presentation of the issue,w, a resulting acquittal in the Senate and Gingrich & bob Livingston resigned ...and Clinton stayed where he was.

Gary hart was driven from the presidential race in 1988 as his "reward"for being much more straight-forward than Clinton, because the press didn't have the same vested interest in Hart.Later on, The whole Bush family jumped on the Clinton bandwagon,effusing him w/ praise ,and thus annihalating all the work conservatives had done in discrediting clinton.

In the meantime the Calif republican party was chased out of nearly every major elected office in California, in the midst of the 1998 scandal, w/ the press misdirecting the cause as being the Republican support for the 1994 Prop 187.The press even commissioned yet another survey of 400 historians extolling clinton as a great president

So you see,Republicans were opportunistically painted as bed room snoopers and bigots in one fells -swoop....all for doing the right thing in both the case of the Clinton impeachment & Prop 187..spin..spin.
Republicans 32 -yr domination of the CA governorship,starting 1966 was broken and the party has limped in California ever since.Moreover Gary Hart has never been heard from since 1988,while Clinton has emerged as a 100 millionaire,tho having emerged from office hopelessly in debt...and w/ the shadow of the shadiest final day pardon orgy in the history of the presidency(Jan 20 2001) along w/ a disgraceful trashing of the whitehouse,documented by the GSA at 10's of 1000's of $$,which clinton offerred to pay for...and Bush declined the offer.

Bush was too stupid to be insulted & after all, the helpless taxpayers were footing the bill...as they would when Bush commissioned 45 billion to be sent to corrupt African chiefs..."to fight Aids",setting the tone for spendthrift Bush.

Where am I going here? Fast forward to the present.W/Obama dropping in public esteem since the 3rd mo.2009 of his presidency and even extreme -left journalists beginning to take pot shots at him...suddenly this week, we get a 'survey" of 273 "historians' who rate obama as the 15th greatest president in history (naturally Democrat FDR was 1st).The insult goes further in that Obama is rated 3 places above Reagan....the Reagan that the whole nation had a wild ceremony-celebration ,upon his death in 2004 !
If the press could make a 100-millionaire out of the wreck of the Clinton presidency and destroy a relatively mild Gary Hart indiscretion...MARK MY WORDS...this is the beginning of a rise for Obama from his current 40% approval to an exalted place in the nation ...along w/ guaranteed re-election. The left press will not be denied.. their hold on the minority vote for Democrats ,and they can't tolerate the discrediting of Obama.For the sake of our country,i fervently hope i'm wrong



Al, Lemon Grove

[lwoolley]

Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, of Miami Herald fame you know, the Pulitzer Prize-winner, reputedly used to be a music critic. We think that is in error. We think it must have been stand-up comedy, or sit-down comedy, or something. In his latest offering, Pitts demands that Arizona's Governor, Jan Brewer, PROVE that illegal alien mules bring drugs across the border from Mexico to the US through Arizona. Apparently the attorney for the defense, as well as a Pulitzer Prize-winner, Pitts demands that the proof of illegal activity be forthcoming or he and his buddy Barack Hussein Obama will go down there and kick Jan Brewer's ass .PROVE IT! demands his Pulitzer Prize-Winningness.
Before you start holding your breath until Jan Brewer starts crying and calling Uncle! in the face of your and Barack's threats, Leonard, do us just one little favor:

in re the matter of Tea Partiers ranting and raving at John Lewis and calling him the n-word fifteen times and all the other garbage your Pulitzer-Prize-winning arse signed onto -why don't you PROVE IT, Leonard?

Bob Montgomery
Yorktown, Indiana

[lwoolley]

on july 4th i stood on the beach of a country that treasures its crystalline oceans and occupies no other nations.
so i carved a huge peace sign sculpture in the sand with
the words "END us empire."
alan
Sent from my iPhone



***


Alan,

Obviously not Mexico since it is in the process of occupying us.

Lynn

[lwoolley]

Wow! I am constantly amazed by how some National Review writer can whip out his or her magic calculator, run the numbers, and manage to scare the Hell out of gullible, weak-minded right wing commentators and talk show hosts -- with figures that seldom hold up in the real world.

Hell, fire the guys and gals in Washington who do the math and hire this guy!

I wonder if he likes to suck the toes of prostitutes like the right wing's other hero, Dick Morris?

LS

[lwoolley]

Wrong Lynn...Babies born of illegal alien are not citizens of the United States if they are born within our borders..

And too, read history, and you will see that the 14th Amendment was never fully ratified. Congress at the time, did not recognize those states not ratifying the Amendment, as they (wrongly) said that many those states were not part of the union because they were part of the Confederacy during the Civil War..
Sad that so many disregard history..

Nathan

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (never fully ratified). Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.