The illegal birthright problem

Yes, we have a problem with birth citizenship and illegal aliens, and their interpretation of the 14th amendment. Even the Rolling Stone is pointing out the absurdity to policies that create a magnet for births in this country. What are we now, the birth capitol of the world?

The Very Real Economic Costs of Birthright Citizenship

by Ian Tuttle August 21, 2015 | National Review

‘Peter and Ellie Yang,” the subjects of Benjamin Carlson’s fascinating new Rolling Stone essay, “Welcome to Maternity Hotel California,” paid $35,000 to have their second child in the United States. In 2012 Chinese state media reported 10,000 “tourist births” by Chinese couples in the United States; other estimates skew as high as 60,000. Following Donald Trump’s call for an end to birthright citizenship, and renewed attention on “anchor babies,” Carlson’s exposé on “birth tourism” seems to confirm that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment works as a magnet for at least some parents across the globe. But just how big a magnet is it?

According to Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) legal policy analyst Jon Feere, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security in April, between 350,000 and 400,000 children are born annually to an illegal-alien mother residing in the United States — as many as one in ten births nationwide. As of 2010, four out of five children of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. were born here — some 4 million kids. Reporting that finding, the Pew Research Center noted that, while illegal immigrants make up about 4 percent of the adult population, “because they have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent) in this country.” […/]

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship-economic-costs-incentives?

Report CIS paper:

“Every year 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal alien mother. Despite the foreign citizenship and illegal status of the parent, the Executive Branch automatically recognizes these children as US citizens upon birth, providing them Social Security numbers and US passports. The same is true of children born to tourists and other aliens who are present in the United States in a legal but temporary status. It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad  application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled  immigrants must be considered US citizens at birth.” read here

You can skip this part if you’d rather not be offended… or suck an egg.

I am severely pissed off — sorry outraged is too polite a word. Can’t we have a serious election in this country, at such a critically important time, without being dragged and mired in these word game semantics? No, we can’t because the bastards on the left who care more about words than national security or the rule of law, or abuse of power cannot allow it. They’d rather quibble about words. Show me another country that makes a bigger issue over words than what the issues and who the candidates really are. This is not an election of words, the English language or a newspeak competition.

Language police now want to run our national elections too. Who’d have thunk it? But when did we surrender our entire electoral process over to these thugs and tyrants? You don’t think we did? Well, look no further than the top establishment candidates from either party and tell me we haven’t. Jeb kind of deserves the harassment he’s getting over the “anchor baby” term. He swims in the same waters. Oh, he thought he had immunity to this word lunacy because he married a Mexican woman and has children? He’s been just as entrenched in political correctness as they are, when it suits his political fancy. He wants conservatives to come to his rescue? Ha ha. Then Hillary injects her p/c criticism, “they’re called babies.” Here’s a novel idea: if they don’t like the term “anchor babies,” then stop having anchor babies. Don’t deride us over the term.

Let me tell you what offends me. It deeply offends me that people who illegally came here made every effort to circumvent the law have declared themselves the chief moderators and judges of our elections, our process, and our civil discourse. So show me another country where word police are the arbiters of who is allowed to be or get elected. Look, if someone is that offended by words and our electoral process, then what are they doing in this country? Why would they want to come, let alone stay here? Is someone forcing them or holding them here against their will? Who turned our entire system over to them?

Yet when we say “we want to take our country back,” from all this politically correct lunacy and contemptible federal tyranny, the language police are all over crying foul that it sounds bigoted and offensive. We’re supposed to play these word games while the country is being systematically destroyed.

These people don’t want a seat at the table, they want to control the table and everyone at it. Sorry, our political system is not pretty — and judging from Obama, so not perfect — and is not politically correct. I make no apologies for it. I would take that imperfect American system, with those flaws, over any other country’s. But don’t take it hostage over our own citizenry for your own narrow, political self-interests.

Who put these perpetually-offended whiners and speech police in charge of our process — and laws? I don’t see it in the Constitution either. The last two elections I watched these purveyors of political correctness dominate or control our national dialogue. If the USA can no longer stand for Americans then what does it stand for? (can it stand?)

I’m addicted to power

Hello, my name is Barack Obama (I think) and I’m addicted to power.

I came to this meeting to admit my addiction is uncontrollable and I need help. Actually, some tell me that the ones who really need help are those under my power and authority. Well, I have no reason to believe that or any reason to relinquish any power I have over them. See I can’t help it. It is really not my narcissistic personality that is at fault.

It must be the people’s fault. First they elected me, then as I exercised more and more executive power, they continually asked me for more. Why even the Congress applauded my plans to make them irrelevant if I did not get my way. They cheered and people told me they want to see more executive abuse. I tried to inform them that it really wasn’t my style, but they convinced me to take every opportunity I’m given to usurp more power, control, and abuse my authority.

