Time to renew the DL?

Today I renewed my drivers license and changed my address and encountered a really nasty BMV employee. I almost cried. I almost told her she was nasty. I almost reminded her some day she would be old. I almost told her I'd call my daughter for back up. But, I didn't. Maybe she's a caregiver; maybe she's sick; or maybe she's a Democrat.

 
On a happier note, while I was waiting for my number to come up, I had a nice chat with a woman returning to the Philippines to build a home in her family compound. She's a US citizen so will need to return annually to keep her citizenship. We had a lovely chat.

The Census and critical race theory

Why did the Left oppose a citizenship question on the 2020 census? Why wouldn't the government want to know during enumeration how many are citizens? For over 40 years various interest groups have been artificially dividing us into racial and ethnic groups--they've created victim groups based on the Civil Rights movement and Act of 1964. There's a lot of money involved just for the pickin', and ready made jealousy and finger pointing that can be used for agitation and demanding more.

By emphasizing citizenship (but not ethnic ties), the government tells all people, but especially immigrants and their children, that it is concerned with their relationship not with the land of their ancestors but with the land to which they now belong. But how can you build grievances with such an outlandish idea.

https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/eliminating-identity-politics-the-us-census?

The Census Bureau’s National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic and Other Populations (NAC) was created by Barack Obama in 2012. But not out of whole cloth, it was birthed in the "1960s and 70s, when the census office first began to create National Advisory Committees on race and ethnicity. It was in those heady days of postmodernism’s birth—when Marxism in its academic form was embarking on “the long march through the institutions”. The definitions of ethnic groups were etched into law. Each of the pan-ethnic groups that racial activists and government functionaries were adding to the census and other government surveys at the time (“Hispanics,” “Asians,” “Pacific Islanders,” etc.) were the subjects of a special census committee, starting in 1974. Four decades later, the Obama administration pulled all the difference committees into one giant NAC." We almost got (or maybe it's still in the works) MENA, Middle East and North Africa so yet another group could get a piece of the budget pie and a slice of power.

I suppose you could call it part of Obama's legacy. Suspicion, jealously, bean counting, inventing new words for differences, redistributing wealth based on grievances through special grants and poking "whites" (anything from Swede to Welsh to Spanish to Serbian) in the eye. When you understand how critical race theory academics have helped create identity groupings, you'll be better prepared to understand the distrust and unrest among artificially created groups are being churned today.

https://quillette.com/2018/10/23/inside-the-us-government-agency-where-identity-politics-was-born/?

What’s going on with the 14th Amendment?

Yesterday I read an article on the birthright 14^th amendment (which I truly believe Trump is using to get his base in high gear for the election and to keep the CNN opinion/new readers and watchers riled up and jumping off a cliff) which gave some fascinating background. I think it was from 2010—or at least a number of years ago since this pops up from time to time. It was by Ann Coulter, someone I rarely read since she also likes to get people riled up (during the 2016 campaign I think she supported Trump, but then turned against him; don’t recall the details). Anyway it provided historical background that was fascinating. I didn’t know any of it. In 2015 she did a scathing piece on the stupidity of Fox News on the topic of the 14th amendment, but in 2010, her piece was much more reasoned (if she can be called that) and detailed on anchor babies and it involved a footnote. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2010-08-04.html

“The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to delegitimize the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states [i.e. the Democrat party] from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "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 drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not yet a massive welfare state, attracting malingerers, frauds and cheats, it would be amazing if the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Coulter continues in the 2010 article:

“And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children of illegal immigrants.  

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper. Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

How Republicans take your right to vote

Guest Blogger Joan—she is no longer naïve, believes she must speak out.

“For a number of years, I allowed myself to naively believe that individual citizens couldn't make any difference in our country's destiny and that surely those in charge had our country's best interests at heart and would take care of things. I believed that all the heated political debate was useless and that no one was going to change anyone else's opinions on any political topic. While I still believe that last sentence, I have finally grown up enough to realize that a responsible, patriotic citizen cannot sit on the sidelines and watch his/her country be totally destroyed without at least speaking up and taking a stand, for whatever it might be worth. We have elected leaders who do not share typical, traditional American values and who do not have the experience necessary for the job. We have elected leaders who have no depth of character from which to draw for decision-making. This link is to an article that gives a morsel of hope to those of us who realize the jeopardy our country is in and hope to avoid losing our treasured way of life."

