The Constitution Needs a Tune-Up

With at least four human “caravans” organizing in Guatemala, Honduras, and southern Mexico, some already massed at the US-Mexican border south of San Diego… others trudging slowly northward under the punishing daytime Mexican sun hoping to force their way, illegally, onto US soil… the issues of 14th Amendment “birthright citizenship,” “anchor babies,” and “chain migration “ have finally found their way into the American consciousness.

The caravans are comprised of men, women, and children; most of whom appear to be quite strong and healthy, while others are sick and frail.  Few speak English and almost all are poor, unskilled, and uneducated.  They insist that they are forced to abandon their homelands in order to escape the violence of street gangs and drug cartels, joblessness, and crushing poverty.  Rather than face the perils of staying in their home cities and villages, they prefer to undertake the 2,925-mile journey from Honduras to Tijuana, Mexico, near San Diego, or the much shorter 1,485-mile journey to Matamoros, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Brownsville, Texas.

It’s a heavy price to pay, knowing in advance that the president of the United States is sending US troops to intercept them, preventing them from invading US territory.

It is a humanitarian tragedy of massive proportions, one of such magnitude that it will, hopefully, force us to finally come to grips with what can only be described as a cruel misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.  And while we debate the future status of “birthright citizenship,” “anchor babies,” and “chain migration,” as they are currently used to circumvent U.S. immigration law, we would be wise to also define, once and for all, another hotly debated misinterpretation of the Constitution… i.e., what the Framers intended when they included the term “natural born Citizen,” as a requirement for presidential eligibility in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment, introduced in April 1866 and ratified by the states on July 9, 1868, was never intended to grant automatic birthright citizenship to any and all who just happened to be born on U.S. soil.  Those who drafted and supported the Amendment were quite clear as to their intent.  Following the ratification of the 13th Amendment, which outlawed the institution of human slavery in the United States, anti-slavery Republicans in the Congress felt it was necessary that the Constitution should also insure full U.S. citizenship for the freed slaves.

Accordingly, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins, “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…”

One might readily understand how lawmakers in 1866 might have failed to appreciate the future expansion of the United States.  On the date that the 14th Amendment was introduced in July 1866, the states of Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming had not as yet joined the Union.  We were an expanding nation with room for all who wished to come and join in our great experiment in self-government.  However, the failure to explain the exact purpose of the amendment, and to define the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” has created major immigration abuses in the 20th and 21st centuries, inviting liberal judges and lawmakers to thoroughly prostitute the original intent of the amendment.

For example, the U.S. State Department’s Diversity Visa Program, a visa lottery system sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been the source of much of the recent abuse of our immigration system.  One such lottery winner, Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbek Muslim, arrived in the United States in 2010.  And although State Department statistics show that the average diversity lottery winner ultimately sponsors 4.4 family members (parents, children, siblings, etc.) it has been reported that Saipov sponsored some 23 chain migrants.  On October 31, 2017, Saipov, a radical Muslim, drove a rented truck down a bicycle path on the west side of Lower Manhattan, in New York, killing eight people and injuring many more.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that approximately 7.5% of all births in the U.S. (about 300,000 births per year) are to unauthorized immigrants.  Birthright citizenship and chain migration are problems that simply must be addressed.  Congress must take steps to stem the inflow of “birthright” immigrants by first eliminating the Diversity Visa Program.

And while the Congress is tackling the problem of codifying “birthright” citizenship and “chain migration,” they should also establish by law the definition of the term “natural born Citizen,” as it relates to presidential eligibility under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The Framers were word misers; they were not given to verbosity.  Accordingly, if they had intended that the terms “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” were synonymous, to be used interchangeably, the opening phrase of Clause 5 would have read, “No person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”  But that was not their intent; their intention was to establish a clear distinction between the two terms.  Hence, the inclusion of the all-important word “or,” and the qualifying phrase, “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

What this tells us, in spite of the misinterpretation used by liberal politicians and lawyers and the mainstream media, is that the Framers were faced with a major dilemma in 1788 when they prepared to select the first President of the United States.  There were many capable citizens available who were at least thirty-five years of age, and who had been residents of what was to become the United States for at least fourteen years, but none of those “citizens” were “natural born” citizens, having been born prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence to parents who were then subjects of the British crown.  Unfortunately, all of the available “natural born” citizens… those born to American citizen parents after the signing of the Declaration… were less than twelve years of age when the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

Accordingly, it became necessary to include a “grandfather clause,” granting presidential eligibility to those men born to colonial immigrant parents prior to the date of American independence.  As such, none of our first seven presidents… Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, or Jackson… were “natural born” citizens.  All were made eligible under the “grandfather clause” contained in Article II, Section 1, which reads, “…or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”   Our eighth president, Martin Van Buren, born at Kinderhook, New York, on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence, was our first “natural born” president.  Every president since Van Buren, with the exception of Barack Obama and Chester A. Arthur, has been a “natural born” citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution.

