Over the last several weeks the call to end “birthright citizenship” has gained momentum. Several Republicans have joined in the cause to eliminate anchor babies, the latest being House minority leader John Boehner, who is now stating that the anchor baby provision in the 14th amendment needs to be reexamined.
He now joins the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, in calling for a study into the provision in the 14th amendment which states that ” 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.”
This clause in the 14th amendment was originally a narrow clause in the constitution that was aimed at former slaves who were born in the United States of America to ensure that they were granted constitutional rights, but over time the clause has been redefined and expanded to mean that all aliens–illegal or otherwise– whose child was born while the mother was in the United States is a citizen of the United States.
This is a clause that has been abused by people sneaking into this country illegally to give birth so that not only would their children be granted rights under the constitution, but to also gain sympathy from those that would state that it is unfair to deport the parents of a child who is now an American citizen solely for the reason that the child was born here even if the mother did not belong here in the first place.
Here is what John Boehner had to say:
There is a problem. To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country,” Boehner said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I do think that it’s time for us to secure our borders and enforce the law and allow this conversation about the 14th Amendment to continue
In certain parts of our country, clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants — a lot of whom came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens
He is exactly right; by allowing babies of illegal aliens born on American soil automatic citizenship the federal government has incentivized the illegal immigration of people into this country–even RINO and amnesty advocate Lindsey Graham sees it this way.
However not everybody sees it this way, and those who are opposed to revisiting the 14th amendment–including Harry Reid–believe that the problem has been overblown by Republicans.
Let us play devil’s advocate here for a minute and agree that this issue has been overblown by Republicans. If this is the case, and there are only a few people who come to this country illegally for the sole reason of having a baby on American soil so that that baby will be an American citizen, why wouldn’t people like Harry Reid be willing to revisit the 14th amendment as a means to show republicans that Democrats are serious about negotiating a comprehensive immigration reform policy? Certainly if this was not a widespread problem the Democrats would be willing to throw the Republicans a bone on this issue as part of a compromise. But they are unwilling to do so, and the reason for this is simple; the anchor baby clause in the 14th amendment is a major reason–and a large incentive–for illegal immigration into this country.
This is a longshot to say the least. It is going to take a constitutional amendment to change the 14th amendment of the constitution and nobody is going to take on this challenge so close to an election. It is clear that Republicans are pushing this issue now for political reasons and it is clear that Democrats are opposing this issue for political reasons–both sides are playing to their bases. But the fact is that the “birthright citizenship” clause that has been interpreted into the constitution should be abolished; it is unacceptable that a pregnant mother would be allowed to enter this country illegally to give birth to their child for the sole reason that that child will automatically be a citizen of the United States.
While this idea is a longshot that will probably never come to pass, it is still good to see some Republicans stand up and declare that part of any comprehensive immigration reform bill should be a reexamination of the birthright citizenship clause on the constitution.
The subject of immigration reform should not even be considered until we secure the border and stop future illegal aliens from crossing the border, and one of the best ways to stop illegal immigration would be to deincentivize people from crossing the border.
A good place to start would be ending birthright citizenship.
August 6th 2010, Hiroshima revisited
On the morning of August 6th 1945, a plane named the “Enola Gay” took off from an airfield on Tinian Island and headed for mainland Japan carrying a very special cargo named “Little Boy.”
Once Colonel Paul Tibbets reached the Japanese city of Hiroshima–a strategic military target located in the middle of a civilian city–he unleashed “Little Boy.” The effects were immediate and devastating, some 70,000 people died on the first day, while estimates for the total loss of life are somewhere around 150,000-200,000. Nobody knows for sure how many Japanese died as a direct result of this bombing.
But still the Japanese–who all had sworn to fight until the death–refused to surrender. Even in the face of warnings by Harry Truman that the United States had in its possession the most powerful explosive known to man, and would continue to use it if the Japanese did not tender its unconditional surrender they refused to give in.
