Forum: Will Hillary Clinton Still Be the Democrat Nominee?

The Watcher’s Council

Hillary-Mr-Clean

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: Will Hillary Clinton Still Be The Democrat Nominee?

 Don Surber : No. She is Pig Pen in the Peanuts comic strip of politics. Everywhere she goes, dirt. Dirt and flies. The Democrats may float Mike Dukakis name next.

 The Razor : I hope so but I suspect she won’t be. It would be a Democrat’s worst nightmare if she prevailed through this mess and faced a competent Republican candidate. Of course that last part assumes a lot right now from the Stupid Party. But I’m getting that uncomfortable feeling I get when I watch a comedian bombing on stage, or when I pass an accident on the road and struggle not to look. Her candidacy is looking increasingly like a slow-motion train wreck, and I’m simply amazed at how arrogant, narcissistic and just plain stupid she is. Were all the smart people Bill’s friends?
I honestly hope that by Election Day 2016 she’ll be in jail. She clearly deserves it.

 The Independent Sentinel : She will either be a candidate or indicted. That’s the USA today!

Since I don’t think the FBI will do anything substantive, she will be the candidate.

It’s the GOPs election to lose and lose they might very well do so.

JoshuaPundit : I think it depends on several factors, some of which I went over here.

The dislike between the Obamas and the  Clintons is palpable and personal. But beyond that, Obama considers the Clintons – believe it or not – too conservative to lead the ulta-Left prog fascist party he envisions having significant influence over even after he’s out of the White House. And much of the base agrees with him, egged on by the Soros media machine.

So here’s the first basic thing to consider. The FBI and the Inspector Generals work for Barack Obama, and if he didn’t want this e-mail controversy to surface and continue to fester, it wouldn’t have. So the first question is how far he’s willing and able to take this…far enough to knock Mrs. Clinton out of the box for the nomination but not far enough to where she feels threatened enough to have her lawyer call up someone like Benghazi chairman Trey Gowdy  and other committee heads and start talking deal in exchange for immunity and her testimony on certain matters  the Obama regime would rather weren’t made public. Mrs. Clinton is not without weapons of her own. This could end with a fine and a temporary rescinding of her security clearance, as it did with the Clinton’s creature Sandy Burger.

The second thing to consider is the nature of the Democrat field. Mrs. Clinton has raised more money than all the others combined. She also has the best organization, including Clintonistas scattered throughout the media. After which she can say “I made an honest mistake and I paid for it. Now let’s talk about amnesty and reparations and the fact I’m a woman!”

While Socialist Bernie Sanders has been making some noise, he is still a Jew by birth, if a radical,  irreligious and anti-Israel one, Most blacks, Hispanics and Muslims will not vote for him and they’re an important, vital part of the Democrat coalition. After the New Hampshire primary, which along with Iowa is composed of most white voters, I expect him to fade. There’s no one else at this time, not really.

The recent meeting of Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren is of interest, but we’ll know soon if there are any burning embers among the smoke. For Slo-Jo to make a real run of it, he would almost certainly have to announce the first week or so of September.

GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD : HRC as the Democrat candidate? Looking kinda iffy! It’s one thing to blow off Congress cats and bothersome reporters about her E Mailgate. Quite another to diss the FBI (even if the FBI is doing their very first ever Non Criminal Investigation all about HRC’s server chiz).

Yet way more important is 44’s role in all this. And it looks like 44 is driving it too. Days ago 42 meet and golfed with 44 and you can be sure two things that came up: Attorney General Lynch and Vice President Biden.

Now we learn VP Biden has been hooking up with Senator Elizabeth Warren!

As the radio cat with half his brain tied behind his back says :

“The Hillary thing, I think it’s personal with the Clintons and the Obamas. I don’t think it goes any deeper. It may, but it’s personal. “

“Look, folks, these are the things that you think go in one ear and out the other. But when Bill Clinton in South Carolina is sitting there at a cafe talking to a buddy of his after they’ve thrown the race card down on the guy and Clinton is saying — I forget who he said this to, and it’s a prominent name, might have been Ted Kennedy. It was Ted Kennedy. He was sitting there having a drink with Ted Kennedy and Obama’s on TV or walking by, and Clinton said (doing impression), “You know, Ted, wasn’t that long ago, a guy like this would be getting us our coffee.” Well, that’s the kind of thing Obama never forgets, particularly that. That was Clinton calling Obama, I mean, that was Clinton talking about slavery, dare we say. “

“Obama’s an African-American, coffee, what, he’d be servant? Obama doesn’t forget that stuff. And some of the stuff that happened during that campaign, Hillary and Bill, I think this is personal with them. Well, then why did he make her secretary of state? It’s a pretty brilliant move. It looks like she’s pretty incompetent, right? And she’s got all these problems now that he probably helped create. I mean, he’s done his best to discredit her, and her coronation is now off the rails yet again, thanks to him. The old saw about keeping your friends close, your enemies closer. “

Get your “Riding With Biden” paraphernalia now!