So I am not to blame. It was my genuine desire to take my foot off the throats of the people, and off the neck of America. But it is so enjoyable that I must have more and more. Since that is the wish of the people as well, I admit it is an offer I cannot refuse.

I know they want me to be the permanent King of Amerika, too. I cannot let them down. I just want everyone to know this was not my idea, they made me do it.

Since Power Anonymous is such a small exclusive club, I will continue to come here to keep you abreast of my feelings. It’s what others call accountability. Well, some stragglers see my hunger for power as a problem, for some reason, but I don’t know why? So I am assuaging them by continuing to come to these “therapy sessions”.

Thank you.

Basic concepts are not so basic anymore

You will have to bear with the background that some might find tiresome. But there is a matter of connecting basic ideas to be dealt with. We’ve come so far we sometimes sigh when we read old things or history. We prefer new material and words we can identify with. I can be an eye-roller as well. There is a problem with that thinking.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Stop right there; that’s enough. Everyone would recognize that as the Declaration of Independence. But maybe we need to refamiliarize ourselves with it occasionally. A philosophy based on truth not emotion — as is standard fare today. A good exercise is to repeat those words very slowly. That one line is packed and rich.

That is, of course, if you accept that there is truth, it means something and is relevant. Some people may not. Those important words of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can be glossed over easily. We on the conservative side understand how important those words are. Not to say the Left doesn’t, but I question their perception and application.

Oh there is such a concept as self-evident, isn’t there? Some things can be reduced only so far. That line is down to almost the basic common denominators.

Now I mention all that to call attention to just one current-event example. Though it helps to see it through this lens. Life means something. Liberty and pursuit of happiness can be qualified by the respect for life.

This philosophy and the ideas were the foundation to the Constitution, yet the DOI also stands alone and did until the Constitution was written.

Now we see the Constitution and bill of rights in that context. Looking at the bill of rights, then, one can see how important those principles are.

Burying the lead

All that may seem like a heck of a wind up. The story is an illustration but any number of stories happening on a weekly basis would fit just as well. Known as hotbeds of activism, a college or University is where students are taking a stand. That alone seems like a noble thing. But what are they taking stands on? Sure campuses are incubators or pools of diverse opinion. Sometimes, but often they seem very monolithic.

Not so? Just look at some of the current trends of protests: BDS, same sex marriage, race activism, minimum wage, “social justice”, sex or abortion rights. And they are reactionary to current events. So that and political correctness, along with the academic and institutionalized hierarchy, is the backdrop. Plug in any number of issues like “controversial” speeches about Islamic terrorism — something which could affect numbers of students by the guns of radicalism aimed at them — or abortion rights they endorse.

What’s in a little harmless vandalism?

It happens again that the radically militant left has descended and stepped on someone’s first amendment speech. Well, I’m sure they don’t see it quite that way.

On a University campus in rural Pennsylvania — not like its Berkeley– students had a demonstration display permitted by the University. They had crosses symbolizing recent abortions.

According to the Students for Life website:

Original Story: (4/13):
For the second time in four years, the Clarion Students for Life Cemetery of the Innocents display, which consists of dozens of white crosses each representing 10 babies who were aborted that day, has been vandalized. Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, is located in Clarion, PA, about an hour and a half from Pittsburgh.
Clarion Students for Life put up the crosses Sunday night around 7pm and by 8am this morning, the club’s leaders were notified that the display had been vandalized – a few crosses were written on, others were broken, and others stuffed into the nearest trashcan.
The vandals wrote on some crosses:
“would you support if this life was gay?”
“would you support if this life were trans?”
“This was a reprehensible act of discrimination against Students for Life,” said senior Todd Garrett, Vice President of Clarion Students for Life. “It was an attack on our freedom of speech. I find it quite ridiculous that this is the second time since 2011 that our crosses have been desecrated.”
[…/]
“Instead of dialogue, abortion supporters have once again taken to bullying to silence those with whom they disagree,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America. “Perhaps if the vandals had sought this dialogue with Clarion Students for Life they would have learned that pro-life students support the right of every human person to be a person, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation. ”
Read more at: http://studentsforlife.org/clarion-students-for-life-crosses-display-vandalized/

As a matter of fact, the one individual that did confess to it had an explanation:

“She stated that the crosses had been written on before she was there. [That she] was offended by the display and thought that it was most likely from a group not associated with the University. She placed them into trash cans because she thought that she was doing the maintenance people a favor.”

