PELOSI TELLS US DEMOCRATS ARE NOT A THREAT TO OUR CONSTITUTION…DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT!!!

Let me just start by saying that I think many of us can agree that our Constitution always becomes imperiled whenever it is that we have Democrats in control of the government, every time leftists have a majority on the Supreme Court, and every time a Democrat president appoints leftist activist ‘judges’ to the judiciary, where they think they can simply circumvent both the Constitution and our Legislative Branch from there on the bench.  And in truth it is always the Democrats who choose to simply ignore the Constitution whenever they're in power.  And despite their many claims that it is President Trump who represents the greatest danger to the Constitution, what is it that he has done that adds credence to that little theory?

So imagine my surprise when I learned that Nancy Pelosi, during an appearance over there at ‘fake news’ headquarters, the Communist News Network, aka CNN, actually admitted that the Constitution of the United States of America will be very much at stake in the 2020 presidential election.  And I was even more surprised to find myself actually agreeing with her, albeit from a slightly different perspective.  Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think we could agree on anything.  Pelosi started out by saying, “Let me just say I’m very proud of all of the Democrats who have put themselves forward. They show why they are running. They know what they are talking about and they know how to communicate with the electorate.”

And she then went on to say, “The electorate, the people will decide who our nominee is, not anything from on high, and I do believe though that the way we won this last election, which was a message of simplicity for the people—lower healthcare costs, bigger paychecks, cleaner government, that’s the kind of message that we’ll bring forward. A unifying message that again addresses the insecurity of American will be pretty exciting.”  And the part that I agreed with was when she said, “Everything is at stake in this election. The Constitution of the United States, which the president is trying to usurp the power of the legislative branch of government, the environment in which we live.”  Where was this concern during the eight years of Barry ‘O’?

But it was then that she brought up an issue on which I could not disagree with her more, or with her fellow leftwing kooks.  I was when she said, “A Republican party that’s in denial about the assault on climate and the climate crisis, which is a health issue, a national security issue, an economic and jobs issue and a moral issue.”  Anyone who falls for this cockamamie, cooked up, fake science that Democrats like Pelosi continue to peddle is little more than a complete moron.  Republicans are not in denial a climate change, many actually believe that it may even be taking place. What they are not willing to accept is the ‘fact’ that man has anything to do with it and thus they are not willing to destroy our entire economy in combating it.  

But anyway, in getting back to the topic at hand which is the Democrats and the danger they continue to represent to our Constitution, despite their many claims, other than him saying he wants to “Make America Great Again,” how many times have you ever heard President Trump say that he wants to change America?  Barry ‘O’ said it, Bernie has said it, even Hitlery said it.  So from where I’m standing, the ONLY ones I see as being a continuing threat to our Constitution are not only those in the Democrat Party, but pretty much anyone on the Left, because it is they, and only they, who hate this country and view our Constitution as being nothing more than an impediment to what it is that they wish to bring about in this country.

Democrats not only want to change our Constitution, they want it changed instantaneously and without having to bother going through the pesky process for doing so.  They want mob rule, imported voters and they want to mandate emotions and word usage into crime.  Meanwhile it’s actual crimes that they seem to want to have decriminalized.  They abhor the traditions and beliefs that form the very foundation of this country.  And they refuse to accept that it is God who has granted us those certain inalienable rights because it is they who see government as being the sole entity responsible for granting, limiting, or even denying those rights as way of reinforcing what those in government view as being correct behavior and/or thought.

So this is one of those rare occasions where Pelosi is actually correct, in a way. The future of this country is at stake in 2020 because Democrats want to finally get rid of the Bill of Rights once and for all. They want to limit free speech, eliminate due process and the presumption of innocence. They want to repeal the Second Amendment and totally disregard the Tenth Amendment and pack the Supreme Court. They want to nationalize entire industries and selectively target individuals because of their income and wealth. They seek nothing more than to turn America into another Third World socialist shithole. And make no mistake, they will do all of these things if we ever again grant them any measureable level of political power.

And so Pelosi would have us all believe the party that is the true defender of the Constitution also just so happens to be the very same party that supports: 1. Open borders and a continued invasion of hordes of uneducated, unskilled, destitute, disease ridden and often violent illegals; 2. The right to murder babies right up to and even beyond their birth; 3. The elimination of the Electoral College; 4. Replacing Capitalism with Socialism; 5. So-called reparations for blacks; 6. Continuing the attack on free speech and even free thought that departs from liberal groupthink; cede US sovereignty to the globalist elites by moronic policies on so-called global warming; and on and on.  And Pelosi says we MUST elect those people!

To be honest I don't really consider President Trump a Republican, at least in the sense we have known them in the past.  President Trump is someone I would call an individual who ran for president on a Republican ticket.  He certainly isn't a globalist, he's not a NOW type nor is he a ‘Deep State’ type.  And he most certainly is not a RINO.  He actually is a president of the people, first one in living memory.  Which is why ‘The Establishment’ hates him so.  Meanwhile, nothing that the Democrat Party stands for, or promotes, has anything to do with adhering to the Constitution!  If anything, they promote everything that is against both our Constitution and our way of life!  They spend all of their time attempting to destroy this nation!

