Thursday, August 20, 2015

"Fox News Anchored in Stupidity on 14th Amendment."

The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan's crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm beginning to like Trump a little bit. I do have one question for him: Just how does he plan to make Mexico pay for the border wall?

- Old Greybeard

Anonymous said...

I saw Jeb on television being interviewed about the "anchor baby" question and he solemnly stated that it was a "constitutional right."
Then I heard Mark Levin interviewing an expert on the 14th Amendment who said there's no such thing and that it would be relatively easy for legislatures to clarify this misconception (no pun intended).
I can't wait for Jeb to listen to his mother's advice.

Anonymous said...

Seems to be a simple matter of a little crayon remover.

Anonymous said...

Here is how you get Mexico to pay for a wall -
Mexico, either you pay the relative pittance to build the wall, this working with us to make immigration AND remittance flow workable and mutually beneficial OR the people of this country reach a breaking point where the demand to close the border entirely grows inescapable AND the popular desire to PUNISH Mexico becomes so overwhelming that NO remittances are allowed (oh and we decriminalize weed nationwide thus ending the last thread holding the drug war together). Oh, and we could see tariffs so high on everything - especially your oil- that nobody in this country will do legit business with you or any company daring to remain in Mexico.

Mexico WILL GLADLY pay for the wall... just like Gorbie tore down that wall when told to do so.
Stop DOUBTING America! Stand up FOR HER- especially in the face of the naysayers! Good things happen to her people when her people stick up for her!!! History proves it over and over again. Let's prove it again!

FedUp said...

I thought that SCOTUS made this discovery in 1898, but that one was in reference to parents who were here LEGALLY, which IMO is what 'subject to the jurisdiction' hinges upon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Anonymous said...

O'Reilly is an idiot! As a (supposed) journalist he should know that something written, like the 14th amendment doesn't "say" anything. It "reads" such-and-such - not "says"..And as for the crux of this whole argument, any and all amendments after the "War Between the States" should be considered null and void. The 13th should be re-written to not only make slavery and involuntary servitude unlawful but should also include "voluntary servitude"; the type of servitude we are all in to the Federal Reserve. AND it should actually be the 14th amendment as a 13th already existed before the Not-So-Civil War. It forbade the use of titles of nobility for anyone holding public office. Like the title "Esquire", so loved by BAR attorneys. Our Founders hated titles so much that they wrote it into the constitution not once, but twice, that no one holding office should have a "title"...The 17th amendment is another slight-of-hand, hocus-pokus bit of legislation. State legislators should decide u.S. Senators, not popular vote...but I'm off on a tangent here, sorry. 14th gets interpreted by some occult magician wearing a black robe and we're supposed to accept it because O'Reilly says it's correct...Yeah, right. Only to the Americans that can't read, can't think and watch plenty of TV..so I guess he's right..

Anonymous said...

"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."

Read the plain language. It doesn't seem to me to be too hard to parse. It may not say what the original author wish it said, it may not say what some person today wishes it said, but there are plain-spoken words on paper. If you want something else there, put forth an amendment.

There are really only two ways to read the constitution, take the plain meaning of the plain words, or make shit up as you go along. We are all trying to get the 2nd amendment away from the "make shit up" method and back to the "plain meaning" method. It's going to be hard to argue at the same time that the 14th should use the "make shit up" method" instead of "plain meaning" and still pass the giggle test.

CaliforniaPatriot said...

I am SO glad to see this column by Ann Coulter and on the Sipsey website!! Thanks, Mike! I'm disgusted with FOX News' perversion of the 14th Amendment and I wrote them an email yesterday via their "Americas' Newsroom" show:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Martha & Bill! Will you (and most others of the FOX News anchors and shows) PLEASE have Mark Levin on your shows as a guest because he actually KNOWS the BACKGROUND and REASONING behind the 14th Amendment?? I am SO tired of hearing your guests just blow smoke about it because of the political correctness of allowing illegal aliens from any foreign country into ours so they can have babies here and claim American citizenship for their entire families! Then those same guests just throw up their hands and claim there’s nothing that can be done! Hogwash!!

It’s sad that FOX News is not performing its due diligence on this national security topic and losing its credibility with many viewers because of its apparent ignorance of the facts.