So the diligently conscientious student was doing some house cleaning and helping out the maintenance crew. Along the way she was cleaning up that 1st amendment mess, but just tidying up for the janitor. Yep, sounds innocent enough. Can’t have enough helpful students around the campuses. Someone give her an award. Not making a joke of it, I would not be surprised if she or they were praised for what they did.

The subject of life deserves a closer look. You have the first amendment, in this case expressing support for life, and then you have vandalism and others trying to stifle their speech. So you have battling sides or factions.(pro-life & pro-abortion) Some say that is as it should be. But they vandalized and sought to block or shutdown the students for life.

What is amazing is to look what each side stands for. (if you want to see it in sides) You have students clearly standing on the side of life. Then you have others standing on the side of, well, various interests whether that be gays, anti-religion/ati-Christian, or abortion and what they would term pro-choice.

Consider the philosophy behind those sides. The protection of life has been a fundamental concept. Now the pro-life purposes and motives are pretty clear or “self-evident.”

I’d like to examine the vandals and pro-abortion side. They hold demonstrations and rallies. I understand that. However, look at their driving motive and philosophy. What is self-evident is they stand on the side of abortion, killing babies. Okay, whatever term you want to use it is the same thing. Now a perfectly acceptable, some believe righteous, thing to do is advocate for abortions. They stand up for ending the life of one or the 55 million ended since Roe Wade.

It is now a cause to rally support for abortion rights. And with their advocacy of defending that “right” comes the use of their 1st amendment rights. (their zealous advocacy goes beyond that) So they employ their entire first amendment rights to defend abortion. They vote and petition government the same way in support of abortion.

Is this an issue to spend one’s valuable God-given, not government created, rights on? It is to them. How much satisfaction and value is in abortion rights?

Is that advocacy the exact opposite of the premises in the Declaration? It is also in conflict with the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself considered by some to be controversial because they recognized that stating said rights could constitute government restrictions on them. Imagine that? And the Constitution was designed to limit government not its subjects. Some call that the chains of the Constitution.

Then let’s consider the freedom aspect. The freedoms enshrined in our system are now applied to ending innocent life. Yes, exercising one’s freedom in support of anything up to and including late term abortions as a sacred right protected by the Roe decision, as they see it. So we have the rights of freedoms and pursuit of happiness used to end life, or kill babies, not preserve it. Is that a perversion of the very rights they they are exercising?

What if a doctor consistently used his knowledge, ability and freedom to end life not preserve it? Could someone bind that up into a theme called social justice? Is their advocacy for those perversions as strong as for protecting life? Then they endorse that advocacy directly by terminology. They say they are protecting a woman’s right to choose. They call abortion reproductive healthcare. They call it “settled law” or the “law of the land,” or “basic reproductive rights”. What is basic about it?

The next time one of these all too common stories pops up, I hope people see it that way. But I fear the opposite instead. They have trained generations of people to see it in the post Roe light. They tell us you cannot restrict a woman’s right. They made it a part of every nomination for office, “do you accept a woman’s right to choose?” They have made Supreme Court nominees swear on the altar of the Roe decision many believe was wrongly decided. It is not a “law” that they have built this apparatus around.

They made it a religious test that you must leave your conscience at the door. They force people to swear on the altar of protecting abortion “rights”. In so doing, they have built the foundation of said right on the very concept they are attacking.

Humans have evolved so far that they have developed a sacred “right” to kill off their offspring. They have constructed a philosophy that life begins at conception of choice.

RightRing | Bullright

America speaks is anyone listening?

The American People Have Spoken… Again

Some good might be done short term, but God will not bless a nation whose leaders have turned their backs on Him.
David Fiorazo — November 7, 2014 | Western Journalism

Now what? A tidal wave of victories by Republicans in the 2014 Midterm elections only matter if those in power will stop the radical transformation of the United States of America. Voters are overwhelmingly unhappy with the direction of the country.

The Obama agenda must be thwarted; reckless spending must be stopped, the Constitution must be upheld, Planned Parenthood must be de-funded, families must be strengthened, marriage must be protected, ObamaCare must be repealed and replaced, Common Core must be eliminated, and the borders must be secured and laws enforced.

There is much work to do; and to whom much is given, much will be required. A great responsibility comes with this historic victory. Republicans have been given marching orders from fed-up citizens demanding to be heard. Stop compromising and return to conservative principles. The country must be given back to the people who sent a clear message to both political parties: liberalism, Marxism, and socialism won’t cut it in America! […/]
Read more at  http://www.westernjournalism.com/american-people-spoken-2/

Rafael Cruz: The Bible tells you exactly who to vote for

Epic: Watch Ted Cruz’s Dad Slam Obama, Lois Lerner, And Eric Holder With The Bible

“Let me prove it to you.”