And Pelosi can make all of the idiotic claims she wishes, but it isn’t President Trump who has been out campaigning on issues like the eliminating the Electoral College or doing away with our southern border.  That would be the same Democrats that Pelosi herself has claimed are ‘mainstream.’  Yes, the Constitution of the United States of America is at stake, but ONLY if a Democrat is elected. Every Democrat now running for president essentially advocates the scrapping of our Constitution.  Pure Democracies die from within, the tyranny of the majority wants what you have and individual rights quickly become extinct.  Democrats are dead serious when it comes to making it possible for government to better control the people.   

And make no mistake, come 2020 if the Democrats are able to achieve victory in any meaningful way, including keeping the House, winning the Senate or ,God forbid, winning the Presidency, America and her Constitution will be forever changed and in less than a heartbeat. The Democrats have been saying since 2016 what they intend to do if they are ever able to worm their way back into power, and it should terrify every freedom loving American.  And it goes without saying that if they are able to return to power, they will destroy all or most of what so many have fought and died for.  Democrats today represent the greatest danger this country now faces, and to think they will not make good on their promises is beyond foolhardy. 

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WHAT THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ‘REALLY’ SAYS…

I’m amazed how it is that so many of today’s so-called “Constitutional Experts”, be they presidential candidates or TV talking heads seem to be anything but. Especially as far as our illegal immigration problem goes.  Because while parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, the part that has now launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens— most certainly does not.  The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.  So this is yet another area of our Constitution where those on the left, and a good many of those on the right, read only what they ‘want’ to read.

Now I freely admit that I’m about as far removed, as anyone can possibly get, from being an expert on the Constitution.  As must be a goodly number of our media commentators who have continued to get this issue so completely, and so thoroughly dead wrong.  And I was somewhat surprise to hear that even Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano, whom I have always held in rather high regard because of what I thought was his apparent knowledge regarding our Constitution, has now said that the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear,” and its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.  On the contrary, not only is that’s not the law, it never has been the law.  Come on, Judge!

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. So after all these years is this federal law unconstitutional?  No, it is not!  The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states as follows: “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.”  Today’s debate can be said to turn on the six words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

As those familiar with history are no doubt well aware, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because of the large number of Democrats who supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of ‘Republican’ President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865.  In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

It was the Civil Rights Act that included a definition for national citizenship the purpose of which to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”  However, nowhere does it say that anyone who is able to sneak across our border, and then able remain undetected in this country for any number of years automatically becomes a citizen of this nation.  Now that may be how some of our politicians read it, but that doesn’t make it so.

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

And it was then in 1884 that the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.  In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.  That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth.

The very simple fact is that these individuals are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.  Which then begs the question, why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth?  Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling.  Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners.  Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.  Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.

The position of many in our state-controlled media demonstrates quite clearly that they lack any serious knowledge regarding what our Constitution actually says about immigration, or anything else for that matter.  As well, that seem to be quite ignorant of what most of us see as being very clearly spelled out in our immigration laws.  This despite the fact that some of the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed this issue nearly ad nauseam. It’s just that no one has ever put any of them on camera to explain it.  Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship.

Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship something this is limited to only we conservatives.  For instance, it was Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—who wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft:  We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.  A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but somehow I seriously doubt it.  I would have to agree.

The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally, and literally is how it is read today even by those who should know better. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.  It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it.  If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans.

Trump, if elected, could rescind Barry “Almighty’s” executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away.  And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported.  Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds.  The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens.  And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported, and that would most certainly have an impact on the pace of deportations.

Now I’m not going to do is sit here and make the claim that Donald Trump’s position on immigration hasn’t changed, and pretty drastically so, from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion.  After all, he has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, hence the reason that more than a few voters still do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions.  But that being said, none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal.  While parts of it may face legal challenges, the fact is that denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

THE LEVEL OF AMERICAN IGNORANCE NEVER SURPRISES ME…

I am embarrassed to admit this but I was completely unaware that yesterday was national Constitution Day, or the day that marked the 227th anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. But at least I can safely count myself as being among the 36 percent of Americans who can actually name the three branches of government that our Constitution created. So while I freely admit that I was unaware of the significance of yesterday, thankfully I’m not forced to suffer the embarrassment of being too stupid to name the three branches of my government.

And it’s also according to a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center that it would seems that a rather significant percentage of Americans are long overdue for some sort of a civics refresher course. Because it’s only 38 percent of Americans that know the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, while 17 percent think Democrats are still in charge. The number of people who knew Republicans were in charge has dropped 17 percent since the last time Annenberg asked, back in 2011, right after Republicans reclaimed control.

And it would be an identical number, 38 percent, who are actually aware that it’s the Democrats who run the Senate, while 20 percent actually believe that it’s the Republicans who control the upper chamber. Only 27 percent know it takes a two-thirds majority of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. Annenberg released the survey in partnership with the Civics Renewal Network, a group of 25 nonpartisan organizations including the Library of Congress, the Newseum and the National Archives that offers free civics education resources.

