PostHeaderIcon The Plot Thickens

I just had an interesting conversation with my younger sister. You may recall me mentioning in the past, that she was born in an off-base civilian hospital, in occupied Germany in 1947, and thus is not a natural born citizen (NBC), even though our parents were themselves both NBCs. Before I get into our conversation, let me explain what instigated it.

I was once a fairly regular reader of J.B. Williams, and was nearly always impressed by his work. Recently I stumbled across a 2-month-old article by him entitled, “TED CRUZ IS IN THE US SENATE ILLEGALLY?” Let me begin with its conclusion:

On the basis of all available evidence today, Ted Cruz is in fact holding a seat in the U.S. Senate illegally, with no documented proof of legal U.S. citizenship whatsoever, and proof of Canadian citizenship between the years of birth in 1970 and May 2014.

It is unfortunate that a person so many have placed their political faith in has proven willing to defraud his supporters for both votes and millions in campaign donations. But it is better we know now, than after he wins the GOP nomination only to be destroyed by Democrats later, using the same facts and evidence presented here.

What will the people do with this knowledge? Are they really motivated by restoration of Constitutional compliance, or mere political expediency?

Embarrassing as it should be to those patriotic Constitutionalists supporting Cruz, it appears that for the most part, the answer is political expediency.

Please read the whole article, so I don’t have to quote too much of it, including all the links he offers for his references. It begins with workman like documentation of Cruz’ situation. There is a copy of his 1970 Canadian birth certificate, and a copy of his 2014 renunciation of Canadian citizenship.

It then discusses the relevant immigration & naturalization statutes covering how to claim American citizenship for the children of Americans born overseas. If one follows his links to the government websites, as I have, one finds that his research and analysis of the subject is spot on. The stunning new data for me, was that there is a consular form available for American parents abroad, to register the birth of a child they wish to endow with American citizenship.

Yes, children born abroad to American parents are eligible for American citizenship; but it must be applied for under the naturalization statutes:

It is possible for a child to be born outside of the United States, and still acquire legal U.S. citizenship at birth through a parent, according to U.S. Naturalization codes pertaining to “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories.” If the related conditions are met, a child born outside of the United States to one U.S. Citizen parent, in this case, Ted’s mother, the parents can file for and receive U.S. Citizenship for the child by filing a CRBA form with a U.S. Consulate at the time of birth.

The statutes governing this naturalization process state;

“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

According to related U.S. laws governing “Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories,” the following conditions had to be met in order for Ted Cruz to legally claim U.S. citizenship at birth via these naturalization statutes, through his mother…

Read the article, and if interested enough, follow the links to the .gov websites. Personally, I suspect that Cruz does have a CRBA or the like, to prove he is an American citizen. His mother may not have bothered to apply for one when he was born, since all available evidence points to their intention to remain in Canada, where they owned and operated a business while raising their family. Her Cuban national husband we know, became a Canadian citizen like his son. She may have too, for all anyone knows. Reminiscent of Obama’s, the Cruz family records are sealed tight on both sides of the US/Canadian border.

However, when the couple split up, she returned to the United States with her nearly school-aged son. She would have needed to apply for some sort of documentation proving his citizenship, to use in lieu of his Canadian birth certificate, for registering him in school, etc. I suspect she could still have gotten a CRBA for the purpose, even if she was five years late in applying for it. In any case, unlike J.B., I don’t doubt that he is a legal naturalized citizen of the USA, and likely would be considered as such from birth, even if the government was not informed of the blessed event in a timely manner.

Back to my sister. She confirms that she too learned in school at some point, that she could never be POTUS. It didn’t bother her any, because she couldn’t imagine ever wanting the job. More importantly, I asked her what she used to prove she was a US citizen, since her birth certificate was German. She said that now she uses her passport; but before acquiring that, she used a consular certification form issued shortly after her birth, describing the time, place, and full particulars on our parents.

She lost the original, and back in the ’90s, she had to apply for and receive a replacement document. It is a similar yet revised form with the title, “Certification of Report of Birth of US Citizen.” Interestingly, it is signed by Madelyn Albright. I think she needed it to apply for her passport. Bingo! Think of the implications of this data…

We all recall times in our lives, when we had to produce our actual birth certificate, for one reason or another. Many of us have gone through the hassle of getting a replacement, when our original got lost or destroyed, because we needed it for some official action or another. Most recently, I had to replace mine, along with my US Army discharge papers, in order to apply for Social Security several years ago.

It seems impossible that Ted Cruz could have waltzed through life in America, registering in various schools (including Harvard Law, for Pete’s sake), acquiring a driver’s license and a passport, etc. without some sort of documentation of his American citizenship. Wouldn’t he have needed a security clearance to clerk for the SCOTUS, and/or work in Bush 43’s administration? Simply asserting that while he doesn’t have an American birth certificate, he knows he is a citizen because his mother claims to be one, just wouldn’t cut it… especially with an Hispanic surname in Texas… wouldn’t one think?

