It is time to take a look at both sides of the aisle. Political corruption is at an all time high, and it’s dismissed by the media. It starts at the top with Obama who has pushed an anti-American agenda, and forced the United States towards Third World status.
The Cloward-Piven strategy is working to perfection combined with the Saul Alinsky tactics now being used by both sides, The citizens of this once great country are confused, tense and coming to a point where our national pride is seriously at stake.
It is my opinion that our President is not a fool, but is actively using his power to cause a decline in this country through political correctness and multiculturalism.
Family Security Matters
“The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”
– House Report No. 784, June 22, 1874
With the 2016 election heating up, many Americans are finding the opportunity to express anger over the nation’s illegal immigration problems.
Donald Trump, a long-shot as a presidential candidate (having never held public office), shot to the top of the polls after making seemingly incendiary remarks about illegal immigrants. I write “seemingly” because many believe his statements to be blunt truth, even if politically incorrect.
In addition to allegations of criminals coming across the southern border from Mexico, Trump is now broaching a question long hidden in the recesses of debate: Does the Constitution grant birthright citizenship to all born within the geographic borders of the United States? This question directly ties to immigration, as the babies of illegal immigrants are being granted immediate citizenship, thereby “anchoring” residency and citizenship rights to family members. Hence the term “anchor baby”. The numbers involved run into the millions, affect the nation in many ways, and cannot be overlooked. It’s time to challenge the conventional wisdom of birthright citizenship. Let me explain.
SECURE FREEDOM MINUTE
It’s been apparent for some time that the Obama administration will say ANYTHING to implement its disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. For example, the President has claimed it closes all “pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapons.” As Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer has noted, that’s not so.
Team Obama asserts we know about everything that Iran’s secretive program has done in closed sites. As former Clinton Director of Central Intelligence James Woolsey has written, that not true.
The President insists his deal is the only way to avoid war with Iran. Democratic Senator Bob Menendez disagrees.
Now, administration spokesmen are signaling that the deal will provide useful targeting information for a future attack on Iran’s nuclear program, instead of making it effectively impossible.
Is there really a Democrat – or anybody else – who buys that fraud?
While it let Islamic terrorists enter the country, wasted huge sums on faulty equipment and failed miserably to remove criminal illegal aliens, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was busy blowing $20.3 million to host 1,883 conferences last year.
It’s the inconceivable tale of the colossal agency-with practically unlimited funds-created after 9/11 to prevent another terrorist attack. The agency’s various components include Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the scandal-plagued Secret Service and the famously inept Transportation Security Administration (TSA), to name a few. In 2015, DHS asked Congress for an astounding $38.2 billion to continue its “commitment to the security of our homeland and the American public,” according to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson.
Candidate Donald Trump’s recent proclamation that he is opposed to so-called “birthright citizenship” for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the United States has, like many of his campaign statements, set off hysterical paroxysms of outrage and protest. I do not support Donald Trump for President, but much of his appeal lies in the fact that he is willing to address taboo subjects in a way that the public—tired of candidates and elected officials cowed by rigid protocols of political correctness—finds refreshing. The topic of “birthright citizenship” is a perfect example. Within a week of issuing his immigration reform plan calling for the end of “birthright citizenship,” there has been more discussion (fueled by considerable popular interest) of this poorly understood aspect of immigration policy than I can remember in my lifetime. Whether or not one agrees with Trump’s platform, one has to concede that he is advancing a national conversation on a critically important issue.
On Face the Nation on August 24, Sen. Ted Cruz re-affirmed that he is opposed to “birthright citizenship” as a policy matter—a position he has held since 2011—and declared that it should be repealed, either by an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment (both of which are, in his opinion, “good faith positions”). Other candidates disagree, or decline to take a position.
The issue is whether children born in the United States—even if their parents are foreign nationals who entered this country illegally—automatically become citizens. Current law supposes that they do—a concept termed “birthright citizenship.” Many people erroneously think this concept is dictated by the Constitution or enshrined in a U.S. Supreme Court decision. Not so. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment—the Citizenship Clause—states that “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.” (Emphasis added.) The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed….” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
Family Security Matters
George Jahn, a respected reporter who covers the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna for The Associated Press, published an important story yesterday on details of a secret side agreement to the Iran nuclear deal in which Iran will collect samples of possible nuclear-weapons-related activity for the IAEA. He wrote his story after an unnamed diplomat allowed him to read a draft of one of the side deals. The side-deal documents reportedly have only been briefed to U.S. officials and will not be shared with the U.S. Congress.
I wrote on this website on July 22 that Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) learned about the existence of two secret side deals to the Iran agreement when they met with IAEA officials in Vienna on July 17. The congressmen were told these agreements concerned resolving the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and the issue of access to the Parchin military base, where explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development reportedly has taken place.
This story attracted more attention on July 23, when Senator James Risch (R., Idaho) revealed during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that one of the side deals allows Iran to collect samples for the IAEA. Risch learned about this from Obama-administration officials during a classified briefing the previous day and indicated he was told that the IAEA would, by video, remotely monitor the Iranians taking samples. Risch’s remarks created quite a stir at the hearing and led Senator Robert Menendez (D., N.J.) to say that if this were true, it would amount to “the equivalent of the fox guarding the chicken coop.” Senator Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), the committee’s chairman, likened this arrangement to NFL players’ mailing in their own urine samples for drug testing.
Jahn’s story is important because it provides previously unknown details of how Iran will collect samples for the IAEA. These details include the following:
Family Security Matters
When Obama took office, his first phone call to a foreign leader was to the head of a terrorist group.
“This is my first phone call to a foreign leader,” Obama told the PLO’s Abbas. “And I’m making it only hours after I took office.”
Obama repeatedly bent, twisted and mutilated existing laws to keep the money flowing to the PLO’s
When Hamas and the PLO temporarily reconciled, Obama sent them money anyway. When Congress froze aid after the PLO defied the peace process by trying to join the UN, he signed a waiver claiming that aiding the terrorist network was “important to the security interests of the United States.” Earlier this year, when the PLO went after Israel at the International Criminal Court, Obama defied a Congressional law and bipartisan demands mandating a cutoff of aid.