Puma By Design :Straight Answer: Nope!

The Obamas despise the Clintons and does not want them entering as they exit the White House.

Oh sure, the Barry gave the Clintons his blessing but he was just but he was merely paying a debt from the 2008 presidential campaign. Debt repaid with the left hand, screwing Clinton with the right.

As for who then? Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.

The powers that be are aware that Clinton will kick, scream and claw her way to becoming the left’s chosen candidate. I believe there is an urgency by some (Obama) to take her down hard once and for all.

Enter Joe Biden who must first collaborate with Elizabeth Warren so that when Hillary throws the gender card out there, Warren will run interference keeping feminists in check.

If Joe Biden fails, enter Elizabeth Warren. The plan may have been the plan all along to get the left so sick of Hillary that they would be thankful for Warren who as far as I can see is the only thing worse for America than Hillary or Bernie Sanders.

 The Glittering Eye: Unless she’s actually serving time somewhere, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. The Democrats and the Republicans have traded places. This cycle the Democrats want to fall in line and the Republicans want to fall in love.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party (a third to half of the party) knows where its heart is: Bernie Sanders. If he were a black woman he’d be perfect. Despite where their collective heart leads, they’ll still vote for Hillary. She also has the solid support of the black caucus. That’s enough to secure the nomination.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are looking for love (in all the wrong places). That’s why no one other than The Donald can get any traction. Well, that and the 24/7 press coverage he’s receiving.

The Right Planet : Well, I really hate making predictions. But it’s long been reported that there is some bad blood between the Obama’s and the Clinton’s. So, I would not be surprised if the Obama Administration is firing torpedoes at the U.S.S.S. (United States Socialist Ship) Hillary Clinton. And if that’s the case, it must mean that there is something far worse than Hillary (if that’s possible) waiting in the wings. I just read that VP Biden had a meeting with Fauxchahontas (Elizabeth Warren). And Socialist Sanders is giving Comrade Hillary a run for her Clinton Cash. So there’s a damn good chance Hillary might not be the presidential candidate for the Democrats. But, what difference, at this point, does it make?

Nice Deb : I’ve been saying since March that it isn’t going to be Hillary. The Regime’s preferred candidate is Liz Warren, but the surest pathway to the White House for her through Biden. Biden has the name recognition and stature needed to win the presidential election in 2016 with Warren as his running mate. One term of Biden and the next two Warren. That’s the plan. That’s what we have to look forward to.

  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Related:

Hillary-Wipes Hillary-Technical-Relations Hillary-Scandal

Sgt-Hillary-Schultz

Hillary-Restroom Hillary-Fun-and-Profit Hillary-Dindu-Nuffin Hillary-Coronation Hillary-Cleaner Hillary-Cat Hillary-Bills Hillary-Beast-of-Burden Clinton-Time

Hillary-Crime-Scene

Posted in American Culture, Conservatism, Crime, Democrats, DNC, Main-Stream Media, Politics, Watchers Council, Writing | Tagged | Leave a comment

Video w/ Commentary: Laura Ingraham vs. Charles Krauthammer

By: Brent Parrish

One of the big issues I have with neocon-esque commentators like Charles Krauthammer is, well … their neocon-esqueness. While there have been plenty of times where I have found myself in full agreement with Krauthammer, I’m still dubious of his “conservative” monicker—which is a subject that extends beyond the scope of this post (more on that here).

Laura Ingraham did quite well, in my opinion, in her rebuttal to Krauthammer’s argument on immigration by clearly laying out some of the major differences that exist between neoconservatives and conservatives on subjects ranging from the so-called “free trade” deals to the controversy over “birthright citizenship.”

I have never pulled any punches or minced words when it comes to my long-held belief— based on thorough research and empirical evidence—that Barack Obama and his minions are a motley collection of communists, socialists, Maoists, statists, collectivists, etc. But there are quite a few people, on both the right and left, who get their panties up in a bunch when I call out Barack Husein Obama for what he is—a Marxist-Leninist … someone who puts the theories of Karl Marx into practice.