So why won’t he release the document, or allow the government to release it for the numerous FOIA requests? That is where the plot really thickens. Were he to make it public, it would be prima fascie evidence that he is a naturalized citizen, rather than a natural born one! The simple fact is, that a CRBA is issued by the State Department pursuant to an act of Congress, establishing the naturalization laws, rules, and regulations. The act of receiving ‘birthright’ citizenship when born overseas, is legally still an act of naturalization established by legislative statutes.

Under these statutes, the criteria for acquiring naturalized citizenship at birth, for children born outside our sovereign territory, go well beyond just the American citizenship of one parent. E.g. there are age and residency requirements, which have changed periodically, with various updates to the statutes. Had Cruz’ mom not met all of the mandatory criteria, he wouldn’t have qualified for automatic naturalization under the statutes, and could not have been issued a CRBA. In which case, he could only have been a Canadian, and not a birthright American citizen at all, much less a NBC.

This is the Catch 22 J.B. Williams was alluding to. Cruz has provided the necessary documentation to prove he was a Canadian citizen for 44 years, from birth in 1970 until his renunciation document in 2014. Yet he is either unable or unwilling to provide documentation to prove he is a US citizen of any type. He only asserts it, on the basis that his mom was born in America. The life experiences of my own sister, seem to prove that he must possess such documentation, just to function in normal America. Yet, were he to produce the evidence, it would also be solid evidence that he is actually a legislatively naturalized citizen, not a constitutionally established citizen – born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States of America. He was in fact, born in and subject to the jurisdiction of the adopted home of his immigrant parents – Canada.

I have to agree with J.B. that if he were to be nominated by the Republicans, the ruthless Democrats could and would rip him a new one, with no more than the facts and evidence he has laid on the table. No wonder Trump’s lawyers are so confident they have a solid case, if they can establish standing to get a ruling on its merits, by a competent court. Republican Primary voters… Caveat Emptor! 😉 ◄Dave►

55 Responses to “The Plot Thickens”

  • Chris says:

    Funny you should mention this. LOL In great length I might add. I was dropping by to post this. It’s from Vox so take it as you will. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court

  • Chris says:

    Notice this isn’t coming from the left. The court should make an expedited ruling. Lets put this to bed.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      The court should make an expedited ruling.

      That is not happening. After today’s proceeding, according to the local paper, a hearing has been set for 3/1/16, to consider Cruz’ lawyer’s dilatory motion to dismiss. This will probably be drug out by Cruz himself. If he was as confident of his position as he pretends to be, he would have welcomed a quick ruling to get the subject out of the press. Let’s just hope the media start discussing it more openly, which would be very bad for his campaign, as suggested by the Vox article. 😉 ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        Well 3/1/2016 is reasonably quick. I would assume a motion to dismiss right up front is pretty much SOP and needs to be done. If the motion is denied that’s when it gets down to the issue at hand. We’ll have to see how long that drags out.

  • Chris says:

    BTW Worth mentioning is taking this approach will do nothing to settle the issue of the anchor baby or the Kenyan. Just Cruz. So how much better off would we be?

  • This is interesting.
    The subject seems to be really heating up.

    The more the Cruzbots scream “yes he is” the more interested people become in a “is he or is he not”. lol

    I have to say Scalia’s untimely death might help his case should it ever reach SCOTUS on the parents level.

    A one sided court will unlikely rule to give Obama the boot.
    On being born in Canada … they might knock him out of the running because the left probably hates and fears him more than they fear or hate Trump.

    Who really should be pitching a standing fit is Bush and Kasich who more than likely would get more traction with Cruz and Rubio out of the race.

    It sort of serves them all right for letting this go on this long.

    Just my thoughts 😉

    BTW Chris thanks for posting the law suit I had not seen that 😉

    CT

  • Chris says:

    A one sided court will unlikely rule to give Obama the boot.

    That’s the thing CT. If anyone is still looking to affect Obama through Cruz or even the Rubio question this action will have nothing to do with it. This action is only based on place of birth. Parentage citizenship isn’t really a consideration outside of giving him standing for naturalization if he isn’t natural born. It’s an interesting and somewhat different take only focusing on one aspect of NBC ignoring any other. Even if Cruz had a citizen father at the time they could be filing the suit based on this argument. Yet a woman from anywhere in the world can step over the border and drop a kid on American soil with no citizen parents and that child can be president with no argument at all?

    This suit will do little to clarify and establish who is a NBC. If successful all it would do is say Cruz isn’t leaving someone in the race who had no citizen parentage at birth.

    BTW Chris thanks for posting the law suit I had not seen that

    Fair and balanced. Maybe Fox can’t be any more but I will. 😉

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Even if Cruz had a citizen father at the time they could be filing the suit based on this argument.

      Correct, Chris. Then, he would have been in the same situation as my sister. My citizen parents had to file the paperwork to have her automatically declared naturalized, and Cruz parents would have had to do the same. Neither could legitimately claim NBC status.

      Yet a woman from anywhere in the world can step over the border and drop a kid on American soil with no citizen parents and that child can be president with no argument at all?