Three days later “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki and the end result was inevitable and although Hirohito never used the word surrender: “However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that we have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable,” preferring to call surrender unendurable and insufferable– everybody knew that that meant. Nine days after the first bomb was dropped Japan had surrendered, the war was over.
In the 65 years that have followed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it has been greatly debated whether the bombings were necessary or if the United States dropped the bombs solely as a show of force to other nations (Russia–which had entered the war against Japan after Hiroshima–in particular.)
Some have claimed that Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway, and that all we had to do was give them more time. While it is true that Hirohito had had discussions with his generals about surrender, he rejected any notion of surrender every time it was brought up. He had no intention of surrendering after all of these years of telling every Japanese person that to die for the emperor was glorious and that Japan would never surrender.
This mentality was so engrained in the Japanese soldier that once it was learned that Hirohito had decided to “endure the unendurable” the military leaders actually started planning a coup to overthrow him and continue the war until every man was dead–swearing to jump off the cliffs to their deaths if necessary instead of surrendering.
If the bombs were not dropped and a full-scale invasion of mainland Japan was executed (as General MacArthur hoped for) instead, the invasion force would have dwarfed the allied invasion in Normandy on D-Day and it is estimated that extending the war would have cost America alone an additional one million plus casualties.
The effects of the bombings were brutal but they brought a swift end to a brutal war–in a way the war in the Pacific may have been more brutal than the European theater, just look at the atrocities performed by Japanese soldiers on American POWs–that may have lingered on for who knows how long.
The debate over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will forever be debated, but in my opinion while many lives were taken in such a short period of time, the lives saved over the longterm because of the continued fighting is all the justification needed.
America’s Watchtower endorses Frank Guinta in New Hampshire’s 1st district House race
It is time for me to weigh in and start endorsing the New Hampshire candidates in the Republican primaries that I feel best represent my ideals and the ideals of New Hampshire voters all across this great state.
My first endorsement is for the 1st congressional district (my district) in New Hampshire and that endorsement goes to Frank Guinta. This is probably not a surprise as Frank Guinta is the front-runner, but he is the best candidate in the race to defeat Carol Shea-Porter. (For some possible upset picks in other races, stay tuned.)
Some points on Frank Guinta:
As mayor of Manchester, Frank Guinta proved to be a tax cutter and a fierce fighter against out of control spending in New Hampshire and I am sure that he will bring this perspective to Washington.
Frank Guinta is tough on crime–under his leadership violent crime in Manchester decreased by 15%.
Frank Guinta supports the repeal of Obamacare.
Frank Guinta supports a balanced budget amendment as well as a spending cap amendment.
Frank Guinta believes that if an illegal alien is caught committing a crime that person should be deported. While he feels that illegal immigration sweeps are not the answer and are not practical (I disagree with this) that once an illegal alien is detained he should be deported. While making my decision between Frank Guinta and Sean Mahoney in this race, this was the deciding issue.
While these candidates appear to agree on most issues, Sean Mahoney does not agree that illegal aliens should be deported once they are caught–preferring to track them instead. I disagree with this notion to the point where I cannot support him.
Frank Guinta has appeared and spoken at the Tea Party events in the state and has the support of the Tea Party.
This is a pivotal election for both the nation and for New Hampshire. New Hampshire has taken a hard left hand turn over the last three election cycles as anti-Bush sentiment has grown. The results have been disastrous for both the state and the nation. It is time to begin the process of taking back our government, and that process begins with the firing of Carol Shea-Porter and the hiring of Frank Guinta!
Federal judge overturns California’s gay marriage ban
As everyone has heard by now, a federal judge has overturned California’s gay marriage ban. I have made my feelings about gay marriage known in my “About Me” page in some depth, so I am not going to go into it again other than to say that while I oppose gay marriage, I feel gay marriage is an issue that should be left up to the states–and the people of the individual states– to decide; my biggest issue surrounding gay marriage is the fact that I want to see the proper constitutional procedure followed.