Some people have told me that I might be better off not using labels like “socialist” or “Marxist-Leninist” to describe Barack Obama and his ilk. Well, let me channel Donald Trump: What would you like me to call them? I mean, ladies and gentlemen, it is what it is! We certainly can waste a lot of time beating around the bush in order to avoid offending anybody. But … cui bono?  I’m sure Barack Obama & Friends would like it if they could keep hiding behind the “I’m not a socialist … I just play one on TV” meme. Sorry, I’m calling like I see it. Period. End of story.

Diana West deals with the issue of calling a spade a spade head-on in her book American Betrayal (p. 27):

… [W]ith less than two weeks before Election Day, Fox News’s Special Report with Brit Hume took up the [socialist] issue in a panel discussion featuring Mara Liasson, Fred Barnes, and the quasi-oracular Charles Krauthammer.

The conversation kicked off promisingly enough with a question from Hume as to whether Obama’s recent comment to Joe the Plumber had “raised legitimate questions about whether he has a socialist or socialistic policy.” Conversation stalled with Barnes, who seemed more intent on fending off similarly justifiable questions regarding the socialist underpinnings of both John McCain’s and George W. Bush’s taxation and banking policies, ignoring the Obama story altogether. As a legitimate line of inquiry, however, the topic dead-ended when it got to Charles Krauthammer. “Since the word ‘socialism’ has reared its ugly head,” he began, “let’s dispose of it.”

I fail to see how we can effectively confront and combat the collectivist policies of Obama Inc. if we are too trepid to call it out for what it is: Marxian socialism.

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Border Control, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Immigration, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, National Debt, National Security, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, Operant Conditioning, opinion, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Unemployment | Tagged , | Leave a comment

FLASHBACK: Remember When the Obama Regime Supported Sanctions Against Iran? [Video]

0325-biden-obama-swear_full_600-550x366

V.P. Joe Biden laughs and snickers his way through a debate with Rep. Paul Ryan prior to the last presidential election, claiming Obama’s crippling sanctions were keeping Iran isolated.

h/t: BigFurHat

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Sovereignty, Communism, Conservatism, Democrats, DNC, elitism, Fascism, Foreign Policy, GOP, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Iran, Islam, Israel, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Muslim Brotherhood, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Obama Lies, Politics, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Terrorism, Theocracy, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

FOUND: The Caroline Kennedy Interview Trump Keeps Mentioning! [Video]

Via SooperMexican:

michelle-obama-sweet-caroline

Posted in American Culture, American Diplomacy, Democrats, elitism, Foreign Policy, House of Representatives, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Obama Lies, Politics, Progressive Movement, Sarcasm, Senate | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Something’s Happening Here

The Z Man

Credit: Serena Fenton

Credit: Serena Fenton

I must admit I have enjoyed the Trump-a-palooza this summer. The truth is, I have thrown in the towel on America so I don’t think our elections mean very much. It’s just a question about how fast we intend to drive into the abyss. Being old I should be rooting for slow as that means I can reach escape velocity before it gets ugly. On the other hand, life is for living and sticking around long enough to see the collapse has its attractions.

I can go either way so the elections are just entertainment at this point.

Six months ago I was thinking the Democrats would anoint Hillary, after the usual dalliances with a true believer, who excites the fever swamp types. It’s the GOP’s turn so this is when the party hands out their lifetime achievement award. The GOP would be figuring out if they can run Bush or if they have to find someone with the same polices, but a different last name.

Now, I think something is happening here. Clinton is now immersed in what could very well be the scandal of the century. There’s no way to wriggle free of the mishandling of classified data. You can finesse financial laws and ethics rules. You can’t finesse this stuff. News reports suggest there may be dozens of people who have violated the law and conspired to hide their involvement. This is Watergate level stuff given her position.

On the GOP side, Donald Trump just gave a speech in a stadium. If you are a member of the Party leadership or an advisor to one of the candidates, you should be in a panic. Trump went from sideshow at the start of the summer to leader of a revolution at the end of the summer. In-between, the GOP took their best shots at the man and did not leave a mark. Watching Trump’s crowd last night I kept thinking, “something is happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

One thing that is clear is I was the only guy to figure out that Trump was Beppe Grillo. The other thing is the ossified and blinkered chattering classes are wholly unprepared for what’s happening to them right now. They spend their time reading each other’s tweets, promoting each other’s work and chatting with one another at play time. They are not even aware of the vast network of writers, bloggers and trouble makers out there complaining about the status quo.

