A Quick History Lesson for Joe Biden

 Dear Joe,

After having listened to your recent speech regarding various voting bills throughout the nation, as well as your attempt to overthrow our Republic (we have not ever been, and hopefully never will fall to the depths of being a Democracy) with your own version of it, I thought a quick review of some important names in history might benefit you.

Abraham Lincoln - this fine man was a Republican.  In fact, you may recall he actually is the Founding Father of the Republican Party, hence "the Party of Lincoln". 

Dr. Martin Luther King - a registered Republican, though it is alleged he voted for LBJ in 1964.  He may have reconsidered that vote (if it happened) after hearing LBJ's alleged comment "I'll have those n****** voting Democrat for the next 200 years."

George Wallace - perhaps best noted for his Inauguration Day speech in 1963:  "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."  He was a Democrat, something I would think you might remember, given that you had harped on the fact that Wallace called you an "outstanding young politician".  Dementia can be a bitch, I do feel sorry for you.

Bull Connor - some famous quotes from this leading Democrat:

" All you gotta do is tell them your going to bring the dogs. Look at em run.I want to see the dogs work."

 "As I have said on numerous occasions, we are not going to stand for this in Birmingham. And if necessary we will fill the jail full and we don't care whose toes we step on. I am saying now to these meddlers from out of our city the best thing for them to do is stay out if they don't want to get slapped in jail. Our people of Birmingham are a peaceful people and we never have any trouble here unless some people come into our city looking for trouble. And I've never seen anyone yet look for trouble who wasn't able to find it.”

These quotes were directed at African-Americans and others who were in the midst of battling for Civil Rights in the 1960s. 

Jefferson Davis - If you had studied history, Joe, you'd recall that JD was a Democrat from the South during the Civil War era of our country.  In fact, he was the first and only President of the Confederate States of America.  Easy thing to forget, because it's not as if talk of that has been in the news over the last several years.  I will say in Davis' defense, from historical texts I've studied, he does not seem to be the worst of the worst, yet, he still was the leader of an actual insurrection against the federal government.  Conveniently forgotten, I'm sure.

Yours, sir, is the party of hate.  Republicans by no means are blameless in any of these situations, but it is the Democrats who have always profited by hate and divisiveness.  The lack of any original thought for solving a problem that doesn't involve taxes and wealth redistribution (usually from political opponents to political allies) leaves very little else on the plate to discuss, I suppose.

Whether it's on vaccine mandates (that was a quick turnaround on that policy) or "voting right bills", you're flat wrong, particularly on the issue of voting rights.  Actually read the legislation that you speak out against, and then compare it to your *home* state of Delaware or even New York, as for instances.  The rights of all legal voters are better protected and guaranteed in the new legislation in R states, than in either of those (and likely many more) D states. Take care of business on your own side, and save the thinking for those with a brain. 

P.S. - the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 79.632% "yeah" votes from Republicans (136 for, 35 against, 2 "present", and 5 who did not vote) in the House along with an 81.81% "yea" vote in the Senate (27 for, 6 opposed).  Meanwhile, on the Democratic side of the equation, it was only 62.704% in favor (153 for, 91 against, 2 "present", and 7 who did not cast a ballot), and in the Senate it was a bit better at 68.656% (46 pro, 21 against).  However, this does not tell the whole story.  It was the Democrats in the Senate (particularly Strom Thurmond) who participated in the longest filibuster of a bill in history, before being stopped thanks to the efforts of the Democratic Senate Whip Hubert Humphey, (D, MN) and Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirkson (R, IL).  Between the two, they managed to gain the needed votes for cloture (67 was needed at the time, and they garnered 71), and the bill was passed.

P.P.S. - you may also want to revisit your own Senate floor speeches in favor of all of the crime bills that you have proudly lauded throughout the years, or your own Vice President's track record as DA.  Both would seem to suggest a certain theme that many of your *supporters* are not aware.

A Benefit of Being a Minority Party Member

The impetus for today's argument comes from the fact that I live in one of the most liberal (read: chock full o' Democrats) states in the Union, while maintaining a Conservative world view.  Most days, particularly election days, are far more difficult than they would be if I lived in a state that is more Red.  Texas for instance. Perhaps even Florida, or Idaho.  Nearly anywhere that isn't here, for that matter.

There are days, though, when it is almost worth all of that, just to see the look on people's face when politics are brought up.  Bernie Sanders' campaign had people beating the streets for him today, each wearing a bright, shiny new pin stating their support for the candidate that the Democrat machine wishes would simply go away.  Or die.  Whichever one makes it easier to foist Ms. Clinton on to the general public as their *official* candidate, much like the RNC did with John McCain in 2008.  Call it the lifetime *achievement* award for political parties.  Why either party would want to do that, I have no idea, neither candidate is viable in a general election, but I digress.