My problem with gay marriage in California is directly related to the manner in which it became legalized the first time. The California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage–in effect creating state policy instead of interpreting policy. If gay marriage was to be legalized in California it should have been done by creating a law which would have legalized it, not by a court decision.
Once the court created gay marriage out of thin air, the people of California–who, along with the states, under the 10th amendment have the right to decide issues not granted to the federal government–voted against gay marriage, making a marriage in the state of California specifically between one man and one woman. This was their right, and whether you agree with this or not, this was the proper procedure as outlined in the California constitution.
But now a federal judge has overturned a law that the people of California wanted, again overstepping their rightful constitutional authority. If the legislators in California wanted to make gay marriage legal, they had the means and the right to do so; pass a law, but do not let the courts find a “right” that is non-existant in the constitution of the state.
I know what I am about to say is at odds with the feelings of a majority of conservatives, but I consider myself a constitutionalist, a state’s right advocate, and an originalist first, and because of this I feel that if a state legalizes gay marriage using the proper procedures, so be it. My biggest problem with this ruling is not the fact that gay marriage was legalized in California, but rather in the fact that I do not believe the proper procedure was followed.
Legalized gay marriage does not affect me or my life one bit and when you look at all of the problems this country has moving forward, gay marriage is way down on the list of priorities, but what does affect EVERY American citizen is when the constitution is abandoned– and I feel it was in this case.
The people are speaking out against the healthcare reform law–and more specifically, the healthcare mandates included in that law–in large numbers. The latest example of this is the ballot question that was voted on in Missouri last night that would prohibit healthcare mandates in Missouri.
Over 70% of the voters in Missouri rejected the notion that the federal government can mandate an American citizen to buy medical insurance against their will. This is being considered a moral victory because federal law trumps state law; normally I am not one to put much stock in such moral victories–you either win or you lose–a symbolic victory is nothing more than a victory conceived by those that have lost and are looking for something–anything– to hang their hats on in defeat.
But in this case a moral victory on the healthcare mandates sends a clear message to Washington that everyone in the capital who voted for this legislation should expect to lose their jobs when they are up for re-election because this great showing by the voters of Missouri has shown the nation that the American people are not going to sit idly by and watch the federal government assume more power than what is granted in the constitution.
If this trend holds firm all across the nation in November we can expect to see a changing of the guard in November. By a large majority the American people have rejected Obamacare.
When you couple this outcome with the fact that a federal judge in Virginia has decided that a constitutional challenge to the mandates in the healthcare reform law should be allowed to move forward; and when you couple this outcome with the other states who have constitutional challenges to the law you can clearly see that momentum is on the side of the American people and against the federal government.
Momentum is own our side; the people have rejected this regime’s policies and if we remain vigilant we can expect to see a political bloodbath at the polls in just under 100 days. The regime had hoped to quell this rebellion quickly by arguing that the Congress has the right to force Americans to buy healthcare because the constitution gives the Congress the right to levy taxes, but all that this has done was to further the perception in the American people that the federal government is out of control.
Kudos to the voters of Missouri; you have shown us the way and we are going to ride the momentum you have given us all the way to victory in November!
Politicians had better heed the voice of the people because we are coming, and we WILL BE HEARD:
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious
Matt Bellamy-Muse
Harry Reid pulls scaled down energy bill off the table
With the news last week that Harry Reid pulled the cap and trade bill off of the table, the Democrats began to focus on a scaled down energy bill that was to focus on the BP oil spill and renewable energy sans cap and trade. This was an attempt by Harry Reid and the Democrats to pass some form of renewable energy bill before the November elections and it was thought that the bill would have much more support than the doomed cap and trade legislation.
That was not to be and today Harry Reid announced that he did not have the votes to pass even this scaled down bill, so he has pulled this bill off of the table as well. The finger pointing has already started and it comes as no surprise that the fingers are being pointed directly at the Republicans. But the fault does not lie solely at the feet of the Republicans because Harry Reid was only going to allow a straight up or down vote on the bill; he has not going to allow any amendments to be added to the bill for fear that Republicans would have been able to score some political points.