Read full article at TheZMan.com …

Related:

Posted in American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Border Control, Calumny, Communications, Conservatism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, GOP, House of Representatives, Immigration, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Neoconservatism, opinion, Politics, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Collective Man: A Socialist Primer

By: Brent Parrish

It has been my experience over the past several years that quite a few people do not have a clue when it comes to describing and understanding the ideology and philosophy that underpins socialism and communism. To try and boil down the ideology of Marxian socialism into a sound-bite or a 500-word post, would be an exercise in futility. But there are some key concepts which will go a long way in at least better understanding the revolutionary and radical aspects of Marxism. The video above was produced during the mid-fifties and is actually a pretty decent synopsis of communist theory and political ideology in this regard.

Considering the far-leftward tilt of the Pope as of late, and the inability of  Democrat leaders to explain any difference between their platform and pure socialism (see below), and the lack of understanding concerning dialectical strategy by many on the right, I thought it might be “prudent at this juncture” to post the above video.

One of the fundamental concepts that must be understood, if one wishes to make sense out of the senseless, is the Marxist theory of dialectical and historical materialism (i.e. dialectics)—the materialistic view that all “progress” is brought about through the exploitation of tensions, struggles and conflict.

As Cleon Skousen wrote in his book The Naked Communist, any time you encounter the term “dialectics” you can just as easily replace the term with the word “conflict.” Part of the dialectical process entails pitting opposing forces against the other in order to bring about synthesis (a very popular term these days). Synthesis is often times synonymous with “compromise” and “consensus” (cf. bipartisanship) in this context.

The dialectical strategy in practice might entail the creation of “controlled opposition”—the formation of groups or organizations that appear to to be in direct opposition to one another; when, in fact, both “opposing” forces are working in concert toward the same predetermined outcome. The current two-party system that exists in the United States (i.e. right vs. left) is perfectly tailored for the application of the dialectical strategy.

For example, if the left wishes to move things in a more radical direction, they might create controlled opposition on the right that appears even more extreme than their own positions. As the “masses” start to move away from the left toward the right, they may move back toward the left under the belief that they are, at least, not as extreme as the right. This is evidenced by the radical left’s oft-used accusation against any group or individual that is strongly opposed to their agenda as being “Nazis” or “fascists.”

Racial agitation has long been a key component of the radical left’s political and social strategy, and was taught in such illustrious institutions as Lenin’s Institute for Higher Learning and Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. A classic example of racial agitation and dialectical strategy in practice would be the Black Panthers versus the Ku Klux Klan. Radical agitators working from within both groups attempt to bring tensions to a boil in the hopes of creating open conflict between the two extremist factions. As the “masses” begin to scream and react to all the chaos and mayhem, the state can step in to provide a “solution”; either through the creation of more legislation (i.e. growing government power), or by the redistribution of wealth to targeted sectors—and so on.

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bible, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Christianity, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, Education, elitism, Fascism, Foreign Policy, Founders, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Islam, Judaism, Legal/Judicial, Libertarianism, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, Muslim Brotherhood, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, Philosophy, Plantation Liberalism, Political Theory, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Religion, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Tea Party, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, Union Actions, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , | 5 Comments

This Old Soviet Propaganda Film Might as Well Have Been Produced by the DNC

By: Brent Parrish

This is a propaganda film produced by the Soviet Union back in 1984 that uses America’s plight during the Depression and race relations as a tool to besmirch and demonize America’s image in their country. After watching a bit of this video, I thought I was either watching a segment from MSNBC or a DNC promotional video. Huh. Imagine that.

Am I wrong?

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, Foreign Policy, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Kent Clizbe: Willing Accomplices: How KGB Created Political Correctness

Via Red Ice Radio:

Kent Clizbe served as a staff CIA case officer in the 1990s and as a contractor after 9/11. He has worked in various capacities in intelligence positions. His specialty is Counter-terrorism and Islamic Extremism. Kent has also worked Counter-intelligence, Counter-proliferation, Counter-narcotics, and other targets. His educational background includes a BA in Southeast Asian Studies-Linguistics and an MA in Linguistics and Business, as well as graduate studies in Instructional Design. We’ll discuss his book Willing Accomplices, How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America. Clizbe details counter-intelligence research and cultural analysis and explains how KGB covert influence operations, began soon after the Russian revolution and resulted in today’s political correctness. He’ll explain how Soviet espionage planted the seeds of America’s cultural destruction through the transmission belts of culture. We’ll hear about the master mind of Willi Münzenberg and how his operators recruited, co-opted, manipulated, and guided a network of willing accomplices who spread the hate-America-first message. Münzenberg’s creed is today’s PC progressive’s talking points. Later, we’ll discuss how multiculturalism also fits in line with the PC progressive’s agenda.