I had two separate encounters with Sanders' supporters today.  The first one came on my daily constitutional (the dated, noun definition), but my look of disdain as I saw their shiny pins kept them from engaging me.  The second occurred hours later, as I was leaving my place of residence.  There was a younger gentleman, and an older one, too.  Both of them were consulting (I'm assuming) voter lists.  Strange to me was the fact that they were intentionally ignoring residences that I knew contained minority voters, given the rhetoric that I always read/hear about in the media.  Because of this, I may have stared at them as they moved their way down the street a little longer than I would have done otherwise, which encouraged the older gentleman to call out to me.  His words were:

I hope I can depend on your vote for Bernie Sanders.

 I laughed at him before I said anything.  Immediately I realized how rude that might be perceived, so I responded with "No, sorry, you can't."  Not content to leave well enough alone, I couldn't stop my mouth from continuing on, when he looked back at me with an inquiring look upon his face.  It may also have been simple confusion, I didn't stop to ask.  I continued by saying "I wouldn't vote for him if he was the only candidate on the party.  He is by far the worst candidate running for President this election cycle."

The man looked as if I had mortally wounded him with my words.  He had no direct reply for me, but I could (just barely) hear him when he replied to his younger cohort "He must be a F*@%ing Republican."

It could have been worse, I suppose.  He could have accused me of supporting Ms. Clinton.  That would have been hurtful.

So while Massachusetts will be an afterthought come November (it's been 32 years since the state cast its delegates with a Republican Presidential candidate), but in the moment, with *contested* primaries for both *major* political parties, it's a more interesting place to be.  Even as a supporter of the minority party.

Why Have a Congress? Or a Constitution?

There's nothing more disappointing than putting your faith and trust in a person, or group of persons to watch out for you, and have them leave you hanging.  Or in some instances, helping dig the hole that you are about to be thrown into.

In this instance, I am speaking of the Republican-controlled Congress which has done nothing except kowtow to our current POTUS as he has run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution, to say nothing of the will of the people.

I have been convinced for some time that only a complete and total act of stupidity (nominating Trump, Christie, or Bush) would prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the White House.  After the debacle that was 2015, I'm not entirely positive that's true, anymore.

The main reason that I mention this has to do with what the POTUS' press secretary had to say in response to the President's intent to remove (or prevent them from obtaining them) guns from the citizens of law-abiding citizens (something that was considered crazy as little as 18 months ago.)  A sampling of the P.S.'s commentary:

@POTUS believes in 2nd amdt. Said so today. Let's keep guns out of wrong hands AND protect our 2nd amdt rights. 

In case Mr. Earnest has forgot, that is the same man who swore that "if you like your health plan, you can keep you health plan."  Then nearly everyone lost the health plan they wanted to keep.  So, yeah, forgive me if the man's words don't tantalize me.

Close the No-Fly/No-Buy loophole. If too dangerous to board a plane, then too dangerous to buy a gun.

Because no one has ever ended up on a no-fly list when they shouldn't have.  Ooops...

I'm confident families of gun violence victims didn't find @POTUS's words or actions to keep guns out of the wrong hands "condescending".

Never let a good tragedy go to waste, right Mr. Secretary?  Also, who decides whose hands are *wrong*?

No govt action can stop every act of gun violence, but if we can prevent one innocent death, we should.

I think the one thing that the government has proven over the years is that they are fairly incapable of doing anything to stop anyone from doing whatever they want, especially if they're willing to go down in a blaze of glory.  There certainly is no other way in the world for someone hell-bent on murder or terror to accomplish their mission...except knives, cars, jets, rocks, bio-terror, bombs...no, really it's all about the guns.  If only we could get rid of them all, there would never be another death in this world.

Won't be solved overnight but if we work together to pass common sense gun safety measures, our kids will be safer.

When all else fails, pull at the heartstrings and swear you're doing it "all for the kids".  Also, ignore the facts about how many crimes are prevented or stopped because a law-abiding citizen has a weapon (and doesn't even need to use it most times.  Simply having the weapon is enough.)

I've written someplace before, but am unable to find it at the moment, that the 2nd amendment is the most strongly worded amendment you'll find going in our current Constitution.  There is no ambiguity in the language whatsoever:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

SHALL.  NOT.  BE.  INFRINGED.