Weatern Journalism | B. Christopher Agee — May 21, 2014

“Don’t elect the village idiot.” …”Essence of Federalism”.

Tea Party-Backed Sen. Ted Cruz often cites the impact his father, Cuban immigrant Rafael Cruz, had on his current status as a conservative icon. The elder Cruz, who serves as a pastor in Texas, remains an outspoken advocate for traditional values and, during a recent speech in Foxboro, Mass., presented the case for mixing faith and politics.

He addressed members and guests of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly 4th Chapter, concluding that the “Bible talks a lot about politics,” going on to explain how God’s Word can direct voters.

Read more

A limitless proposal

Wow, I must have missed this op-ed back last fall, but it really is stunning.

Obviously there are some who would actually support removing presidential term limits. The idea sounds as bad as it really is.

“End presidential term limits” By Jonathan Zimmerman November 28, 2013

“Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?”

What preposterous thinking. Obama would somehow be accountable to people if he could run again, when he was never accountable for the last 6 years. He ignored the will of people in his first term.

Oh right, he feared the voters so much in 2012 that they made up a story that Benghazi was caused by a video — all for an election. More of that, you say? You want more?

Right: more crony appointments, more fundraising bonanzas, and more feeble promises from a compulsive liar so he can run again? What nonsense. Obama wanted a Camelot presidency, and instead gave us a Carter nightmare on steroids, and a residency of pain. This would be better or fixed if he could just run again?

Oh, bad enough that we have Hillary in the breach for 2016. Just to suffer through her candidacy will be torture. It will suck the oxygen out of every corner of the country. But this guy advocates Obama 3.0.

Hold your horses because he went on to say:

“That was the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.”

A couple problems with that: this is a guy who caused more scandal and problems than any of the others. He repeatedly put us in intentional emergency situations, to inject or force his solution. I doubt Washington was referring to that. He did not foresee our inability to throw out a guy for ignoring the Constitution and abusing his power. And he presumes good men honor ethics and consider the good of the country. In that scenario he would step down for another. We don’t have either. This particular man is not “deemed universally most capable of serving the public.” He never was – people ignored that too. He added:

“Washington stepped down after two terms, establishing a pattern that would stand for more than a century. But he made clear that he was doing so because the young republic was on solid footing, not because his service should be limited in any way.”

Precisely. We don’t have that situation. And he is not leaving us better off. That’s the point. He wants to make us worse off and force himself as the only cure. I don’t think Washington correctly factored in the abuse of that power. An honorable man would know when to walk away. And at least Nixon resigned. Unfortunately, what we have here is the poster boy for term limits. (much how they thought of it when they passed it)

Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/end-presidential-term-limits/2013/11/28/50876456-561e-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

RightRing | Bullright

Thoughts: confusion

 

THOUGHTS
by
Just Gene
about
CONFUSION

 

I’m getting old and constantly find myself in a state of confusion. Watching the news about Egypt, I find the people democratically elected Mohamed Morsi as their President. Then it seems, as soon as he was sworn into office, he threw out the constitution. This totally pissed off the people of Egypt and the military kicked him out of office.
This is where the confusion comes in – sometimes I don’t know what town I’m in or even what day it is – but I look at the UNITED STATES of  AMERICA and I think I remember the people of the UNITED STATES democratically elected Barack Hussein Obama as their President. Then it seems as soon as he was sworn into office, he threw out the constitution. This totally pissed off the people of the UNITED STATES but the military did nothing. What is going on ? Oh – I know – we cut our military budget so we would have money to send to the Egyptian military.
Do you think we can send a petition to the Egyptian government to send some money to our military ? Never forget, the tree of liberty must often be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants – hopefully, mostly theirs. Keep in mind – the timid have never known the thrill of victory nor the agony of defeat. We must learn one or the other to protect our country – the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.
luvya

Safe Act…give me a break!

It is just possible that government has invented something new, “safe-free zones.”
I’ll name it that and save them the trouble.

What is safe about the SAFE Act?

“To protect” is the idea. But don’t expect your rights to be secured inside.

Safe, safety

Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound. 3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet. 4. Affording protection: a safe place.

Safe-free zones is kind of an oxymoron, but that is the result of Cuomo’s “Safe Act”.  Or you could call them rights-free zones.

Governments are instituted among men to secure their unalienable rights.
Safety would be government securing our God-given rights as a priority.

Instead, when they use the word “safe” or safety, it often means “now we are going to limit your rights.” It is not a zero sum game.  Securing rights now means taking away people’s rights. So lawmakers had to use the acronym “SAFE” for gun control. That doesn’t make it so.