http://www.willingaccomplices.com/

Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Calumny, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, Education, elitism, Fascism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founders, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Immigration, Indoctrination, Islam, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, National Defense, National Security, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, Political Theory, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Military, United Nations | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Jurisdiction, Common Law and Birthright Citizenship

By: Brent Parrish

There is currently a raging debate on the matter of birthright citizenship. There are those who claim anyone who was born in the United States is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. Two arguments regularly used in support of birthright citizenship concern jurisdiction and common law.

So let’s start with the jurisdiction argument derived from the language of the Fourteenth Amendment (emphasis added).

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 those laws.

—Amendment XIV, Section 1

The term jurisdiction is used twice in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those who argue in favor of birthright citizenship say jurisdiction simply means that you are subject to the laws and courts of the United States. But the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment defined jurisdiction as owing exclusive allegiance to the United States.

Jurisdiction n. 1. The right or power to interpret or apply the law. 2. a. Authority or control. b. The sphere of authority or control. 3. The territorial range over which any  authority extends.

Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary

According to Professor Edward Erler, the claim by birthright citizenship proponents that anyone born in the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen has, in effect, already amended the Fourteenth Amendment.

If you say anybody born in the United States is a citizen, then you’ve rendered the jurisdiction clause superfluous. If the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that anybody born here is automatically a citizen, they would have left out the jurisdiction clause.

What the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is owing allegiance to the United States. People who enter the United States illegally are obviously breaking the laws of the United States; they are not demonstrating allegiance to the United States.

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant. [1]

Jurisdiction within the context of the Fourteenth Amendment does not simply mean “within the physical confines of the United States”; but rather to the authority of the Constitution, and the territorial range in which that authority extends (i.e. the United States).  Article I of the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress legislative powers.  Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. They have already exercised their legislative power to say who is under the jurisdiction of the United States. Children of illegal immigrants born within the boundaries of the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Once again, jurisdiction has to do with allegiance to the country. Congress has explicit plenary power to confer citizenship, not the judiciary—or the State Department, for that matter.

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

—Sen. Jacob Howard (R-MI), 30 May 1866

There has been no Supreme Court ruling declaring the children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. to be citizens of the United States, according to Edward Erler.

And now we get to the second argument: common law. Some politically correct progressives claim the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law standard of citizenship (i.e. birthright citizenship). What is common law? Common law was the law enforced during colonial times—and is still the law enforced in Britain.

Sir William Blackstone wrote voluminous commentaries on English common law.  In all his commentaries on common law he never used the term “citizenship”; instead, he used the term “subjectship.” Birthright subjectship, as described under British common law, means you owe allegiance forever to the king as a debt of gratitude. In other words, you can never get rid of your debt of gratitude to the king.

This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812). [2]

The Declaration of Independence dissolved our allegiance to the King of England. We no longer owe allegiance to the king—which was a gross violation of British common law. Do we still adopt birthright subjectship as the grounds for our citizenship?

James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a former Supreme Court justice, said, “In America there are citizens, but no subjects.” That is the message of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Under common law there are only subjects.

Professor Edward Erler points out that, in 1868, the same senators and congressmen who passed the Fourteenth Amendment passed the Expatriation Act; in which they said the doctrine of the common law basis for citizenship is a futile doctrine to which we are repealing; and we are allowing the people of America to repudiate their citizenship if they want to leave their country. Under common law it is impossible to repudiate citizenship.

Erler goes on to say that there used to be a doctrine of constitutional jurisprudence that said whatever was in the common law that was contrary to what was in the Declaration of Independence was repealed at the revolution. And if there was anything that ever ran contrary to the Declaration, it was the doctrine of perpetual allegiance to the king of Great Britain.

Mark Levin succinctly sums it all up by stating the common law has nothing to do with the birthright citizenship debate, or the call to amend the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it defeats the argument because we’re talking about being subjects, not citizens. Lawyers would never have to refer to common law because we have a constitution. If the people who wish to confer citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants born within the boundaries of the United States, then it is they who have to amend the constitution. No constitutional amendment is required. There is no basis in the constitution to support the notion of birthright citizenship. And yet demagogues from both parties are trying to claim there is a constitutional basis.