You will read many other commentators who will insist that our Founding Fathers never intended this to mean that you could own a hunting rifle in order that you may go fetch your dinner from the woods.  It's patently the dumbest argument ever presented, and if you fall for it, then you are deserving of whatever comes of that.

Our Founding Fathers, having just defeated the greatest military presence known to man at that time, were not interested in how persons went about getting their dinner, or any meal, for that matter.  They had thrown off the bonds of an oppressive government, to establish a free Republic, and it was their desire that it should always remain so.  They had no desire to see an oppressive government set up on these shores, and the right to bear arms was meant as a deterrent for a government that would overstep its bounds.  If you don't believe me, then feel free to research the history and commentary of the men who wrote the Constitution.  You'll find that to a man, they would not approve of government controlling arms in any fashion.

As the fallout from the POTUS' most recent usurpation (or attempts thereof) at *gun control* make the rounds, ask yourself the important question:  What would George (Washington) or Tom (Jefferson) have said?  If you believe they would favor the unConstitutional executive orders that have come out of D.C. over the last several years, than you absolutely deserve the  government you currently have.

Tom Brokaw Obviously Misses the Limelight

I'll be the first to admit, I didn't think that Donald Trump would stick around in the Republican Presidential race.  I'll also follow that up by saying under no circumstance will I vote for him when given the opportunity, either in a Republican primary, or God save us all, the Presidential election.

That being said, he's said a few things that I don't wholeheartedly disagree with, especially in light of recent events in San Bernandino, CA.  While it would be wrong to condemn an entire religion, or all persons who follow such a religion, it should give pause to our foreign policy, and those whom we trust to bring within our borders and allow the privilege of citizenship.

The reason I even mention any of this, after pointedly avoiding it for the most part is Tom Brokaw.  I don't know who let him out of his retirement pad, but he was out making remarks comparing Donald Trump's *proposal* to what FDR did during WWII.  In response to the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor, FDR decided to imprison American citizens of Japanese descent.  There was likely not much of an outcry at the time (though I don't ever recall reading about German-Americans being interred, despite the fact they were attempting to destroy us, too.  It must really have been the bombing that was the trigger.)

To be clear, excluding someone from *immigrating* to the U.S., for whatever reason, is not in any way, shape, or form the same as imprisoning without cause U.S. citizens and nationals.  On the one hand, you have citizens of a foreign nation.  On the other, you have the U.S. Constitution, which is designed to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of race, creed, or what a person's forbears' homeland has done to us.  For Brokaw to pretend to be ignorant of that fact, or to actually be ignorant of that fact suggests that he is a moron.  There's enough of that going around lately, without him spewing forth such nonsense.  It would have been enough to say something along the lines of "Donald Trump is an idiot, and he is proposing a plan that cannot be enforced."  Of course, such a statement does not generate millions of views on the internet, nor does it bring Tom Brokaw back to the forefront of the news cycle for more than a moment.  Instead, he takes a position that is at least as ignorant as he claims Trump's is, and for that is rewarded.  I hate our country sometimes.  

We now live in a world where anyone can get anywhere on the globe within 24 hours (or therabouts.)  We have lax border security, and don't seem to care whether or not the rule of law set up in our Constitution is followed.  Protecting our citizens should be every candidate's primary concern.  If Brokaw actually cared, he might have asked the governments of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates why they have not taken in any *refugees* or even offered any formal aid, according to a report by Amnesty International.

Of course, if those type of questions were asked, then we might have an entirely different debate.  One where the priorities of the nation, rather than of an individual candidate or *celebrity*.  Then again, we might not be the U.S.A. if we did things that way.

"and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon"

These words were spoken by then-President George W. Bush, at the site of the WTC bombings, perpetrated by terrorists hell bent on destroying the American Republic, mere days after the bombing occurred.  To date, they have not succeeded, not in whole, at least, but to say they have made gains would be an understatement.  As the next generation of terrorists kills, maims, and destroys infrastructure the world over, it gives me pause to consider how much longer we'll be able to hold together our nation as we know it.

Great nations are not usually undone in one fell swoop, but in a series of soft jabs that in the moment may seem innocuous, but in reality, set the stage for the coming end.  Nations that understand the threat and face it head on - Great Britain under Winston Churchill's leadership comes to mind, as does the U.S. during the Reagan years as we battled against the U.S.S.R. to decide who would be the country that led the world surely is another.