 
Enter Governor Cuomo:
NY Governor Cuomo is deliberately using “Safety” as a political device. They should outlaw cars because there people can be killed in cars. No? Maybe you should be prohibited from speech in a movie theater because people have screamed “fire” or created panic. How about we ban some words because they can be used a certain way? (too late…) How about we prohibit assembly because it can turn into a riot?

When did people’s rights become such a threat to government? On the contrary, government has become a threat to our rights. Why should taking away rights make you safer?

But the real crux of the problem is someone who is tasked to preserve and secure our God-given rights, is directly trampling on them. At the very same time he is trying to promote late-term abortion – a gruesome act according to anyone with eyes to see.

Would he regulate and ban scissors because they are used in abortions? I’m serious. Even the pro-life Right is not asking for that. They don’t even blame those vacuums and suction hoses. But Cuomo actually wants to protect and legalize late-term abortions, and even let them choose the means.

So Cuomo is on a mission and the objective is to restrict, limit and destroy our rights. The other is to give even more power to the government, to track people and mine information from them, then use this information in any way they see fit against them.

All that in his agenda under the guise of “Safe”. Know this, you will not be “safe” from the ever-encroaching government or its burgeoning bureaucracy. You are not meant to be. Thus, you will not be safe or secure in your possessions or papers. You’re security and freedom is a disposable commodity to Cuomo and the Left. That “freedom” is a threat to our government and others, in their minds. How else could you explain their actions?

Government’s purpose is apparently not to protect our God-given freedom, but to usurp and abolish it. They have taken that to be their priority in doing so under this “safe act”. The Safe Act is the biggest contradiction and oxymoron I think I have ever seen. The only question for them now is where do they go from here?

Why did they have to name the freedom robbing law the “Safe Act” rather than the Freedom Abolishing Act? Then they could have even used the acronym FAACT. And the fact is they are taking freedom and liberty and burying them as deep as they can, under whatever they can, supposedly to create Safety. Only they could have thought of it.

If Obama calls his signature healthcare takeover an “affordability” act when it drives up costs, then using that standard Cuomo has declared his candidacy.

We know the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What about others?

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How about the Fifth amendment?

“…nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

How about the fourteenth Amendment:

(Sec. 1) – 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.

WND – “Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#dZHPcmhSYv4hOmGR.99

H/T to Pepp for pointing out that article in a comment on a prior post.

Remember when Hillary and others declared abortions should be safe, legal, rare. “Dr.” Gosnell destroyed her notion as the bologna it is.

…If and ONLY when the government declares it one.

How about a “Give Me a Break Act”, sound too corny?

Right to Life Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness now means restricting your second amendment. A government of, by, and for government for the the protection of same.

Kerry, case of tyranny and treason

Kerry Says US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty, Ignores Congressional Opposition

Monday, 03 Jun 2013  – Newsmax

By Lisa Barron

Secretary of State John Kerry says that the U.S. will sign a controversial United Nations treaty on arms control in spite of bipartisan opposition from lawmakers.

Kerry released a written statement on Monday saying the U.S. “welcomes” the next phase for the treaty, which the U.N. General Assembly approved on April 2 but which gun rights advocates on Capitol Hill fear could lead to new gun control measures domestically, reports Fox News.

We look forward to signing it as soon as the process of conforming the official translations is completed satisfactorily,” Kerry said, adding that the treaty is “an important contribution to efforts to stem the illicit trade in conventional weapons, which fuels conflict, empowers violent extremists, and contributes to violations of human rights.”

The treaty would reportedly require countries that ratify it to establish national guidelines to govern the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers.

Supporters of gun rights have warned that it could be used as the basis for more gun control measures in the U.S.

Last week, 130 members of Congress signed a letter to President Barack Obama and Kerry calling on them to reject the measure.

We strongly encourage your administration to recognize its textual, inherent and procedural flaws, to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms owners, and to defend the sovereignty of the United States, and thus to decide not to sign this treaty,” they wrote.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/kerry-arms-treaty/2013/06/03/id/507825?s=al&promo_code=13B4C-1

H/T to Dave for the article

Just ignore the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. It still needs a two-thirds majority in the Senate to ratify it. But Kerry pays no attention to that,  he now speaks for the supreme King so he is very confident. Is he looking into Benghazigate and the arms running under the table? You can doubt that. Maybe that wind surfing went to his head.

Crisis on Pennsylvania Ave.

My central question is this (pardon me if it is self-evident to some people) :

Is Obama trying to create a Constitutional crisis, then extort it for gain?

It is the M-O of organizers to use or create friction and dispute, then take advantage of it however they can. “Never let a crisis go to waste” is their motto, I think.

Look what he did with the Obamcare, fast and furious, the fiscal mess, the fiscal crisis, and the sequestration and fallout, still unfolding.

