|
Patriot Headlines | Grassroots Commentary Daily Digest
August 20, 2015
THE FOUNDATION"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759TOP RIGHT HOOKSTrust Obama and Let Iran Verify
But wait — it gets worse. Now we learn that a newly disclosed side agreement allows Iran to use its own inspectors, too. According to the Associated Press, which broke the story, "The agreement in question diverges from normal procedures by allowing Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence of activities it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons." To put that in perspective, the AP reports, "Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country." It's no wonder Obama wanted to keep details secret and resorted to rhetorically bludgeoning his critics. We just hope it's enough to rally the growing opposition to the deal in Congress. Comment | Share What Really Constitutes Human Life?
In fact, it got much worse. As the video shows the most horribly disconcerting scene so far — a mid-gestational baby boy in a stainless steel pan, still moving his legs — O'Donnell says her supervisor instructed her to procure an intact brain from the baby: “She gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like." "I remember holding that fetus in my hands ... and I started crying," O'Donnell says. And as her voice breaks she says, "It's just really hard knowing you’re the only person who's ever going to hold that baby." We hope the result of these videos is to change hearts and minds. It's a matter of when life begins and how we take care of that life. Aside from the political ramifications, this is a defining moment for our culture. (Footnote: The Leftmedia have been virtually silent on the story.) Comment | Share For Soros, Coal Stocks Are Suddenly a Hot CommodityEvery time environmental blowhards like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio embark on climate apocalyptic speech tours, they are rightly called out by critics for amassing needless carbon footprints. They call religiously for the world to abolish its addiction to fossil fuels, yet they live in lavish homes and travel on luxurious jets powered by so-called "dirty energy." Why? Because they're in it for another kind of green in the form of dollar bills. The same hypocritical mindset applies to George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager who provides financial backing to slews of left-wing advocacy groups. But like fellow leftists Gore and DiCaprio, Soros' disdain for fossil fuels is dwarfed by his love for money. Fox News reports, "Soros, whose Climate Policy Initiative think tank recently urged the world to stop using fossil fuels in general and coal in particular, snapped up 1 million shares of Peabody Energy and half a million shares of Arch Coal, giving him significant stakes in what's left of the U.S. coal industry." Peabody was trading at roughly $90 a share when Obama first entered the Oval Office. Today, trading is an abysmal $1 a share. As Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett points out, Soros may have an ulterior motive in mind. "If he buys enough stock to have controlling interests in these coal businesses, closes them down and leaves the coal in the ground," says Burnett, "we might accept that he is a true believer, that his investment was all about stopping climate change and saving the environment. But my suspicion is that he helped to drive stocks down, bought as many shares as he can, and, when stocks rebound, he can sell his shares and make a huge profit." Considering the numerous groups he bankrolls, we'd put our money on the latter scenario.Comment | Share Don't Miss Alexander's ColumnRead Another Teflon Clinton?, on how questions about "private emails" are not what is threatening Hillary Clinton's candidacy.If you'd like to receive Alexander's Column by email, update your subscription here. FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSISWhat About Birthright Citizenship?By Allyne Caan
At issue is so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies born on U.S. soil to illegal aliens. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states, “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.” In the land of constitutional make believe, this amendment has been misinterpreted through practice and even court precedent to mean if a pregnant woman manages to sneak across the border just in time to deliver stateside, her child lucks out and wins U.S. citizenship, all rights and privileges thereof accompanying. While such birthright citizenship has stirred debate before, Trump’s recent declaration, coming as part of his immigration plan, that he would end birthright citizenship, has brought this melting pot to a boil. His position should not cause shock, however, as birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is nowhere conferred in the Constitution. If anything, the 14th Amendment and surrounding context provide compelling evidence that the Constitution actually denies such citizenship. As we’ve noted before, the 14th Amendment emerged from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was designed to guarantee equal rights to former slaves. To ensure this Act wouldn’t be upended by a future Congress, legislators proposed adding its provisions to the Constitution. Central to the Amendment is the provision that citizenship is limited to those not simply born or naturalized in the U.S. but also “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What does this clause mean? According to legal scholar Lino Graglia of the University of Texas Law School, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, one of the principal authors of the Amendment’s citizenship clause, clarified this phrase as meaning “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” And fellow author Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio concurred that jurisdiction was all-encompassing, the same “in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” Hence, individuals born on U.S. soil to foreign diplomats don’t automatically gain U.S. citizenship. Neither do U.S.