Every year for the last decade or so, I've spent 9/11 going out in to the world to see what actions were taking place, and spending hours scouring the Internet for new to me things with regard to the Tragedy that occurred 14 years ago.  Often times it is a video of former President Bush, over the last few years it has been to follow along with former press secretary Ari Fleischer as he recreates that infamous day in a series of tweets, and always, I find something completely unexpected.

This year's 'find' is nearly as old as the Tragedy itself, and the words come from a man that I often times would find myself diametrically opposed to him in regard to any political comments I saw him make publicly.  However, 9 days after the Tragedy occurred, Jon Stewart gave this impassioned speech during the opening of his show, and I think he perfectly encapsulated the feelings of Americans at that time.  You should take the 9 minutes or so it takes to view it and while you're doing it, consider that we are still the United States of America.  We're not coming to an end any time soon, no matter who or what comes at us.  There will be times in the not too distant future to get back in to the politics that have harmed our Nation, and ideas that can help revitalize it, but in the moment, I'd rather focus on the Hope that Mr. Stewart attempted to imbibe on the American public nearly 14 years ago today.

"Immigration Without Assimilation is Invasion"

The impetus for this post is two-pronged:  firstly, the quote that acts as the title, courtesy of Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), and second, this article which states that the state of Illinois (home of our current *POTUS*) is allowing female persons of Islamic 'faith' to wear a burqa when they take their drivers' license photograph.

WTF?

For those that are unaware, a burqa completely conceals the face of the female, so that women are not leered at or do not have to be subject to unwanted male (or in this day and age, female) advances.  This article here lists many other reasons that women who are not forced to wear a burqa would continue to do so.

Honestly - I couldn't care less if women (or men) feel the need to wear a burqa to cover up their faces, for whatever reason they can come up with, in most situations.  However, getting a license/ID photo really isn't one of those situations.

The purpose of an identification is to be able to, you know, identify a person with ease.  It's one of those things that really should be non-negotiable.  In becoming part of a society, you must bend to their social norms, elsewise, you have not immigrated, you have invaded, and brought your cultural expectations along with you.

Immigration is at least a 3 pronged venture:

1. Learn your new country's language.
2. Take up the interests of your new nation.
3. Follow social norms and don't look for exceptions to laws just because the PC police are out there, pandering to future voters.

This is not to say that cultural identity has to be completely tossed away, there is room for celebration of holidays and High Holy days as they might be, so long as they are not an imposition on your new home.  Because if you're not in the mood to assimilate, then perhaps you shouldn't have made the move, or much worse, perhaps you are unknowingly a part of a future invasion.

Ann Coulter May Be "Right", but She's Still Wrong

The impetus for today's argument comes from an e-mail I received which led to this article, authored by Ann Coulter, and the premise of which is that Fox News Network anchors (namely Bill O'Reilly) are ignorant fools.  On this front, she may be "right", I wouldn't know, as I don't watch Fox News (or any other news, for that matter.)  Her diatribe focuses on O'Reilly, who made this statement to Donald Trump regarding his plan to deal with illegal aliens:

The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!

 Coulter rightly states that the 14th amendment was not intended to serve that purpose, but was intended to guarantee former (male) black slaves the rights to full citizenship in the United States.  She then 'strengthens' her arguments by cherry-picking 14th amendment cases to support her argument.

Her first cherry-picked case is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 in which an Indian man (John Elk) sued to be recognized as an American citizen, after he had separated himself from his tribe.  Elk lost, in large part because the Supremes (rightly) determined that the opening salvo of the 14th amendment was intended for former slaves and other black Americans, therefore, it was not applicable to him.  This case was decided on November 3rd, 1884.

In her next selected case, Afroyim v. Rusk, she cherry picks this one quote from Justice John Marshall Harlan II:

Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.

In her next statement, she makes light of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, a case that was cited in Afroyim v. Rusk in support of the majority opinion, which was to overturn  Perez v. Brownell which ruled that Congress, through various means, had the right to take citizenship away from citizens.  Afroyim v. Rusk (in 1967) determined that was not the case, despite the fact that Afroyim was born in Poland in 1893, and did not immigrate to the United States until 1912, and was not naturalized until 1926.  Despite this, the Court ruled that the citizenship conferred by the Constitution, and in particular the 14th amendment, could not be abridged by any Congressional action.

A slight digression, if I may.  In her argument, Coulter taunts O'Reilly with this barb:

I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”

Perhaps Coulter ought to look in to the mirror on that charge, because the majority ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk that:

The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race (emphasis added.) Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

So, Coulter cited a case which further proves what those who have suggested that Trump's idea may not pass Constitutional muster.  Whoops.  Maybe actually read the case, instead of just a blurb.  Or, don't grab a single quote and make it seem like that is the entire point of the decision, which it was not.  That's simply dishonest 'journalism'.