Now with simultaneous scandals gripping every branch of government, and most departments of this administration, isn’t it hard to label it mere “coincidence”? What would they be doing if not causing scandals? They sure do set up quite the show. Does it all set the stage Constitutional crisis?

Extreme Irony along the way:

The IRS wants you to list every book you read, and name the people who influenced you and their political philosophy… etc, etc, etc. Yet at a congressional hearing, the same IRS employees can not answer one question and plead the fifth amendment protection. What’s wrong with that picture? It appears they were granted an exemption too.

Marriage…or whatever

The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?

That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.

So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.

The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.

Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.

On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.

But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.

So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.

Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.

Digging deeper

Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.

This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.

He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.

For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.

The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.

As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?

So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.

He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it.  Are all those reasons hard to accept?

“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”

Cuomo seeks to lift late-term abortion restrictions

NY Governor Cuomo wants to do all he can to restrict the rights of gun owners in his empirical state, though he wants to expand the right of women to kill their babies.

 

In my mind’s eye, I think therefore I am. 

And he is willing to rewrite laws in order to expand killing babies, as something worthy of defending and preserving — sort of like what he is supposed to be sworn to do for the Constitution. He apparently is sworn to protect killing babies.

On his other hand, Cuomo is out for every restriction and ban he can get to infringe on the second amendment rights of people. Can’t get enough of that, fast enough.

Here is NYT covering his latest abortion “protection” maneuvers. (excerpts)

“ALBANY — Bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is putting the finishing touches on legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions when their health is in danger or the fetus is not viable.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposal, which has not yet been made public, would also clarify that licensed health care practitioners, and not only physicians, can perform abortions. It would remove abortion from the state’s penal law and regulate it through the state’s public health law.

New York legalized abortion in 1970, three years before it was legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Mr. Cuomo’s proposal would update the state law so that it could stand alone if the broader federal standard set by Roe were to be undone.

“Why are we doing this? The Supreme Court could change,” said a senior Cuomo administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the governor had not formally introduced his proposal.

But opponents of abortion rights, already upset at the high rate of abortions in New York State, worry that rewriting the abortion law would encourage an even greater number of abortions. For example, they suggest that the provision to allow abortions late in a woman’s pregnancy for health reasons could be used as a loophole to allow unchecked late-term abortions.

I am hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation that is less needed or more harmful than this one,” the archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, wrote in a letter to Mr. Cuomo last month. Referring to Albany lawmakers in a subsequent column, he added, “It’s as though, in their minds, our state motto, ‘Excelsior’ (‘Ever Upward’), applies to the abortion rate.”

National abortion rights groups have sought for years to persuade state legislatures to adopt laws guaranteeing abortion rights as a backup to Roe. But they have had limited success: Only seven states have such measures in place, including California, Connecticut and Maryland; the most recent state to adopt such a law is Hawaii, which did so in 2006.  “

Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/nyregion/cuomo-bucks-tide-with-bill-to-lift-abortion-limits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Swampland @ Time.com explains:

New York is one of the latter, with few abortion restrictions and greater access to the procedure than nearly any other state. Gov. Andrew Cuomo reportedly wants to widen access even further and has proposed rewriting a state law that now limits abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy to women whose lives are in danger. Cuomo’s proposal, as reported by the New York Times, would also allow abortions after 24 weeks to protect a woman’s health. According to the New York Times, Cuomo wants to ensure wide access to abortion in New York state is on the books in case the Supreme Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade.

Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/19/what-andrew-cuomos-abortion-proposal-says-about-access-in-2013/#ixzz2PWPVco2w

So he is willing to go to lengths, and prepare for any eventuality to “protect” abortion, just in case killing babies falls out of favor with SCOTUS. And he wants to make sure that late-term abortion is protected, even expanded. This is the reasoning of a Liberal mind. Preserving Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness apparently means protecting killing babies. Yea, and that is worth preserving. Enumerated rights, not so much.

Protest looming

Filmmaker asks bishop to excommunicate Cuomo

WND – A faithful Catholic [Jason Jones] who is a human-rights activist and filmmaker has written a letter to the Catholic bishop in Albany, N.Y., asking him to excommunicate Gov. Andrew Cuomo for his support for abortion, which conflicts with church law.

The issue of pro-abortion politicians who claim to be Catholic has arisen several times lately, including when both Vice President Joseph Biden and U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., accepted Catholic communion during their visit to the Vatican for the installation of Pope Francis.

