Political Correctness is Killing Americans

Rep. Louis Gohmert, once again, hits it out of the park.  Political correctness is killing Americans.  Watch to the end when he addresses birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment.  Something has to be done about this.

H/T:  Weasel Zippers

Sen. Kay Hagan's Office Defends Birthright Citizenship

A couple of days ago, I called my two senators, whom supposedly represent the state of North Carolina, on their position of the upcoming immigration bill making its way through the upper chamber.  Both offices gave the same response.  Neither has an opinion because they anticipate many amendments will alter the bill.  Alright, that’s fair.

I stated that the bill being bandied about in the Senate is not true immigration reform, but just another version of the failed Simpson-Mazzoli Act.  Furthermore, the states’ must have the ability to enforce immigration laws, and that birthright citizenship must come to an end.  Besides, what good is border security when the commander-in-chief refuses to enforce current laws?  Senator Burr’s office thanked me for my input.  Senator Hagan’s would have none of it.

Her Democratic aide and I began a spirited debate on the finer points of the 14^th Amendment.  He instructed me that it would take a constitutional amendment to abolish birthright citizenship.  I informed him that the Supreme Court bastardized the intent and meaning of the 14^th, and that only Congress has the authority to set the rules for naturalization; not nine unelected judges.

What surprised me was his response, “The authors should have done a better job of writing the amendment.”  He further stated that only the words matter, not the context for which it was wrote.  Here is the matter of contention in Section One:

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. 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.

 Senator Hagan’s aide emphasized the first sentence, and particularly ‘the jurisdiction thereof.'  I argue, if birthright citizenship were the intent of the authors, then why didn’t they just write, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”?  Why didn’t they just leave it at that?  Because, birthright citizenship was not the intent, that’s why.

The 14^th is a post civil war amendment.  It was established to ensure that ex-slaves and their progeny were guaranteed rights of citizenship.  Furthermore, the majority of this amendment was designed to punish the South.  Those who participated in the rebellion were disenfranchised.  They were not allowed to vote, or hold public office.  They were also forced to pay Northern war debts.  I, of course, related the context to which the 14^th was written.  Needless to say, Senator Hagan’s aide was completely ignorant of the true meaning of this amendment.

I have argued before, and will again, that the 14^th Amendment is an outdated civil war relic, and must be repealed.  It has outlived its usefulness, and is currently undermining our federalist system.  If you need any proof of that, just take a look at our illegal alien invasion.

 

Source:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Georgia Court to Hold Hearings on Obama's Presidential Eligibility

On January 26, 2012 a Georgia state judge will hold hearings on Barack Obama’s eligibility for president of the United States. WND reported the following:

Hearings have been scheduled for that date for three separate issues to be handled. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Judge Michael M. Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for these cases, argued that he should be exempted.

Barack Obama’s father was a foreign national. According to Article II Section I of the United States Constitution this man does not qualify as a “natural born citizen”. His presidency is an affront to natural law, which is the basis of our founding principles. Only one Supreme Court case addresses a “natural born citizen”:

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion cited is Minor v. Happersett from 1875. It includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen,” a requirement imposed by the U.S. Constitution on only the U.S. president.

That case states:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

That being said, the Wong Kim Ark case does not confer natural born status to aliens born on American soil. And a Supreme Court ruling is not the same as a constitutional amendment.

Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/obama-argues-against-appearing-at-eligibility-hearing/

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/20/4203280/ga-judge-orders-president-to-appear.html

http://www.art2superpac.com/UserFiles/file/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-PowellvObama,OrderonMotiontoQuashSubpoenas,GeorgiaBallotChallenge.pdf

Birth Right Citizenship is the Bane of the United States

Birth right citizenship is the bane of the United States. And you don’t have to look any further than Anwar al-Awlaki. His parents are Yemeni citizens who were granted student visas in the early 70's. Upon their short stay in America they gave birth to a Mohammedan terrorist. The Awlakis had no allegiance to the United States and neither did their son. How could this happen? Why of course, it is the 14th Amendment.

The professor in the above video demonstrates that the 14th Amendment has been bastardized. It is folly to allow children of foreigners to become citizens of the United States just because they were born on American soil. There is danger in allowing this kind of policy to exist.

American culture is imbued with liberty, responsibility and self-governance. We can’t allow a flood of illegal aliens from the third world into our country who have no idea what that means. To do so is to invite not only parasites, but potential predators who will devour those of us who respect limited government. Look at what is happening with organizations like La Raza. They are openly advocating for the overthrow of our government.

The professor provided a number of solutions to rid us of birth right citizenship. Regrettably, he didn’t propose the abolition of the 14th Amendment.