Other groups, like the Civics Education Initiative, are pushing to include more civics education in high schools, requiring students to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants do when they come to the U.S. That group will introduce legislation in seven states that would require passage of the citizenship test before graduating. They cited Annenberg’s 2011 survey, which found just 15 percent of Americans could correctly identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, while 27 percent knew Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol.

And it was only 13 percent who knew that the Constitution was signed in 1787. And that would be the very same Constitution which are told that, as a ’senior lecturer’, Barry was assigned the responsibility of instructing those under his charge of the benefits and the meaning behind this most perfect document ever created by man. And is the same Constitution which he and his fellow Democrats feel no responsibility whatsoever to abide by. So is it any wonder that the country is in such bad shape. We must change course, and very soon! Time is running out!

UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTITUTION...PART 2...

After finishing Part 2, you will have a better understanding of the U.S. Constitution than does our current president.

UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTITUTION...PART 1...

Barry "Almighty" likes to boast about his once having been a Constitutional Law Professor as his way of debunking accusations that he is somehow trying to destroy our Constitution. Unfortunately, he was no such thing.  Actually what he was was something referred to as a 'senior lecturer.'   Maybe that explains his ignnorance when it comes to anything that has to do with our Constitution.

WE MUST MAKE THE CONSTITUTION RELEVENT AGAIN…

 

 

I think it safe to say that our country is now hanging by a thread, and also, I think it pretty obvious how it is that we came to be in our current predicament. We have allowed our political leaders, and for far too long, the luxury of ignoring that which is laid out in that most brilliant of documents ever to be created by man, the United States Constitution. Whenever listening to any of today’s politicians, particularly Democrats, and particularly our president, you come to realize, and pretty quickly, that those who choose to disrespect our Constitution and the rights that it guarantees, are the very same ones who know the least about it. Many of those who proudly identify themselves as conservatives are painfully aware of the fact that what we are engaged in today, is a hyper Democratic tyranny.

 

 

What’s missing today, to the detriment of our country, is even the slightest evidence of a little something that has been referred to as, "Constitutional Conviction." Too many Americans, and so therefore too many of our politicians, are lacking what could be called even the most basic knowledge of what our Constitution says. And I know of what I speak, because I spend the majority of each and every day being surrounded by people who couldn’t tell you one relevant fact about the document on which our system of government is based if their life depended on it. Respecting the Constitution, requires at least some understanding of what it says, and why. And that, my friends requires at least a limited amount of knowledge of it, and yet while many are educated about the Constitution, they remain pretty much completely ignorant about it.

 

 

Sadly, far too many of those Republicans whom we choose to elect, and often even choose to re-elect, lack the necessary conviction when it comes to the Constitution. And I think it fair to say that it is because of their silence and their lack of conviction, that we have now seen the government stray way beyond the sensible limitations placed upon it by Constitution. Far too often it is simply ignored with nary a whisper being heard from we the people. So how it is that we are to now move ‘Forward,’ to use Barry’s word, from here? It is going to be difficult, make no mistake, especially with us now forced into the position of having to endure four more years of Barry, but not impossible. And it will demand hard work from all those involved. How do we move forward and correct this? First of all we must stop tolerating the intolerable.

 

 

But that’s just the beginning. Here are several points presented for your consideration. I suppose first and foremost would be that we must avoid electing officials who seem to require any level of training on what it means to actually uphold the Constitution as well as what it means to abide by their oath of office. And something that never made any sense to me and is something that occurs far too often is that we seem to be willing to define success as squelching dissent. And something that has been made very obvious in previous battles fought, and mostly lost, is the fact that strength is the only thing the opposition understands, therefore we must project power. And in so doing we must do a much better job of taking the fight out of the legislature, bypassing the state-controlled media and into the court of public opinion.

 

 

Look, I really don’t think that I’d be too extreme if I were to describe the current battle, a battle for the very soul of our country, in which we now find ourselves has us pitted against forces that can be described as being evil, at least in their intent. There have been times in the past when I have found myself wishing that those on our side would use the same tactics employed by the opposition. But having said that, I suppose it’s safe to say that progress is rarely made when we resort to such things, but just the same, we must learn to use tactics that are strong and are of sufficient strength to get our plan out before the people. And, most importantly, we must never be afraid of upsetting our opposition, and that we’ve normalized decision making processes that aren’t embedded in our flag and our Constitution.

 

 

It will be necessary for us to formulate both a short term and a long term battle plan, and to also recognize the fact that our problem has not been our message but our marketing. And we must exhibit the necessary confidence in our plan, because if we’re going to succeed in instilling confidence in others, we must first convince them that we believe in what we are presenting to them and how it’s what’s needed to get our country back on the right track. And just as important, we must not allow ourselves to be dissuaded from implementation, the country can’t afford it. We can’t spend the next four years sitting idling by leaving Barry and the Democrats, free to complete the ‘fundamental transformation’ begun four short years ago. Too much damage has already been done. That’s where belief in and support of those things outlined in our Constitution become all the more important.



A CRACKPOT PROFESSOR ADVOCATES SCRAPPING OUR CONSTITUTION...