From his letter:

Governor Andrew Cuomo, as the New York Times reports, proposes to repeal any protection granted third-trimester fetuses in New York. His “reform” is supported by a wide array of public figures and powerful institutions, including the organizations that perform many of the abortions in your own diocese. The New York Times article notes that Cuomo is “bucking a trend in which states have been seeking to restrict abortion,” balancing the fight with “legislation that would guarantee women in New York the right to late-term abortions….” Through his bully pulpit, Governor Cuomo is spreading a falsehood every bit as toxic as the racism once shouted through bullhorns in 1962 New Orleans.

And in doing so, Cuomo is positioning himself to promote these ideas across the nation. The Washington Post calls Cuomo’s legislation a move with “big implications for Cuomo’s political future” when considered “in the context of his potential presidential ambitions.” In other words, a self-proclaimed Catholic in your diocese stands on the verge of becoming a national champion of policies utterly incompatible with Christian values. And you, Bishop Hubbard, are in the happy position of being able to do something about it.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/filmmaker-asks-bishop-to-excommunicate-cuomo/#DhiGJTyxvw8QyyPr.99

But he can’t get enough of grabbing gun rights. Those rights need to be squelched, restricted, stomped on, and undone if possible. Just don’ try to restrict late-term abortions.

The right to Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Nah, but what Americans want is an unalienable right to abortion — that’s what they care about.

H/T to Pepp for the information, WND.

Related:
    https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/ny-cuomo-and-gun-con-trol/

    https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/cuomos-gun-snitch-program-under-fire/

Obama worse off script than on script

Repetition of ‘They Deserve A Vote’ Wasn’t in Obama’s Prepared Remarks

      By     Elizabeth Flock —  US News

February 13, 2013

President Barack Obama went off-the-cuff in more  than 20 places throughout his approximately 7,000 word State of the  Union speech Tuesday night. And each time, it seemed the president was  motivated to do so by a certain point he wanted to hammer home.

The  most interesting ad-lib happened when Obama spoke about gun control,  delivering an impassioned repetition of the phrase “They deserve a  vote,” in reference to victims of gun violence, including of the  December shooting in Newtown. In his prepared remarks, Obama said the  phrase “they deserve a vote” just once, then named the victims, then  reiterated that “they deserve a simple vote.” When he got to the podium,  the president added in the phrase four more times.

George  Lakoff, a professor of linguistics at the University of  California-Berkeley and a Democratic political strategist, says the  repetition of “they deserve a vote” was a reflection of a speech he says  was all about empathy.

“He’s saying… ‘Do you have empathy  for the victims? Are you afraid to even say that you don’t?’ It’s an  emotional moment. He’s saying ‘Look, who are you?'” The moment was made  stronger, according to Lakoff, because “the other guys [in Congress]  were just just sitting there not clapping, saying nothing.”

See more: US News and World Report

Maybe someone should tell Obama that America beat him to it. They already ratified the second amendment a couple hundred years ago. But not even a month into office, he reveals he isn’t going to keep his oath or any law he so chooses. Ignore the Constitution.

If he wanted a memorable tag line, he could call to “repeal the second amendment” and say “these people deserve it”. So the radicals who go into psychotic fits when they hear “repeal ObamaCare” — a law that isn’t even in full force yet, with no Constitutional authority, and which isn’t finished– want to repeal a Constitutional Amendment but they aren’t even honest enough to say it.

Now the Constitution “needs a vote”, even if they are ignoring it. So repeating that line over and over gives it some legitimacy? ‘Vote on emotion, ignore the Constitution.’ People thought four dead Americans in Benghazi deserved a response. He doesn’t care about that. Demand a vote on a budget? Secure and protect the Constitution? Nah. Too busy with gun banning gun control…too busy organizing brownshirts or blackshirts.

Too bad he didn’t run on gun banning in the campaign. How would that sound? “I, Barack Obama, want to repeal and abolish the second amendment…vote for me… And I’m not too thrilled with the first one either.”

“Click your heels three times and repeat….” — and hope no one catches on. His rhetoric has all the legitimacy of a stink bomb even if he has people cheering him.

Piers Morgan’s anti-Constitution activism

How many rules of journalism does Piers Morgan break in this debate (for lack of other word)?
Or how much hypocrisy does he reveal?
Or how much common sense does he ignore? The end says it all.
See video at link by nycresistance

[Morgan gets angered over gun control debate with two women. Plays the “tank” card.]


Ignorance prevails.
“Hi, I’m Piers Morgan, and I’m sick of it….
And I also detest that 22nd Amendment of your Constitution that limits a president to 2 terms.” (little paraphrasing)

Not enough this Brit has issues with the 2nd Amendment, he also has an utter disdain for the 22nd on top of it. Well, maybe he has a personal phobia of the number two.