Let’s just invert the argument a bit. Imagine, if you will, that millions of Americans were illegally entering Mexico–which has very strict immigration laws, by the way. And let’s just say an American couple who had illegally crossed the border into Mexico decided to have a baby while they were there. Can you imagine such a couple demanding that they and their baby be granted citizenship, despite the fact they had flagrantly disobeyed Mexican law? Furthermore, can you imagine such a couple retorting that any Mexican citizen or authority who objected to their law-breaking was, in fact, a racist and a xenophobe? … and then have the nerve to demand access to social welfare programs, retroactive tax refunds, drivers licenses, and membership on the town council? Perhaps our fictitious American family could claim they just wanted a better life for themselves and their children. Well, that’s called appeal to emotion—a logical fallacy. The fact that they might want a better life does not negate the fact that they broke the law, while other immigrants did not.

We hear from the same crowd that constantly pushes and shills for amnesty incessant diatribes about equality and fairness, and the evils of racism and xenophobia.  And yet the same crowd is utterly unmoved by the very real resentment that many legal immigrants feel when they see citizenship being granted to those who did not follow the rules and emigrate to the United States legally like they did. How is that fair or equal? The fact of the matter is it is not fair or equal, nor was it ever intended to be.

Any country that cannot determine what constitutes citizenship is no longer a sovereign nation. If we are not able to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, then we are no longer a sovereign nation. Sadly, I think that’s the real agendathe elimination of national sovereignty. Some might call it a “fundamental transformation.”

FOOTNOTES
  1. P.A. Madison (September 22, 2007). “What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means.” The Federalist Blog. Retrieved August 22, 2015.
  2. Ibid.
Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, American Diplomacy, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Bill of Rights, Border Control, Calumny, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Economy, elitism, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founders, GOP, History, House of Representatives, Ideological Subversion, Immigration, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, National Debt, National Security, Neoconservatism, Operant Conditioning, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, RNC, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Taxation, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United Nations | Tagged , , , , , | 18 Comments

The Dolezal Complex — Shaun King Edition

The-Shaun-King-Story

By: Brent Parrish

Welcome to another installment of Trans-Racial America (not to be confused with post-racial America)! In this week’s edition, we’ll look at Black Lives Matters hacktivist, Shaun King, who was born a poor black child to two white parents.

Shaun-King

Shaun-King-White

Shaun-King-Mother

That’s little Shaun in the lap of his privileged white mother on the right.

(Note how his Mama is already holding him down … like white devils do.)

Shaun-King-Father

Lil’ Shaun on the left, his white slavemaster (father) on the right.

Shaun-King-Brother-Father

The honorable Dr. King on the left and his white oppressor (father) on the right (top). Below right is King’s white devil brother. (Dang, he even looks evil … like most white devils do.)

Brother Shaun attributes all the hullabaloo over his racial heritage to the fact his Mama allegedly went all Ashley Madison with a black guy back in the day. Fo real, dawg!

Via The Blaze:

Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King addressed the questions regarding his race in a post for the liberal blogging site Daily Kos on Thursday.

In the lengthy post, King said he was “gravely embarrassed” to be discussing his mother’s sexual history or his family dynamics, but contended that while his birth certificate lists both of his parents as white, his biological father is indeed black. He also said that none of his siblings have the same set of parents.

“For my entire life, I have held the cards of my complicated family history very close to my chest. I preferred to keep it that way and deeply resent that I have been forced to authenticate so many intimate details of my life to prove who I really am,” King wrote. “This, in and of itself, is a form of violence.”

Keep reading…

Of course, like white devils always do, Shaun King’s family told the media, including CNN’s Don Lemon, that Shaun’s parents were white.

     Shaun-King-Crocodile-Tears-Tweet

Play that funky music, whiteboy!

In related trans-racial news, I just learned from ancestry.com that I have more Native American Indian blood in me than Elizabeth Warren. That’s right! One-hundred percent Native American–born and raised, my babies!

GK-Butterfield

p.s. Should we try and get a cheek swap from G.K. Butterfield? Don’t be hatin'; just askin’! Might be prudent at this juncture, though. It all good! Back out quiet …
Posted in Active Measures, American Culture, Calumny, Communism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxism, Democrats, DNC, Ideological Subversion, Indoctrination, Liberal Crap, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, Mob Action, Politics, Prejudice, Progressive Movement, Psychological Warfare, Racism, Rank Stupidity, Sarcasm, Satire, Slavery, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Totalitarianism, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution | Tagged , , | Leave a comment