Saturday, August 29, 2015

U.S. Freedom Army

 U.S. Freedom Army

August 29, 2015


 This post was submitted to the U.S. Freedom Army by enlistee Jim Delaney of Rochester, NY. Jim is a former U.S. Army Captain and a Vietnam veteran with two Bronze Stars and he is the author of the book “A Patriot’s Call to Action: Resisting Progressive Tyranny & Restoring Constitutional Order.” Jim Delaney is an American hero.

 "Birthright Citizenship": Politics vs. Rule of Law

 We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.

 Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of the Constitution itself.

 By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

 During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period".  Poppycock! He couldn't have carefully read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and troubling.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads really are.

 That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

 Here are my findings and conclusions:

 First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

 It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to anchor babies of illegal entrants. In short, I was unable to find ANY convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed to resolve this issue once and for all. {EDITOR’S NOTE: The position of the USFA is that nothing is needed.}

 Toward this end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there was absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed. {EDITOR’S NOTE: The position of the USFA is that HR1868 is unconstitutional in its entirety.}

 Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

 To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “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.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
 .
 Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean “the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

 John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance is to the US.

 Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

 Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US alone would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.

 The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be easily illustrated by the fact that Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

 In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

 P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

 Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

 Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

 In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States", thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignties and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

 Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child, and not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

 In US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few.

 In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Au contraire! As can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided an unambiguous definition by declaring that “the provision is, that all persons born in the United States, and ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’’, are citizens. That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

 Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers and others have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—appeared in the text of this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.

 Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to or proper reliance on the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning violation of the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

 To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

 When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many political activists, globalists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do. {EDITOR’S NOTE: The position of the USFA is that nothing is needed.}

 
 
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Bluegrass Bruce: Conflicts Between Conservationists And Gun Owners ...

Bluegrass Bruce: Conflicts Between Conservationists And Gun Owners ...: Recreational gun owners have been shooting in national forests for years, but the practice is under threat due to increasing conflicts betwe...
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Thousands rally against Planned Parenthood in massive national protest - Washington Times

Thousands rally against Planned Parenthood in massive national protest - Washington Times
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Former Trump advisor: Romney thinking about getting in

Former Trump advisor: Romney thinking about getting in
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Hillary and #BlackLivesMatter: An unproductive confrontation

Hillary and #BlackLivesMatter: An unproductive confrontation
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Brown: Hillary's emails have a 'dark energy' like 'a vampire'

Brown: Hillary's emails have a 'dark energy' like 'a vampire'
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Critics say Obama flirts with anti-semitism in defense of Iran deal

Critics say Obama flirts with anti-semitism in defense of Iran deal
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Gallup: 61% Disapprove of Obama’s Handling of Immigration

Gallup: 61% Disapprove of Obama’s Handling of Immigration
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Iran’s Ayatollah: America is the ‘Enemy.’ ‘We Will Confront Them With All Our Power’

Iran’s Ayatollah: America is the ‘Enemy.’ ‘We Will Confront Them With All Our Power’
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Planned Parenthood Did 378,692 Pap Smears--and 327,653 Abortions

Planned Parenthood Did 378,692 Pap Smears--and 327,653 Abortions
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Boehner Aide, Sister of CEO Who Discussed Shipping ‘Intact’ Aborted Baby Parts, Resigns to Join Lobbying Firm

Boehner Aide, Sister of CEO Who Discussed Shipping ‘Intact’ Aborted Baby Parts, Resigns to Join Lobbying Firm
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Boehner Aide, Sister of CEO Who Discussed Shipping ‘Intact’ Aborted Baby Parts, Resigns to Join Lobbying Firm

Boehner Aide, Sister of CEO Who Discussed Shipping ‘Intact’ Aborted Baby Parts, Resigns to Join Lobbying Firm
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Freedom From Religion Foundation demands universities fire football chaplains - Washington Times

Freedom From Religion Foundation demands universities fire football chaplains - Washington Times
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

EPA knew of 'blowout' risk for tainted water at gold mine - Washington Times

EPA knew of 'blowout' risk for tainted water at gold mine - Washington Times
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Pro-life center rushes to post StemExpress footage after restraining order lifted - Washington Times

Pro-life center rushes to post StemExpress footage after restraining order lifted - Washington Times
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren meet in D.C. - Washington Times

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren meet in D.C. - Washington Times
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Friday, August 21, 2015

U. S. Freedom Army

U. S. Freedom Army

August 21, 2015

by Lewis Shupe, Contributor


 Below are some quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
---------------------------
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
“The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers.”
“Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”
-----------------------------

“275,000 acres of Idaho wilderness will now be protected from development, thanks to legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on Friday August 7, 2015.” This just happened this month. What is wrong here?