And to further clarify for Coulter and all others who think Trump is the cat's meow, here again is the opening line of the 14th amendment:

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.

It does not state "all citizens", but rather "all persons", so unless Coulter and her ilk are arguing that children born of illegal aliens are not "persons", the case should be closed as to whether or not they would be considered citizens.  They simply are, and we are left to deal with the ramifications of that, until such time a new Constitutional amendment clarifies the issue.

Coulter quoted Justice Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in her article:

 In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”

Posner may be the most cited Justice, as Coulter claims, but he must have missed the Afroyim v. Rusk ruling, too.  Regardless, the fact that he is imploring Congress to pass a law that would stop awarding citizenship to everyone in the country (and he may be speaking of illegal aliens here, too, for all I know, who do not actually have citizenship, even if they are treated oftentimes as if they do.) should have clued Coulter and others in to the fact that it is the way of the land right now, through Court rulings.

Coulter, earlier in her article had said this:

Still, how could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.

Put differently: Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868. You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

I'm not going to waste time making up scenarios to answer Coulter's attack, because it's not necessary.  I'll just present two other cases that used the 14th amendment as their bedrock to make a decision that had nothing to do with its original intent.

First - Roe v. Wade, first argued on December 13th, 1971 and finally decided on January 22nd, 1973, used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to infer a right to privacy, in order to legalize abortion in the United States.  Tell me, Ms. Coulter, was that the intent of those who created the 14th amendment?   I would beg for any scenario in which that might be held to be even partially true.  Yet, despite the fact that it was not the original intent of the amendment's authors, it was cited, and has withstood (right or wrong) for 42 plus years.

More recently, the Supremes decided in OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL that gay marriage would be the law of the land, again through the due process clause of the 14th amendment.  Again, I'll ask (rhetorically), for any scenario where Ms. Coulter or any other right or wrong thinking person might think that in 1868 our nation would have wanted to confer upon its citizenry the right to gay marriage.  In 1,000,000 years, you couldn't come up with such a scenario.  Yet, that is what occurred this past June, through an activist Court.  The same activist Court that would be in charge of the decision regarding any future attempt to remove the citizenship of so-called 'anchor babies' (a derogatory term, if someone had asked me, even if it happens to be factual.), notwithstanding the fact that the Supremes have already ruled that citizenship, once conferred, cannot be revoked by acts of Congress.  However, as I noted in an earlier post, ex post facto laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution.  So there's that.

I don't necessarily disagree with what Coulter's thought process is, regarding the original intent of the 14th amendment, however, it simply is illogical to presume that we as a nation are going to en masse support original intent.  This is a Nation that cannot even grasp what was intended by the 1st and 2nd amendments, let alone all the way up to the 14th.

A Constitutional amendment, if written correctly, could prevent future children born to illegal aliens from gaining citizenship, and it is something that political leaders in our nation should look in to.  However, it does not correct the 'problem' that already exists with regard to those citizens that are already in this nation.  With regard to the illegal aliens already here, it's a lot like gun laws:  simply enforce what's on the books and do it immediately.  Then, if Trump or another leader wants to build a wall or protect our border better, more power to them.  Until such time, we must deal with the decisions that have been handed down, whether right or wrong.

The World Has Gone Mad

It's stories like this one that are going to make people support Donald Trump's non-Constitutional immigration plan (Presidential candidate Ted Cruz's (R-TX) FB campaign page states that has always been his position, too.), and therefore his candidacy going forward.  If our federal government is so filled with morons who sit idly by while White House directives undermine our nation's borders, then the expectation must be that the people will rise up against a government that does not protect it, and choose someone who at least positions himself of the people who wish to protect our great Land.  Whether he follows through with plan is irrelevant at this point, because we're still 14 and 1/2 months away from the next Presidential election, and my guess is that by that time, Trump will have bored with the campaign trail.  In fact, I imagine that he will have gone back to his Billions, but leave in his wake what others who follow will do with *his* plan (Any plan that involves hardcore isolation such as building a nearly 2,000 mile wall to keep out illegals traces back to Pat Buchanan, at the very least.)

The most striking portion of the story for me is the fact that the Feds never saw fit to alert local officials when they were putting criminals back on the streets, let alone violent ones, without telling anyone.  That seems like criminal behavior to me, but apparently it was standard operating procedure until late.  After years of protests from various local law enforcement officials, the Feds finally capitulated and began to of late notify local communities.  In the most recent incidence in AZ, three violent criminals, two of which were in the country illegally, while the other (Nasser Hanna Hermez, originally from Iraq) is a permanent legal resident who was found guilty of negligent homicide (originally charged with murder 2) of his 7 week old daughter, and somehow finagled a sentence that included only 6 months of jail time, and three years probation.  His most recent offense was a burglary charge in April that netted him 3 months of lockup, and two years of probation.

