This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Monday, August 17, 2015

STOP conceding the XIV-A point to the anti-Americans!

It has been darn near a year since Sophosarchaeus last posted, and months before then that there was ample time to keep up with all the Leftist Propaganda spreading like cancerous weeds on steroids.

But this topic is SO TERRIBLY ABUSED by the Left, and ignorantly, lazily acquiesced to by the Center and Right, and is so very easy to understand and defend...
...it is simpler than the Socialist propagandist fabrication that Hitler and his NationalSozialisten German Workers Party (pronounced auf Deutsch, "NatSeeOwnAl SoteSeeAlIssTen" = NAZIs) "were Right Wing Fascists" [that argument actually came up recently in another forum, and I had to suppress the giggles as the poster was unraveled, weave from weft].  They were, of course Socialists, as this one-of-millions of examples points out:

[Thanks to ThirdReichInRuins.com]
The only differences between any Socialist and/or Communist group and any other is in the minuteia. Actually seizing (Socializing) businesses and property rather than simply hyper-controlling them; that sort of thing. They all push huge government, macro-control and regulation, minimal individual freedom, no guns, no homosexuality, no religion, yadda-yadda.  Pippins and Granny Smiths.

And everyone has seen one of these - what the National Socialist D.A.P. chose to emboss on their own lapel pins should be (like the Islamic State being ISLAMIC) taken seriously:

 [Thanks to Westhost.com]

Back to the Fourteenth Amendment:

After Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment to free the slaves held by 100% Democratic Southern Plantation owners, who had already fomented a Civil War, they also passed thus:
 [emphasis mine]
XIV Amendment (Section one) 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There's more, but that is the effective (and DEfective) part.

Let's do just a little dissecting, from the  Constitutional language perspective.  It goes really quickly. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,..." already makes them come under the power of the laws of the U.S., right?  You are here, you obey our laws (unless you are a criminal in a "Gun Free Zone", or an Illegal Alien, or Obama and most other Progressive Socialists).
Moving on...
"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Wait. WAIT! doesn't that mean 'you are here you obey our laws'?!?  No, not if you are a 19th century Constitutional writer.  Constitutional provisions are ALWAYS written in the briefest and clearest language possible.  They already dealt with the "you are here" part.  Writings, court arguments, letters and diaries of the crafters of the Amendment prove that the new detail added means 'owing allegiance ONLY to the United States and no other prince or potentate or country'.  No divided loyalty or total loyalty to any foreign entity.

This phrase was actually created by Sen Jacob Howard. If anyone in the world could define what was meant, it will then be Sen Howard.  Howard himself clarified his meaning many times, stating to Congress itself before ratification [again, emphasis mine]...
"...this amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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."

On another occasion, Howard went even further (for recalcitrant Democrats, even then quibbling over what "the definition of 'IS' is") and clarified his already clear intent on the Citizenship clause:
"...ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
IN OTHER WORDS, total loyalty and fealty ONLY to the United States, and NOT violating U.S. laws and sovereignty to send U.S. dollars home or live underground and outlawed.  Such loyalty and fealty is NOT found in Illegal Aliens sneaking past our Border Patrol carrying drugs or weapons as payment for the guide services of the coyotes, but in the Oath sworn by every legitimate immigrant. who has applied, waited their turn, did their studying of English and U.S. history and then raises their right hand and says,
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." 
...doesn't quite sound like infiltrating a foreign country (from your birthplace) to steal OB services to drop a baby, or violating the clear visa expiration date to steal I.D.s or lie on a job application, and send money to the rest of your family IN YOUR FOREIGN HOMELAND, now does it?

The rest of the Amendment goes on to make a clear distinction between Citizens and "any person".  Anyone here can expect fair treatment (due process), even if they are illegal and liable to be deported.  They can insist on their day in court if they don't mind waiting in (safe, clean) detention, or they can waive it and go home immediately. Those who enter legally, of course, can expect to have all the benefits of the Constitution short of those reserved for Citizens (in every country on Earth), like voting or holding office.  NOT ONE WORD even hints at freebies like education or breakfast or non-emergency medical care, let alone preposterous stuff like drivers' licenses or employment (and Citizen/taxpayer paid "transgender therapy"!!) for those who invaded America illegally.

So how did it all get so screwed up?  Several activist judge rulings, crowned by Roosevelt's(D) "packed" SCotus.  In another ruling, just as legitimate and honorable as Dredd-Scott, they just looked at the words and reinterpreted Howard's clear and practical loyalty requirement and decided that it simply meant 'standing on U.S. soil, entitled to all the benefits of loyal Citizens'.  That case, U.S. vs Wong, was over a Chinese merchant family that was in the U.S. lawfully and could stand for the intentions of their son; and even that was shredded by the Chief Justice's dissent.  They were not Illegals who had purposefully invaded and evaded our border and laws simply to game our laws and send money back to their true home over the border.
Y'know, SCotUS decisions (like Dredd-Scott's affirmation that one man may own another man [slavery]) can and have been reversed!  What'cha need is to get Democratic Progressive Socialists OUT of power long enough for rational Americans to set things straight.

 - - - -
For another perspective with proper interpretation, see: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/01/14/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-th-amendment.html

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be reasonably polite, but especially be as accurate as you can. Provide sources if you have them. We might as well learn something. [Wikipedia and blogs are usually 'pointers', not authoritative sources; they indicate data that might be confirmed elsewhere (that's how I use them here)].