-born children of American Indians. Indeed, Graglia writes, “Children born to Indian parents with tribal allegiances were therefore necessarily excluded from birthright citizenship, and explicit exclusion was unnecessary. This reasoning would seem also to exclude birthright citizenship for the children of legal resident aliens and, a fortiori, of illegal aliens. It appears, therefore, that the Constitution, far from clearly compelling the grant of birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, is better understood as denying the grant.” Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of enshrining birthright citizenship as a reward for crossing the border illegally. Yet even many on the Right are loath to denounce birthright citizenship. In a passionate defense of birthright citizenship, The Federalist’s Ben Domenech writes that revoking “American status” and deporting en-masse children of illegal aliens would be a “daunting political and legal proposition.” He calls birthright citizenship “a beautiful example of what makes America unique” and claims that ending birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment. Domenech is almost surely right about the political ramifications because, for one thing, nightly newscasts would be full of stories of families torn apart by immigration officials. But he's wrong about needing a constitutional amendment to correct the misinterpretation of another one. We celebrate legal immigration as a beautiful example of American uniqueness, but historical evidence does not support the idea that the 14th Amendment was meant to institutionalize birthright citizenship for everyone born on American soil. Far from it. Unfortunately, continued misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment has incentivized illegal immigration and worsened our border crisis. Restoring both Rule of Law and the integrity of our immigration system will require ending this misinterpretation — a daunting feat to be sure. But it's one worth taking on if we hope to preserve the beauty of America for all citizens, natural born and immigrant, who love this nation enough to respect her laws. Comment | Share
TODAY AT PATRIOTPOST.US
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
TOP HEADLINES
OPINION IN BRIEFVictor Davis Hanson: "In our litigious society in which plaintiffs sue fast-food franchises for serving excessively hot coffee, why do government bureaucrats escape culpability when the innocent die or are injured as a result of bureaucratic negligence? ... The bigger that government gets, the more employees who are hired, and the more unaccountable power that accrues to bureaucracies, the more government takes on a life of its own. Public grandees resemble Hollywood’s out-of-control androids or Frankenstein monsters that turn on their creators — in these cases, us, the taxpayers. Secure, high-level government administrative jobs — where dismissal is rare and automatic promotion common — promote mediocrity. ... Under the Obama administration, there is also a more disturbing trend: the equation of big government with social justice and hostility to private enterprise. ... Big government has become the new Terminator, at war with those who created it, who fund it — and who must obey it."Comment | Share SHORT CUTSInsight: "There are in fact four very significant stumbling blocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge." —Roger Bacon (1220-1292)Upright: "Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on 'hope'... Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy." —Sen. Robert Menendez announcing his opposition to the Iran deal BIG Lie: "Everybody is acting like this is the first time it's ever happened. It happens all the time. And I can only tell you that the State Department has said over and over again, we disagree [that the material is classified]. ... What you're seeing now is a disagreement between agencies saying, 'You know what? They should have,' and the other saying, 'No, they shouldn't.' That has nothing to do with me." —Hillary Clinton trying to muddy the waters further on the classified information found in her private emails Verbal gymnastics: "We don't agree with the judgment of the inspector general's office in general. ... We have stressed the fact that the emails contained no markings whatsoever that would have designated the material as classified. ... [Hillary Clinton was a] passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became classified." —Hillary spokesman Brian Fallon Missing an opportunity: "I think [Hillary Clinton's email scandal] is a huge distraction from what we should be talking about as a party.” —Martin O'Malley, who is rumored to be running for the Democrat presidential nomination Collateral damage: "We know that low-income minority communities would be hardest hit.” —EPA chief Gina McCarthy on the Clean Power Plan And last... "Yes, it's true: Iran will inspect its own nuclear sites. So what. We also left Hillary in charge of her own incriminating evidence." —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest Comment | Share Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis! Managing Editor Nate Jackson Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm's way in defense of Liberty, and for their families. |
No comments:
Post a Comment