The MAGA Double Standard….

 

The TRUTH Of The Matter….

Posting content like this will probably cost me at some point in the very near future.  I’m going to say it anyway since I have been warning people about Trump for the last ten years.  My opinions are already out in public.

Zelensky isn’t the reason for the rupture of relations, Trump and Vance are. Zelensky has nothing for which to apologize, and kowtowing to Trump will merely encourage him to continue his tyrannical ways.

Zelensky was brought all the way to the US under false pretenses for the express purpose of humiliating him and putting distance between the US and Ukraine. There was no shouting match, there was Trump and Vance double teaming Zelensky.  There was no other reason for Vance to be present as he was for a meeting of this nature; it was unprecedented for him to be so visibly present, let along take such an active role. Zelensky did an admirable job maintaining control in the face of a concerted attack.

Trump had no intention of signing any agreement with Zelensky; Putin had already promised access to the same raw materials originating from the areas of Ukraine he occupied during his war of aggression. Trump has thrown his support firmly behind Putin and is committing the US to ally with the new axis of evil: Russia, China, and N. Korea; he wants to be like the leaders of these countries. He is committed to annexing Canada, Greenland, Gaza, and the Panama Canal.  Our historic relationships with the Europeans are on the chopping block, as is our connection with NATO.

No, Zelensky needs to hold his line - and hopefully Europe will be able to take up the slack.

Walking Into An Ambush….

The ambush set by Pres. Trump and Vice Pres. Vance for Ukrainian Pres. Zelensky will undoubtedly go down in history are one of the lowest acts ever perpetrated by an American chief executive and his second in command.

Pres. Zelensky, on behalf of the American people who support Ukraine’s struggle, I apologize for the way you were treated by our elected officials.

If/Then: Illegal Migration….

 If the government is going to prosecute illegal migration, then congress needs to change willful illegal migration from a civil infraction, which is how it is designated currently, to a felony.

Key word: willful.  I’m not referring to someone who, for reasons beyond their control, overstayed because of a bureaucratic visa issue, I refer to individuals who knowingly and with intent overstay visas or cross our borders illegally.

There is no deterrent value in our current laws.  Currently, illegal entry in most instances doesn’t rise to the level of a felony unless an illegal re-enters the country after being deported.  That needs to change.  Congress needs to finally get down to the business of reworking our immigration laws and system.

Does Not Compute….

 

Birthright Citizenship: Setting The Record Straight…

 "In fact, no court in the country has ever endorsed the president's interpretation," [U.S. District Judge Deborah] Boardman said. "This court will not be the first."

This statement is demonstrably false.  As will be seen momentarily, at least two US Supreme Court rulings establish that the children of illegal aliens, tourists, foreign workers, and diplomats do not receive citizenship by virtue of being born here.

The following is excerpted from an essay written by Hans A. von Spakovsky:

“Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice,” Hans A. von Spakovsky .

How Many Crimes Were Just Committed…?

 Watch this - and spread it far and wide.

https://youtube.com/shorts/QbBo-1LrDys?si=SJMWgT0CnsJWkPrY

Once again, rules for thee but none for me.

A number of crimes, in their view, were committed with this parting gift - and they think it is a joke.