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  Accordingly, what the Founders feared most and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born” was the fear that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or an ideology which might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

There is no better exemplar of that fear than Barack Obama.  Obama’s father was a Muslim and a black African communist sympathizer; his mother was a left wing socialist flower-child; his stepfather was an Indonesian Muslim; his grandparents were far-left communist sympathizers; his teenage mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a well-known Communist Party writer and activist; the people who were instrumental in launching his political career in Chicago were Weather Underground terrorists who had killed U.S. law enforcement officers; and his religious mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an America-hater of the first order.  Is it any wonder that Obama promised to “fundamentally transform” the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth?

Ours is the greatest nation on Earth, the greatest and most significant experiment in self-government in all of recorded history.  But there are no concrete guarantees of permanency.  Since the earliest days of our republic, those on the political left have been chipping away at the basic foundational principles of our Constitution.  By the year 2016, their 228-year-long struggle to administer a deathblow to the greatest self-governing document ever written was all but complete.  Whether or not the nation could have survived four or eight more years of leftist tinkering is problematic.  I fear that it could not have survived.

But there comes a time when good men and women must begin to do whatever is necessary to restore and revitalize our most important governing principles.  “Birthright citizenship,” “anchor babies,” “chain migration,” and presidential usurpation by those who fail to meet the “natural born” standard are leftist perversions of original intent and they must be reversed.  The Constitution is in dire need of a “tune-up.”  The U.S. Constitution must be restored to what the Founding Fathers intended.  The 14th Amendment and Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution are good places to begin, and the time to begin is now.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Political Terrorism – A Democratic Tradition

On Monday, October 22, 2018, news reports indicated that an explosive device had been found in the mail box of radical Democratic “moneybags” and World War II Nazi “errand boy,” billionaire George Soros, at his estate in Westchester County, New York.  Two days later, on October 24, 2018, six additional IEDs were found in the U.S. mail, all addressed to leading Democrat politicians.  By week’s end a total of 15 explosive devices were found, all of them sent to leading Democrats and to radical billionaire contributors.

All of the packages bore the return address of ousted DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).  But then, in a cruel twist of fate, when the explosive device intended for former Attorney General Eric Holder was found to be undeliverable, the U.S. Postal Service dutifully returned the IED to the mailbox of Congresswoman Schultz.

But what is most peculiar about the fifteen explosive devices is that none of the bombs exploded when unwrapped… leading more than one ordnance expert to suggest that perhaps the bomb-maker did not intend for any of the devices to explode.  Given the numerous public attacks by Democrats against Republicans since the 2016 General Election, and in light of the vicious attacks on Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the creation of a dramatic new political scandal, pointing to Republicans as the likely perpetrators, could only serve to divert public attention right up to the 2018 mid-term elections.

We are told that the bomb-maker, 56-year-old Cesar Sayoc, was, until 2016, a registered Democrat.  If Democrats could identify and groom an attractive young black man to be president of the United States over a period of four decades, or more, is it unreasonable to suspect that Sayoc could also be a trained and programmed terror asset of the Democratic Party?

For most Americans, those who are apolitical but patriotic observers of the political scene, the recent spate of harassment and violent intimidation suffered by Republicans at the hands of malicious Democrat activists, is something entirely new in our political process.  But nothing could be further from the truth.  Political violence and intimidation are a Democratic tradition… a behavioral trait passed from generation to generation in their DNA.

Between 1776 and the close of the Civil War in 1865, those who perpetuated the inhumanity of human slavery were, almost without exception, members of the Democrat Party.  Following the war, when the Republican Party was founded by those wishing to abolish slavery, Democrats searched for ways to maintain political and economic control over the freed slaves.  Their answer to that dilemma was the creation of paramilitary auxiliaries such as the Ku Klux Klan and other terror groups, whose task it was to enforce the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws enacted by Democrat-controlled legislatures.

During their near century-long reign of terror, the Klan murdered more than 5,000 innocent people… some 80% of them blacks and more than 20% whites, nearly all Republicans.  One of the most gruesome Democratic atrocities occurred in Valdosta, Georgia, on May 19, 1918.  On that day, a black woman named Mary Turner announced that she would see to it that the white men who had lynched her husband would be prosecuted.  Turner, who was eight months pregnant at the time, was dragged from her home, tortured, hanged by her feet, and set on fire.  And while she was still alive, dangling from the rope, they slashed open her abdomen.  Her unborn child spilled out onto the ground where they crushed the baby’s skull with the heel of a boot.  Mary Turner thought, mistakenly, that the rule of law was on her side.  Instead, she became a threat to the white Democrats who had lynched her husband and she paid for it with her life and that of her unborn child.