The other two committed crimes nearly as horrific, and were subject to deportation, but ICE found they could not deport them because "they could not locate travel documents proving...citizenship" in the criminal aliens home countries.  So they $&%(#2 released the two criminals, who are in this country illegally to do whatever they may, which will likely include violent acts against lawful citizens of the state of AZ.  They said, their hands were tied and they were forced to release him into the United States per the current immigration policy directives. 

Well, if current immigration policy directives are what are allowing violent, criminal, illegal aliens to be put out on the streets of America, perhaps it is time for those in charge to re-write those directives, and until such time, for those who are closer to the reality of the situation to stand fast and do what is right for citizens of our nation, rather than following policy dictates of politicians whose heads are clearly up their...

Does Donald Trump's Immigration 'Plan' Pass Constitutional Muster

Alleged Presidential candidate Donald Trump recently unveiled a plan to deal with America's illegal alien (*immigrant*) problem.  Certain aspects of it, such as building a wall along the entire U.S. - Mexico border would simply take cajones to carry it out, along with the resources.  Trump's plan is to bill Mexico for the cost, but even if it came at the expense of the American taxpayer, in the long run, it is likely that Trump is right, and it would be cost justified.

However, where Trump may run in to a bit of a problem with the Constitution is the portion of his plan where he wants to ship out persons born in the United States to illegal aliens back to the land of their forebears.  The 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution may have something to say about that. 

It reads, in full:

1. 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.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

For the purposes of refuting Trump's plan, the main focus is provision one of the amendment.  As has been previously discussed, this amendment was part of the "Reconstruction Amendments" that designed how life in the American South would play out.  At its core, it was created to ensure that black males, many of whom had previously been slaves, would get a *fair* shot at Constitutional liberties within the United States.

It's highly likely that those that passed the amendment did not foresee a time when it would be used to protect illegal aliens and their children.  In fact, given the prejudice that existed at the time, it probably wasn't considered because those who would have been in position to become illegal aliens (namely, Mexicans) would not have been considered people.   However, the drafters of the amendment did not specifically state that, and so the clause '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' sits there, and gives Constitutional protection to everyone that it applies to.

Now, if Trump were to be elected, it is possible that he might be such a strong leader that he would be able to convince 2/3 of the members of Congress, or  the same proportion of states to call for a Constitutional convention to create a new amendment that says that children born to illegal aliens are themselves illegal aliens.  That could happen.

Of course, Congress cannot pass an ex post facto law, so the children born to illegal aliens that are already in the country would maintain their citizenship.  There's not a legal way around that.

The more dramatic, and certainly harder to swing and connect on solution is that you deport all of the illegal aliens, regardless of whether they have legal, resident children living within the United States.  While that's going on, deport all of the other illegal aliens, and especially those that have committed crimes other than breaking our immigration laws.  The parents of legal children would have the option of leaving their children behind, or renouncing their child's U.S. citizenship when they return to their native land.

Of course, such a proposal would automatically label you as a *racist*, and make it impossible to accomplish the stated goal.  Trump's *plan* may garner him some political points, but the reality is, it can't be done legally.

7 Year Old Thoughts About Al Gore

    Back in 2008, when I was morally and wholly opposed to nearly every single person from all parties who were running for the office of President of the United States of America, I penned the following.  Please read along, and rejoin today's thought in bold below:

    I had fully expected that 2008 would be Al Gore’s breakout year for the Presidency.  I thought that he was following the path that Richard Nixon took following his loss to JFK in 1960 (a loss that in modern times would have been every bit as controversial as Gore’s loss to Bush in 2000) as best as is possible in this era.  He stepped away from the political arena, grew a beard, filled out like a lumberjack of yore, failed in business, succeeded in film and even won a Nobel Award.  Along the way he managed to not get into too much trouble with anything he said (outside of the whole global warming farce, but there are enough people that believe him that it doesn’t matter that it’s a complete and total fabrication) and just stayed out of the way.  I was genuinely surprised when the early announcements for the Democratic ticket came out and his name wasn’t involved.  As time went on, I expected that he was looking to make a dramatic entry into the race, but that also never materialized.  Finally, I just forgot about the possibility of him running for the Presidency this campaign season.