Harry Reid put politics above the energy bill and because of this there was no way that Republicans–after having been denied a chance to amend the bill–would ever vote for it.
Robert Dillon, the Republican spokesman on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee went so far as to claim that there were Democrats who were prepared to vote against this bill because they favored a Republican version of the bill, so Harry Reid is being more than just a little disingenuous here.
The reason Sen. Reid pulled bill is because his own members were set to vote against it and for the Republican bill,” Dillon added, referring to Landrieu and Begich. “We believe our bill is better and less costly. Instead of playing the blame game, Democratic leaders should allow an open and transparent process where both sides can contribute ideas
But Harry Reid wasn’t interested in listening to Republican ideas for fear that Republicans might have won the debate, instead trying to win a political victory over the Republicans. If he was serious about the need for this energy bill he would have allowed debate and amendments to the bill.
So today he was forced to table the bill; instead of an energy bill with bipartisan support he killed the bill so that Republicans could have no input. The Congress has come to an impasse on any kind of cap and trade or renewable energy bill but this is not the end of the issue for Barack Obama is moving forward with “Plan B” and that plan includes declaring cap and trade legislation through dictate using the EPA to enforce laws that he was not able to get through the Congress using the guidelines established in the constitution.
The Obama regime intends on passing this legislation come hell of high water and they are unwilling to be confined by the constitution. The battle for our republic is only just beginning, we must win the battle in November if there is any chance of saving the America that we have grown up in for our children.
Virginia is one of several states that are challenging the federal government’s new healthcare reform law as unconstitutional because of the healthcare mandates that are included in the bill. The federal government was trying to have the case thrown out based on the convoluted logic that people who chose not to buy medical insurance were violating the commerce clause in the constitution because their failure to buy insurance would end up costing people who chose to buy insurance money in the long run.
The federal government is also arguing that because the Congress is permitted to lay taxes on the American people that the law is constitutional because the healthcare mandates are a constitutionally guaranteed tax increase on the American people; this amounts to an admission that the Obama regime has been denying all along–the healthcare mandates are indeed a tax increase on all Americans and another broken promise by the Obama regime.
Today a federal judge rejected that premise and Virginia’s lawsuit was allowed to move forward. The judge stated that no case law backed up the government’s claim, but also ruled that no case law invalidated that claim as well.
Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue,” Hudson wrote. “No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or the Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce
Because there is no precedent on an issue such as this the case will move forward and it will be decided once and for all whether the federal government has the right to force the American people to buy a product that they may not want.
This was a procedural victory in the fight against the healthcare reform law and a setback for the Obama regime–which hoped to end the challenges before the really got started–but it is only the beginning. The challenge to the healthcare reform legislation is just beginning, there is a long road ahead, but this is an important step in the fight against an overreaching federal government.
This was an important victory for those of us who oppose the healthcare reform law and believe it is unconstitutional, but it is only the first step in a process that could take years. We may have reason to celebrate this small victory today, but the truth is this fight is a long was from being over. We must continue to be vigilant and keep the faith. This story must be a priority in the struggle against this regime and their oppressive tax increases and constitutional affront on liberty loving Americans all across the country.
We will be watching!
One of the more controversial aspects of the Arizona immigration law which was stopped by Judge Susan Bolton pending the federal challenge was the fact that Arizona police were able to ask for a person’s immigration papers if they were suspected of being in the country illegally.
Yesterday Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a legal opinion that Virginia state police are allowed to check a person’s immigration status.
It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested
He states that this opinion varies slightly from the provision in the Arizona law because the Arizona law requires a police officer to check immigration status of anyone they have a reasonable suspicion is in the country illegally, whereas in Virginia it would not be mandatory to check immigration status.
While the laws may vary slightly, Virginia may be about to take a stand against illegal immigration– lining itself up with Arizona against the president.