Watching news reports of recent acts of political violence, is there any doubt that the members of Antifa and the radical leftists who attacked the U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings would conduct themselves in exactly the same manner if they could get their hands on Donald Trump or Brett Kavanaugh?

Since the founding of our constitutional republic, those on the political left have waged a never-ending campaign to chip away at the founding principles of the U.S. Constitution.  What many Americans fail to recognize is that the General Election of 2016 represented nothing less than a last chance to save our great country from becoming a carbon copy of Cuba or Venezuela.  If Democrats had won the presidency in 2016, that election could easily have been our last free election and the U.S. Supreme Court, with two additional liberal justices, would become a mere tool of the radical left; it was just that crucial.  Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump, along with the election of GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, represents nothing less than the ultimate defeat of leftist ideology after more than 240 years of their best efforts to the contrary.

When it became evident in early 2016 that Donald Trump could actually be elected in the November General Election, liberals and Democrats went into panic mode, setting in motion a deep state effort to implicate Trump in Russian efforts to hack the computers of the Clinton campaign; its chairman, John Podesta; and the Democratic National Committee.  They opened the Democratic “play book” to Chapter One, which contains their favorite and most widely used political ploy.  Chapter One tells them that, whatever they might do that is illegal, immoral, or unethical, it is critically important that they immediately charge Republicans with doing the same thing.  And since the Clintons were heavily involved in “collusion” with Russian operatives, scheming to give Russia control of 20% of America’s in situ uranium resources in exchange for a 9-figure contribution to the Clinton Foundation and a $500,000 honorarium for a Bill Clinton speech in Moscow, it was critically important that they find a way to tie Trump to the Russians.

Clinton campaign operatives were instructed to meet and establish relationships with Trump campaign figures.  And when a 31-year-old Trump volunteer named George Papadopoulos was approached by a Maltese “diplomat,” Joseph Mifsud, in Italy, in March 2016, Mifsud apparently saw an opportunity to ingratiate himself with the Trump campaign and/or the Clinton campaign.  Then, in late April 2016, shortly after Mifsud returned from a trip to Russia, the two met again in London.  It was apparently at that meeting that Mifsud advised Papadopoulos that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.  And since Papadopoulos’ primary interest in joining the Trump campaign was to promote a meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin, Papadopoulos saw this as a potential entrée to Trump’s inner circle of advisors.

Papadopoulos has subsequently pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and has been sentenced to a 14-day jail term.  Mifsud has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by the Democrat National Committee and his current whereabouts is unknown.  Some news reports suggest that he is no longer alive and that he may have suffered the same fate as a former DNC employee, Seth Rich, who has been suggested as the DNC insider who leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks, and who was shot to death at on Sunday, July 10, 2016, near his home on Capitol Hill.

DC Metropolitan police have reported that Rich died of two gunshots to the back, most likely the result of an attempted robbery.  However, that conclusion is contradicted by the fact that none of Rich’s personal possessions… his wallet, credit cards, wristwatch, or cell phone… were taken.

The official storyline disseminated by Democrats and by their allies in the mainstream media was that it was the Russians who hacked the Democrats’ computers.  However, it flew in the face of a December 12, 2016 finding by a group of longtime intelligence professionals called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), comprised of some of the country’s leading information technology experts, from both public and private sectors organizations.

According to VIPS, “We have gone through the various claims about hacking.  For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them.”  What they found was that the email disclosures in question were the result of a leak to Wikileaks, not a foreign or domestic hack.  They found that, on the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC server.  The download took just 87 seconds, yielding a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

According to the VIPS analysis, no Internet service provider available in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at that speed.  To the contrary, VIPS analysts reported that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications, averaging 15.6 mbps and 14.7 mbps, respectively, leading to one indisputable conclusion: since transfer rates in the neighborhood of 22-23 mbps were unattainable by a hacker anywhere on Earth, the theft of data from the DNC and Podesta computers was an inside job, downloaded to a USB-2 flash device, known as a “thumb drive.”

Although it cannot be said with absolute certainty that Seth Rich was the DNC insider who downloaded the DNC computer data to a thumb drive and leaked it to Wikileaks, interviews with Julian Assange on Dutch TV in August 2016, and with Assange’s mother, Christine, in August 2018, appear to suggest that Rich was the source of the DNC/Hillary campaign leaks.

What is a certainty is that the appointment of a special prosecutor… to investigate the Clinton email scandals, the pay-to-play performance of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the Clintons’ collusion with Russia in the Uranium One scheme, and the as-yet unexplained fate of Robert Mifsud and Seth Rich… is of critical importance.

At present, the one man who stands in the way of truth and justice in these matters is Attorney General Jeff Sessions.  If President Trump cannot rely on his attorney general to enforce the rule of law in the face of such widespread Democratic corruption, then it is incumbent upon the president to relieve Sessions and to appoint an attorney general who will live up to his oath of office.  Conservatives and Republicans have far too much time and effort invested to allow these criminal acts to go unpunished.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

What did I tell you? ..