 

Rarely do two of my most unfavored people come together to air their views, but when they do this is what can happen:

Back in September 2012, he was all over the 22nd Amendment in an interview with Bill Clinton. It was like Piers trying to interview his alter ego. Sure, Larry King had major faults but this guy is totally shameless.

Morgan interviews Bill Clinton (excerpt – transcript)
MORGAN: That was that. You electrified the place. And they all say, why do we have this goddamned 22nd Amendment? Why couldn’t Bill Clinton just run again and be president for the next 30 years?

CLINTON: Well, we had it for a good reason. There — it’s a hard job being president. And you also have a vast array of people working for you. It worked, I think, well. We — I think we did the right thing to keep President Roosevelt for a third term.

But when he died shortly after being elected to a fourth term, and people didn’t really know a full measure of his health challenges, the 22nd Amendment passed. It’s ironic that the 22nd Amendment passed at a time when people thought the Democrats had a lock on the White House and then it was — then after the last 50 years, the Republicans had it more than the Democrats.

But I think there’s still an argument for saying that eight years, certainly eight years in a row, is enough. You don’t want this — you don’t want to run the risk of sclerosis in a democratic society. You want to keep the blood running. You don’t want to get the idea that any country, particularly not one this big and diverse and important as ours, is dependent on any one person.

You look at a lot of these dictators that have been deposed in the last few years, and the few that are hanging on. Almost all of them at one time were young and idealistic and incredibly capable. And they really meant to do something good. And they just kind of outstayed their welcome. So I love the life I have now.

I like helping the president. I like helping my country. I’m interested in politics, but I like what I’m doing. I think that, on balance, the system we have is better than the no limits.

Maybe someday the rules will be changed so if you can serve two years and lay out and — serve two terms and lay out a term or two, you could run again because for a simple reason, we’re all living so much longer and we’re maintaining the capacity to work and think clearly for a longer period. So some future people might be affected that — by that. It shouldn’t affect me or anybody who’s been president —

MORGAN: We’re trying to change the rules in Britain, actually, because if you can’t be president again here, we’d quite like you to be prime minister in our country. Are you available if it comes to — I get this through?

CLINTON: They — there are only two countries I’m eligible to run for the leadership position is if I move to Ireland and buy a house, I can — I can run for president of Ireland, because of my Irish heritage.

And because I was born in Arkansas, which is part of the Louisiana Purchase, any person anywhere in the world that was born in a place that ever was part of the French empire, if you move to — if you live in France for six months and speak French, you can run for president.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: However, I once polled very well in a French presidential race. And I said, you know, this is great, but that’s the best I’d ever do because once they heard my broken French with a Southern accent, I would drop into single digits within a week and I’d be toast. I just don’t think — that’s what I think. I think the system we have may have some opportunity costs.

You know, I was young, perhaps I could have done another term, but I thought Al Gore was going to win and I wanted him to win. I thought he would have been a good president. I still think so. And the thing that’s kept America going is that we’ve trusted the people over the leaders. And I love my life now.

And if I can help my country, I will. But I — we’re organized around institutions, values, restraints on power and people. And it’s worked out pretty well for us for 200 years. We ought not to fool with it too much.

And on another show he verbalized his disdain for the 22nd Amendment — as the worst thing they did — whatever his adjectives were.

Special: Constitution BoR

SPECIAL V

by

Just Gene

about

CONSTITUTION DAY

The first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) were ratified effective December 15, 1791

 

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.
 

I       Freedom of religion – condoms over conscience

        Freedom of speech – unless it offends someone

        Freedom of assembly – if you can avoid the drones and cameras

        Freedom to petition – only with redacted answers via FOI

II     Right to keep and bear arms –the security of a FREE  state, not a government CONTROLLED state and   when the police decide you shouldn’t have them, ala Katrina

III   No soldier shall be quartered – the same as in England, except for the Olympics

IV   The right to be secure in your person, house – unless a federal agent issues themselves a no knock   Warrant or your property is needed for a sports stadium

V    No person shall be held to answer for a crime without a presentation or indictment of a grand jury  –   unless someone suggests you may be a potential terrorist i.e. ex-military, tea party member, or just   holding your Bible – then you disappear

VI   Right to a speedy and public trial – re-read IV &V

VII  Right to trial by jury – unless you’re forced into small claims court

VIII Excessive bail shall not be required – if you can’t afford it, it’s excessive

IX   The enumerations of certain rights shall not deny others retained by the people – unless it’s for our own  good, like health insurance, buying corporations, sending money to our allies enemies

X    The powers not delegated to the Feds are reserved to the states or the people – we are not a Sovereign  Union of States, we are a union of Sovereign States – so I don’t even know where to begin

 

KEEP HAPPY – KEEP HEALTHY

A redundancy

luvya

Could someone check the archives – is it still there?!!