When the Obama regime filed a lawsuit against the Arizona law he did it for political reasons; he wanted to get the issue of amnesty back on the table and he certainly has lit a firestorm around this issue. I am not sure when he filed the lawsuit that he realized other states would begin to take sides against him.
I believe that filing a lawsuit against Arizona shortly before the midterm elections was a giant political miscalculation that is going to hurt the Democrats in the midterm elections.
The American people are solidly against giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, yet Barack Obama is hellbent on doing just that and people are reminded of this just in time to head to the polls.
Perhaps Barack Obama thought that filing a motion against Arizona was just a small move that would help to fire up his base; perhaps he thought the issue would fade away after a few days, but as we can see, this is going to be a huge issue in November and I don’t see how this can help Democrats.
Arizona sheriff: “Our own government has become our enemy”
When it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, Barack Obama has taken sides. He had the choice of either helping the state of Arizona protect her citizens against the crime wave at the Mexican border created by the flood of illegal aliens and the Mexican drug lords, or he could choose to protect those very same illegal aliens and drug lords.
He chose the illegal aliens and the Mexican drug lords over the American citizens.
Is it any wonder then that people like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer are so upset? Barack Obama chose what he considers social justice above criminal justice and because of this Arizona residents are not being protected by the man who swore to protect them. This has set off a firestorm with those that are trying to protect the American people at the border.
Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu lambasted the president for his actions concerning the lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration law.
What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU
But that wasn’t even the most condemning comment that the sheriff said:
Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help
Arizona looked to the federal government for help, but in reality all that Arizona was looking for was for the federal government to do its job and enforce immigration laws. Unfortunately the federal government was unwilling to do this and has been unwilling for years, so Arizona took matters into their own hands and decided to enforce federal immigration laws by making what already was a federal crime into a state crime also, and for that the Obama regime stepped in and stopped Arizona.
Is it any wonder that people in Arizona are so upset? Is it any wonder that some in law enforcement in Arizona now see the federal government as being against them on this issue? These were harsh words, but I find it hard to blame them for feeling this way.
Now comes word that the Mexican drug lords have put a $1 million bounty on the head of the great Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which in my opinion reaffirms the fact that this man is doing a great job in the face of unending heat from Homeland Security and others in the Obama regime who are supposed to have the best interest of American citizens at heart, but care more about protecting those who have broken the law to get here.
Barack Obama has another choice to make, and it is a simple choice; is he with Sheriff Joe and will he protect him against the threats he faces, or will he still stand on the side of those that put the bounty on Sheriff Joe’s head?
At a recent town hall meeting, a woman was questioning California Democrat congressman Pete Stark on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform legislation. During her question she asked–and I am paraphrasing– if the federal government can force a person to buy healthcare coverage, what limitations does the federal government have when it comes to intruding on all other aspects of a person’s personal life?
Pete Stark’s answer reveals quite a bit about the type of people we now have serving us in Washington. He claimed the federal government “can do most anything” that it wants to.
The woman then tried to explain to Pete Stark that the constitution is a limiting document; that the constitution enumerates exactly what the federal government is allowed to do, and that anything not mentioned in the constitution is left up for the states and the people to decide. Pete Stark was having none of that.
I do think that her argument using the 13th amendment is a little flimsy; she would have been better served to use the 10th amendment alone to make her point. Nevertheless, when you couple Pete Stark’s comments with comments like the one Phil Hare made about not caring about the constitution, it makes you realize that we have many people representing us in Washington who either do not care about or do not understand the constitution.
These are just two examples of a mindset that seems to be prevalent in Washington these days, from the president right on down. If we are to save our republic, people like Pete Stark and Phil Hare–who do not care about or understand the constitution–need to be voted out of office. Only after we “drain the swamp” in the congress of all those people who show utter disdain and incomprehension of the constitution and what it stands for will we be able to build this country back up again.
In a way Pete Stark is right; the federal government can do just about anything that it wants to, but only because we have let them get away with it for so long.
Their time is coming to an end, its time to unify and watch our flag ascend. Matt Bellamy- Muse
America's Watchtower 