    That was until the past couple of days when some friends and I were discussing what might go down with the Democratic nomination; most of them were convinced that Senator Obama had the charm to schmooze his way to the superdelegates that are going to be necessary to win the nomination, I was of the opinion that having a former President as a spouse to twist arms at the convention would go a long way to making Senator Clinton their candidate of "choice".  Because as much as party leaders may want her to beg off and get out of the campaign, I simply can’t see it happening.  She knows this is her one shot to become President, and make history in doing so.  If you think she doesn’t want that more than anything in the world, well, we’ll have to disagree (and why should she give up the dream, as previously noted, she’s not that far behind, and more importantly, if Lawrence B. Lindsey’s computations are correct, she’s basically dead even)

    Then we stumbled onto something:  What if there was no clear cut winner? What if with all the wrangling neither candidate could come up with necessary delegates to seize the nomination?  What if there were a brokered convention?  What might go down on the second ballot?  And just like that, Al Gore was back (perhaps against his will.)

    Isn’t it possible that Democratic leaders, tired of the infighting and bickering that has gone on in their primary and just plain sick of the 2 candidates they are left with might decide to think outside of the box and reach back to the glory days for a candidate who might actually be able to unite the party and fend off John McCain’s bid for the White House.  Who else could they turn to except dull, boring (but suddenly the brightest star in the Democratic sky), dependable Al?  It’s so easy to forget about him, because often times he could have been the male counterpart to Dr. Lilith Sternin-Crane.  To say that he was often robotic would be an understatement, but that’s beside the point.  He could be the one man that returns a Democrat to the White House (mind you, I’m no fan of Senator McCain, I just find him slightly more palpable than the current field of candidates), as he would do better amongst Democrats (McCain is running into the 20-something percent range of likely Democratic voters, depending on which current candidate snags the nomination) and might even convince a larger share of Republicans to cross party lines.  Certainly he would fare better with independents than either Clinton or Obama.

    Which leaves me wondering:  if the remaining primaries matter all that much.  Senator Clinton is likely to win handily in PA, Senator Obama will capture some more states, and the delegate disparity will stay relatively even.  Then comes the arm-twisting and other such maneuvers on the convention floor and in the hallways.  Will Al Gore be the beneficiary and emerge triumphant and take the seat that he believes rightfully should have been his?  I certainly hope not, but it makes for an interesting election if that’s the route that is chosen.

     I had written that mostly as a joke, because I could see where the election was going, and I feared for our country.  Then I happened to stumble upon this article that seems to suggest that the now 67 year old Gore is not wholly opposed to the idea of another Presidential bid.  His competition for the Democratic nomination is lame, on its best day, and he is a big name politician that harkens back (in a mostly good way) to the Bill Clinton regime.  Mrs. Clinton seems to never be more than a day or two away from the Big House, and Bernie Sanders is without question the George McGovern of this election cycle.  VP Biden's campaign is over before he has even announced it.

If Gore ran, and if he were to secure the Democratic nomination, it would be a political comeback along the lines of Trickie Dick back in '68.  I await further developments from Camp Gore.

Republicans Are Aiming At the Wrong Target

Living in Massachusetts, one thing that nearly never comes up is a person's thoughts on a GOP campaign of any sort, let alone a Presidential debate 15 months in front of the next election.  As a conservative/Republican it made my heart flutter to hear this conversation in this liberal bastion.  That one of the participants was a proponent of Chris Christie was disheartening, but still, the conversation occurred, and it's a bit of progress.

I mention this only because many of the Republican candidates for nomination have set as their target Hillary Clinton, and I have to ask this all important question:  Why?  Clinton makes John McCain and/or Mitt Romney look wholly electable.  In fact, the only *Republicans* who might have a problem with Clinton if she were to be the Democrats' nominee would be Jeb Bush or Chris Christie.  Any other Republican running for the nomination would mop the floor up with Clinton, because she has absolutely nothing to stand on, outside of the fact that her husband was once President.

Unless of course we're counting the multitude of scandals that are waiting to bring her down.

While many of the Republican candidates have done a better than expected job of getting their message out, stating how they would compare to Clinton in a theoretical showdown.  First off, any polling data that is 15 months out is beyond irrelevant, especially when you consider that data is being collected during the summer time, when 98% of the populace is paying exactly 0 attention and their choices are based solely on whoever's name happened to pop up on the news that day.