Article I Section 8 Part 17 of the U.S. Constitution states that the Federal Government may only exercise authority over places “purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings;”. The federal government has no constitutional authority to administer raw land in any state for any reason whatsoever. They certainly have no authority to pass such a law as noted above and the President has no authority to sign it. The Wilderness Act, signed into law in 1964, is completely unconstitutional and is “unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Once again we have an instance where the federal government assumes powers it is not allowed under the Constitution. 

We are not opposed to Wilderness Areas. We are not opposed to National Parks. We are opposed to the process by which the Federal Government assumes powers it is not constitutionally permitted. If the federal government is to have power in these areas a Constitutional Amendment was required and none was forthcoming. The creation and administration of every National Park and Wilderness Area within a State by the Federal Government is at present unconstitutional.

So one may make the argument that it doesn’t make any difference how this was done since this is a good thing to do. The problem is that once the Federal Government realizes it can do good things without following the rules it also then begins to do bad things without following the rules and the Constitution becomes meaningless. This is exactly the situation we find in our nation today and is the reason for the leviathan monstrosity known as the Federal Government which has become “as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.” You cannot have a golf tournament or a baseball game without rules but apparently we have quite a few people that seem to think you can run the nation by ignoring the rules. 

The Constitution placed limits on what the Federal Government may do for a reason. The Founders realized that too much centralized power leads to dictatorship and they wanted to specifically describe what the central government may do in an attempt to ensure that the opportunities for a government takeover were minimized. Your freedom is now severely threatened by this rogue government and the coming economic collapse will be the trigger for the forces of socialism to take your freedom. This threat is a primary reason why the U.S. Freedom Army was founded.    
 
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Those American Girls

Those American Girls
 
August 21, 2015
 
 
OMG LOVERS We R BACK after our summer vacay, hope u didnt miss us 2 much! Our new podcast is here: http://pollyamerican.com/e/omg-totally-schocked/ <3

We've got a gr8 podcast 2day, a discussion of a man we think was 2 handsum 2 kick out of Congress, plus a NEW SONG from Those American Girls fabulous new album, ALL TIME SMASH HITS! https://thoseamericangirls.bandcamp.com/album/all-time-smash-hits
It's the perfect album for all mega-cool ultra-badass patriots! 

This podcast co-stars Alicia American, Debbie American, Sophie American & Patt Riot & features vocal performances by Redd Horrocks, Colleen Grate, Amber Lee Connors, & Madeline Starr y'all!

Special thanx 2 brave patriot Mister Cheramie at Freedom Fighters of America 4 simulcasting us! We luv u Mister Cheramie! 

We're moving 2 a Thursday schedule for the Fall so C U next Thursday y'all! 

xoxoxoxoxo
 
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Bluegrass Bruce: Guns & Ammo: Kentucky Fifth Best State For Gun Own...

Bluegrass Bruce: Guns & Ammo: Kentucky Fifth Best State For Gun Own...: Guns & Ammo released its annual ranking of the best states for gun owners last month, awarding the top spot to Arizona and the bottom s...
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Monday, August 17, 2015

Drudge, Fox News could be censored under new federal rules, experts warn

Drudge, Fox News could be censored under new federal rules, experts warn
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship

Trump: I'll rescind birthright citizenship
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Vaccine industry tries to intimidate licensed doctors into vaccine obedience; fails miserably thanks to First Amendment - NaturalNews.com

Vaccine industry tries to intimidate licensed doctors into vaccine obedience; fails miserably thanks to First Amendment - NaturalNews.com
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

The real reason Donald Trump is so popular: He's the surrogate mouthpiece for the things most Americans deeply believe (but are too afraid to say) - NaturalNews.com

The real reason Donald Trump is so popular: He's the surrogate mouthpiece for the things most Americans deeply believe (but are too afraid to say) - NaturalNews.com
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Nearly 70% of physicians say GMO foods should be labeled - NaturalNews.com

Nearly 70% of physicians say GMO foods should be labeled - NaturalNews.com
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Bluegrass Bruce: Sen. Rand Paul Only Republican To Mention Guns In ...

Bluegrass Bruce: Sen. Rand Paul Only Republican To Mention Guns In ...: The Republican presidential candidates generally avoided talk of guns and gun control during last week’s debate, the first of the 2016 elect...
NO POPUPS EVER!
FRESH AND TRUE NEWS 24/7 WITH NO HYPE!