If you REALLY want to know the truth about the 14th Amendment and investigate it, listen to this broadcast from August 18, 2015:
Mark Levin: The Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment, Birthright Citizenship & Illegal Immigration
“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlLzFfrhClI” – (Audio only)

Or better yet – INVITE Mark Levin to be the guest on FOX who will set the record straight on the purpose of the 14th Amendment with his expertise on the Constitution and law! This is not just a bunch of words thrown on paper for us in the present day to interpret however we like! To correctly interpret texts, one must know the back ground/cultures of the time and of the authors and THEIR intent. And Mark Levin is brilliant at this study technique!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hope everyone bombards FOX on their total disregard of the FACTS!

Anonymous said...

How would Trump make the Mexicans pay for the wall? The President's only real, spelled out job is National security. He can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants. Here are some ideas.
-Remember that Ford plant that moved down there? How about stiff tariffs to bring those cars back here.
-Just like "O" opened the borders, Trump could shut 'em down. "Recent National Security incidents dictates that we close all Mexican crossing points until further notice".
-Tell the Mexicans, "build the wall, because until you do, we will be making special ops incursions regularly into your border areas targeting the illicit drug trafficking business. And we won't be arresting them. We'll leave the clean-up of the bodies to you"

ashv said...

How he's going to make Mexico pay for the wall --- https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

"impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]."

mcridge said...

Ken Klukowski, a practicing constitutional attorney, presents a succinct review of the actual 13th and 14th amendments and the various federal immigration and naturalization statutes that flow from them, in Breitbart, http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/. His analysis clearly establishes that "birthright citizenship" is not valid. Don't know how to take Judge Napolitano, who I usually find supportable. Napolitano is wrong on this one.

Uncle Elmo said...

Old Greybeard-
A caller to a radio show I listen to (can't remember which one) suggested paying for the wall by charging a surtax on money transfers to Mexico. I thought that idea was brilliant.

Anonymous, re: 14th Amendment-
If you can, find a podcast of Levin's first hour today (Thursday, 9/20). You'll enjoy it. He explains the 14A and 'anchor babies' as only a Constitutional genius like Levin can.

Chiu ChunLing said...

The relevant text of the 14th Amendment reads, "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." The critical clause is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". "Subject" is a bit of a special term, in the language of the time it would definitely imply voluntary allegiance and adherence to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

In the later, Marxist, view of language, subjection is inherently involuntary and thus a "subject" is what we would (grammatically and practically) term an "object" (as in "and an object of the jurisdiction thereof").

This shouldn't be construed so as to mean that, because a person is not born allegiant to the United States, that they are thus ineligible for citizenship. It does mean that the full privileges of citizenship (like, say voting) can (not must, but perhaps should) be restricted to those who have demonstrated such allegiance, in addition to being born or naturalized in the United States.

In other words, someone who obeys, upholds, and defends the Constitution even when there is "no enforcement authority" holding a gun to their head. A person who only obeys the law under duress cannot be considered truly "subject", but merely an "object". Of course Marxists want to reduce everyone else to objects of their criminal diktats, and are willing to twist language to that end. But to bear true allegiance is a choice (not a whim or impulse).

Anonymous said...

@Old Greybeard

>>I'm beginning to like Trump a little bit. I do have one question for him: Just how does he plan to make Mexico pay for the border wall?

Isn't that what tariffs are for?

Anonymous said...

AWWW, give Fauxnews a break..it has to uphold the fake dichotomy of opposition to Progressivism..They love corrupt FED GOV for all the same reasons the Progressives do, they just have a mission to sell us out the other way. All the media is about convincing us to give up our rights (for those of you who ACTUALLY listen to Fauxnews talking heads and their usually party line guests actually say).. but who am I to point out the obvious...

Sign me Neal Jensen

Robin said...

Immigration? This is what I think: No matter what the intention, the Constitution states that if you are born here, you are a citizen unless your parents are here on official business for their country (exp: diplomats, exchange officers, etc.). Like the 2nd Amendment, this is one of those things that make us THE exceptional nation in the history of the world. I don't want to be like every other country. I welcome immigrants as long as they are legal. If you are physically born in the United States, you win and are a citizen no matter what your parents are. No other country in history has ever done that ( except Canada and everybody knows that Canada doesn't count). I'm proud of our heritage and want everybody to know it. Besides, if their parents take the child with them when they are deported, that is their right, but the kid is still a citizen.

Chiu ChunLing said...

We can legally define someone as a citizen even when they haven't been born or naturalized in the United States. We can also define someone as a citizen even when they are not an active voluntary agent (i.e. a subject) to the laws of the United States (which, in this case, we should consider a verb).

That does not mean that the 14th Amendment covers any persons who are not actively engaged in voluntarily obeying, upholding, and defending the Constitution of the United States and all laws made pertinent to it.