If the GOP is collectively going to go after a candidate vying for the Democrat's nod, then they should focus on Bernie Sanders (a candidate who is actually resonating with voters at the moment), or Joe Biden.  Sure, it'd be fair to note that Biden is essentially the Chester A. Arthur of the 21st century, but it's also important to note that Arthur served as President of the United States of America for over 3 1/2 years.  Yes, it took a would-be assassin's bullet and the bungling of his doctors to kill Presdient James Garfield, but strange things happen in politics.  Even an Al Gore run at the Presidency would be a bigger threat to Republicans recapturing the White House in 2016 than Hillary Clinton.

The biggest reason is Clinton's own belief that she is too big to fail, despite the fact that she proved in 2008 she could, and did fail spectacularly, as Obama beat her down for the D's nomination.  She has a John McCain sense of entitlement, based on the belief that each of them has spent so much of their lives in *public* 'service' that they deserve pretty much whatever they want.  They're both morons, and fools to boot, which is further reason for Republicans to spend their energy away from Clinton.

Perhaps last evening's revelation that the FBI may be criminally investigating Clinton will be enough to forestall any time being wasted in tonight's "debate" on the Clinton candidacy.  If she continues to be the bar that Republicans aim at, they will fall short in their attempt to gain access to the White House.

So Kiss States' Rights Goodbye

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the two hundred and twenty odd years since that amendment was ratified, it has generally been understood that meant that what the Feds claimed as theirs was theirs, and anything else was to be decided by the states at their discretion.  Chief Justice John Roberts explained as much in his opinion (page 10) for the NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL

v

. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL

Roberts:

Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives,liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293

(J. Madison).

However, that doesn't mesh with what the Supreme Court recently decided in the OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

In this decision, the majority of the Supremes determined that the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution superseded the powers granted to the states in the 10th amendment.  On one point, and one point only, I would agree with them, however, the amendment has nothing to do with what was in front of the Court that day.

The 14th amendment was the second of 3 amendments collectively known as the "Reconstruction Amendments", and they were passed in 1865 (13th), 1868 (14th), and 1870 (15th.)  For the Court to assert that these laws apply to gay marriage is ridiculous on its face for any number of reasons, no less than the fact gay marriage was not a topic of discussion at that point in time in U.S. History, nor was homosexuality in any real manner of speaking, despite the fact that there anti-sodomy laws on the books dating to the 1600s.  It was not until post-1880 that these laws began to be really enforced, and even then, the focus wasn't an anti-gay stance, but rather one that was specifically anti-sodomy, regardless of the sex of the members engaged, according to Margot Canaday, in her review of William Eskridge's Dishonorable Passion for The Nation magazine.

A further reason it is ridiculous for the Court to have reached such a decision is because it requires the Court to step outside of its Constitutionally appointed role in government, which is to essentially uphold the rule of law.  Its role is not to interpret and reinvent the Constitution as it sees fit their particular political leaning at the moment.  Extending the 14th amendment past its intended goal is absurd, and is without question a usurpation of powers.  To the amendment, which reads as follows:

1. 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.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Points 1 - 4 list out exactly what it is that the amendment is looking to achieve, point 5 says who has the power to enforce the law through legislation.  You'll note that there is no mention of gay marriage, nor is there any mention of the U.S. Supreme Court having the authority to enforce or alter the amendment.  Why?  Because it's not their job, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

It is also important to note that in provision 2, the right to vote was extended to all men, ages 21+.  This was underscored when the 15th amendment was passed:

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.

 Women would have to wait until the 19th amendment for their chance to vote, to vote without having to potentially pay a poll tax the 24th amendment, and those who were aged 18 - 20 would have to wait until amendment 26.

The point is, the Constitution is not some malleable, living document that can be changed on a whim.  It should be, and was designed to be, the bedrock upon which our society was built.  If something about it needs to be changed, their is a proper course of action (pass a new amendment.)  Don't believe me?  Let's ask two Founding Fathers who were instrumental in the writing of the Constitution.  First, George Washington's thoughts on how and when the Constitution's might be changed:

 ...Changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people.  If in the opinion of the people, the distribution of modification of the Constitutional powers be in any way particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though in this one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Thomas Jefferson would write in 1803:

Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.  Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

The Court's decision overstepped its bounds, and put our Nation on the path to oligarchy.  The question is not whether or not gay marriage should have become law, but rather the means that goal was achieved.  Instead of putting in the hard work of achieving a Constitutional amendment, gay rights 'activists' chose the short cut of going to the courts.  Instead of thinking of long-term consequences, they thought only of their own short-term desires, and the Supremes kowtowed to pressure from which they are supposed to be immune.  This was a disaster for our nation, in ways that may not yet have been imagined.