Our Republic is being attacked by the New Left.  These people are mostly the millennials, the ones with the burn for Bernie; the Social Democrats.  They have been taught by their teachers of the supposed evils of capitalism and imbued with notions of rampant racism, misogyny, environmental destruction, political correctness, existential climate change and enumerable other maladies brought about by “right wing radicals” and their dupes like the “red necks” and libertarians who believe in the sanctity of the US Constitution and who in their supposed uneducated bliss live in the unenlightened “red state,” the “fly over country.”  These useful idiots, as Lenin would have called them, have no feeling for work, because most of them have never done any or if they have, they are seething with discontent at their wages.  They have no feeling for the value of money, because, for the most part, if they needed some, their parents eagerly provided it.

This is a new political generation that was born after 1992, 26 years ago, the year that the great socialist utopia, the Communist Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, finally bit the dust and joined the other great socialistic experiment of the 20th Century that had failed in May of 1945, the National Socialistic Workers Party of Germany a utopian system known commonly as the Nazi Party, a socialist paradise called Fascism.  These millennials know nothing about the horrors of socialistic statism.  That had all disappeared before they were born.  They have never contemplated what it would be like to be subject to the will of a dictator like Hitler or Mussolini or a central directorate run by a monster criminal like Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tsung or Pol Pot.

Socialism’s appeal to young people is the visionary  view of an utopia where everybody is equal, peace prevails for all, no one hurts anyone, everybody’s needs are met, the sick are to be cared for for free, no one has personal advantage over anyone else, everyone has the same education … basically “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.”  Of course, someone has to be in control to see that these ideals are faithfully carried out.  Typically, the overseeing is to be done by a democratic committee, so that the views of one or two or more individuals, who could possibly be wrong, do not become ascendant. The needs of the few (or the individual) must be sacrificed to the needs of the many.

Just a little reflection on this scenario will lead to the conclusion of its unworkability.  The world is not made up of classes, but of individuals.  An individual’s primary concern is for himself/herself.  One is not equal in size, strength, ability, intelligence, determination, empathy, lethargy, morality, ethics or any other characteristic to anyone else.  If personal endeavor is not rewarded, why endeavor?  Obviously, in a society such as this, one’s needs grow exponentially and their abilities are never tapped for there is no reward.  Twentieth Century socialists lived in a gray, bland world like automatons.  They did what they were told or they became enemies of the State.  These societies were forced upon and maintained upon the populace by the sword and in every pseudo-successful state run by maniacal tyrant.  Of course, that was in other countries … but we here in the USA are smarter and more enlightened than those other foreign people … we can make it work, can’t we?

And how did those socialistic societies emerge?  In every case, by violent bloody revolution.  The advocates of these violent revolutions, in particularly the Communists like the intellectual Marx or Lenin wrote voluminously and spoke widely about how to foment revolution.  Here in the US in modern times, the guru of this “Hope and Change” to people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders was a community organizer named Sol Alinski.  Their tactics are those which we have discussed in this blog … Fabianism in politics and government, civil turmoil like the accusation of misogyny by men, existential climate change, radical Constitutionalists, race hating whites, abuse of women,  Obama care and on and on.  Probably the most succinct indictment that I can give you is what they teach their acolytes about how to do our constitutional Republic in.

Below are Sal Alinski’s Rules for Radicals:

Power is not only what you have but what you make your opponent think you have;

Stay within the confines of your expertise;

Take the opportunities presented to go outside the expertise of your opponents;

Make your opponents live up to their own rules;

Ridiculing your opponent can be a most potent weapon;

Make the tactics used by your own people enjoyable to them;

Do not employ a tactic so long as to drag it on;

Always keep pressure on your opponent;

The threat is usually more terrifying than the actual thing;

Develop tactics to keep pressure on the opponent;

Push a negative long enough to turn it into a positive;

Always have an alternative solution, lest the opponent accuse you of having no solution;

Pick the target, preferably a person, then freeze it, personalize it, and polarize/isolate it from sympathy

Then peruse the 10 tenets of Communism below and muse as to whether our government has adopted any of them to the determent of our freedom and Constitution and if they are incorporated, who did it:

Abolition of Private Property

Progressive tax

Abolition of Rights of Inheritance

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants & rebels

Central Bank

Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation

Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture

Government Control of Labor

Corporate Farms and Regional Planning

Government Control of Education

I maintain that we are now engaged in a war for the survival of our Constitution and Republic … there has been as yet little shooting and very little blood has been spilled, but that could all change in the blink of an eye.  The Lord Christ said as he died on the Cross, “forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.”  Do you suppose the millennials know what they are doing?

Posted in Lee's Musings | 1 Comment