If the Nixon era should have taught politicians anything, it is that trust and credibility are essential to the presidency. Nixon's downfall was not so much in the petty thievery of his campaign researchers; it was the lying and cover-up that brought him down. With Obama, abuse of trust is the theme running through all the scandals. Ironically, the shear number of scandals is helping the president in the short term - there is scattershot investigative coverage rather than focused probing. The cumulative effect, though, is beginning to show. Americans bought into the president's campaign image of "hope and change," but lately, they instinctively know that "where's there is smoke, there's fire" and the "smoke" of all the scandals seems to come directly from fires at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In the Internet era, doubletalk doesn't work; there've been too many side-by-side comparisons of truth versus White House spin.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/obamas_loss_of_trust_and_credibility.html#ixzz2WaDlKgdu

Allowing the arrest and detention indefinitely of American citizens

I was not in favor of foreign terrorists captured in middle east war zones being given the rights of Americans to our civilian trial process within the U.S., however, I believe U.S. citizens should have them. I'm very concerned about the new Defense Authorization bill just signed--especially since we've recently heard Tea Party groups called terrorists by the other team. That word is just being used too frequently. There's a lot to think about in this article (long).

Glen Greenwald on the new military authorization bill

In hindsight, the Bush administration went too far, and in watching the Obama flip flops and broken promises, I think we've started down a very dangerous road of eroded rights and pot-holed guarantees.

Are you smarter than the people you elected?

It shouldn't be difficult. The most recent annual report on Civic Literacy, released by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute in November revealed an average score of F by both citizens and elected officials. I'm not surprised. Remember the election video where Obama's supporters said it was OK for him to be running with Sarah Palin and thought she'd do a good job?

"More than 2,500 randomly selected Americans took the test on Civic Literacy, and more than 1,700 of them failed. The average score was a 49%. More shocking, the average score of elected officials was 44%, meaning that our public officials performed worse than citizens selected at random. Less than 1% of those surveyed (21 of 2,508) earned an A on the test (90% or higher)." I scored 78.79 %, which isn't all that great, but apparently better than the folks I elected. When I looked at the ones I missed, there were two I just didn't read carefully, and the others I guessed (wrong). But bad either way.

Take a stab.

A mere citizen does not have legal standing to sue

U.S. Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted a motion by Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee to dismiss a challenge to Obama's constitutional qualifications to run for President on grounds that a mere citizen does not have legal standing to sue.

Philip Berg, a Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Obama is ineligible to be President.

Judge Surrick states that citizens may not sue to enforce the Constitution without statutory authorization from Congress. One question is, was Barack Hussein Obama born in Kenya, then his birth registered by his mother, a resident of Hawaii, when she returned home with him? He would still be an American citizen if born of an American mother in Kenya, but he would be ineligible to be President because his father was not a citizen. Or, is he a natural born citizen if he was adopted by his Indonesian step-father? Or if he has dual citizenship, can he be President? John McCain was not born in the United States, but both of his parents were/are U.S. citizens. His right was questioned on this basis, also. His father was in the military. However, other questions are about Obama's mother's residency, and because Hawaii wasn't yet a state (Barry Goldwater's eligibility was also a question because Arizona wasn't a state when he was born there). See Snopes. Also a 2nd law suit.

Mark Fitzgibbons writes a legal critique of Judge Surrick's ruling at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html

The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and "shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . ."

A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts. Under the language of the Constitution itself, there appears to be no need for Congress to pass a law authorizing individuals to file suit, or for courts to hear such challenges. In fact, there may be a separation of powers issue if Congress were to attempt to legislate broader or narrower access to the courts to hear constitutional challenges. That could infringe on the jurisdiction of the courts "to all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution."

Secondly, the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I do not extend to dictating who may have standing to sue under the Constitution. One may argue that Judge Surrick relied on what some believe to be the catch-all "Necessary and Proper Clause" in Article I, Section 8[18]. That authorizes Congress:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Judge Surrick, however, never cites to that clause as his reason. Indeed, it would be inherently dangerous to our freedoms if Congress could dictate who can and cannot sue to enforce the Constitution.

I think the NYT questioned McCain's status as "natural born" which would certainly put all military, business and missionary children born abroad with a problem; I can't seem to find the Obama case or questions (there are several in his case) in NYT.

"A February NYT article raised the question as to whether McCain, who was born in 1936 on a U.S. military installation in the Panama Canal Zone, satisfied the constitutional prerequisites to become president. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution requires a president to be a “natural born Citizen.”

“There are powerful arguments that Senator McCain or anyone else in this position is constitutionally qualified, but there is certainly no precedent,” Sarah H. Duggin, an associate professor of law at Catholic University who has studied the issue extensively, told the NYT. “It is not a slam-dunk situation.”

Maybe not. But it appears lawmakers are doing all they can to try to put the issue to rest. “It is silly for anyone to argue that Senator McCain is not eligible to become president,” said McCaskill in a written statement. “I would hope that this is something we can all agree on, for goodness sakes.”" WSJ Law Blog

Maybe the New York Times only questions the military's right to be natural born?

Via Conservative HQ