      Not by my lights, the clever false assertion in the Vox article that “Everyone agrees that [they] are natural-born citizens” notwithstanding. Of course, I contest the notion that anchor babies are even citizens, much less NBC. Foreign nationals, here illegally or on a temporary visa, are “subject to the jurisdiction of” their home countrys, not the USA.

      This, of course, is the whole reason that the Cruz case is a slam dunk, while the Rubio situation is a political hot potato, which no politician or judge will want to touch. If Rubio were ruled ineligible, then Obama was; and so would be all manner of future politicians born here to illegal aliens. It is Politically Incorrect to even think such a thing, much less discuss it. 😉 ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        That my be the crux of my resignation on the NBC issue. Lack of parity. They seek to raise birthplace citizenship above parentage when the actual notion of anchor baby citizenship or lack of is completely ignored. As you say an anchor baby shouldn’t be a citizen at all much less NB. I would be much more comfortable with someone who has been raised by at least one NB American parent than one that was raised by none. If the people are willing to elect the likes of BHO with his upbringing it’s a shame to disqualify someone who may actually love the country.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Speaking of “Fair and Balanced,” Chris. Here is a big one for you. 😉 ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    This lays things out pretty well. This IS THE CORRECT ARGUMENT. Geography means nothing. Only problem is her argument went out the window on Cruz seven years ago or we have had a bogus president for 7 years. What qualifies or disqualifies Obama or Cruz is whether citizenship can ever be passed on by a mother. She says no which leaves both Obama and Cruz in the cold. Who wants to argue that a woman’s citizenship is less than a mans? BTW Under her argument Rubio is out with no redemption. https://youtu.be/Ca-sfq7l9VA

    • ◄Dave► says:

      What a rabbit hole, Chris! I have just come up for air to say thanks for the excellent link, and check on the SC Primary. 🙂

      She is right on, of course; but her identity is obscure! Following the link to the blog of the poster to try to find out, I fell into a whole labyrinth of excellent articles on the subject. In due time, I will create a new post on the subject, featuring this clip and some of the essays I am now in the process of reading.

      Geography means nothing.

      Not nothing; but it is certainly subservient to parentage. Since the whole purpose of the inclusion of NBC status among the eligibility requirements for POTUS, was to preclude anyone with potentially divided loyalties from commanding our Army, the fact that a child born overseas may be considered a citizen by the country he was born in, is problematical. This also explains the residency requirements for the office. The intent was that the child be raised by loyal Americans, in an American home, where love of country and our culture would be inculcated, creating a natural patriot. Put it this way; without a US citizen father, a child is not a NBC, regardless of all other circumstances of his birth.

      Who wants to argue that a woman’s citizenship is less than a mans?

      Actually, doing so is unnecessary to the discussion of NBC, since without a citizen father, a child does not qualify, regardless of the mother’s citizenship. Acquiring US citizenship from one parent alone, is an act of naturalization based on changeable law, not immutable natural inheritance, like eye color.

      Rubio is out with no redemption.

      I am not sure what you mean by that. Rubio is not a NBC, because he obviously did not inherit his US citizenship, from his Cuban national parents. He is a legally naturalized US citizen, however, under the 14th Amendment. He is not an anchor baby, because as legal resident aliens, his parents were subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal immigrants and tourists are not subject to US jurisdiction, therefore their children, even though born here, inherit their parent’s citizenship, and are not American citizens, much less NBCs.

      Now, back to the SC Primary… 😀 ◄Dave►

    • Chris says:

      I am taking her argument in total without any additional reference or opinion.

      Geography means nothing

      I’m speaking strictly of the NBC status. I believe the US residency requirement is a stand alone requirement in addition to NBC. She contends that the only determinate of citizenship is patriarchal citizenship. Even stating that where someone was born doesn’t matter. All the candidates meet the residency requirement including Obama.

      Actually, doing so is unnecessary to the discussion of NBC, since without a citizen father, a child does not qualify, regardless of the mother’s citizenship.

      There in lies the problem. Want to stand in the middle of a feminist rally and say this? To do so would be made to imply that a woman doesn’t have the same rights as a man when it comes to citizenship. They are being denied the right to confer citizenship to their children. See how long that stands up in court. Then there is the situation where the citizenship status of the father can’t be determined. What then is the child’s citizenship? Is it then some unwritten default back to the mother?

      Rubio is out with no redemption.

      Rubio wasn’t even a naturalized citizen at birth. He was a Cuban national the same as his parents up until the time his parents were naturalized. Him being of minor age was also naturalized at the same time. The speaker contends that the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted into granting any citizenship at all to children of a non citizen father. On that I agree.

      • ◄Dave► says:

        I am taking her argument in total without any additional reference or opinion.

        Then I will need to go review her video again. By the time I made the referenced comment, I had read several of her online essays, some of which contradict your characterization of her remarks. E.g., I was pretty sure it was her that made the point somewhere, that Rubio is not an ‘anchor baby,’ because his parents had immigrated here legally, and were legal permanent residents prior to his birth. Thus, since this voluntary act made them subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., Marco would be born a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment; but not a NBC. I have no particular argument with that interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which does not apply to the offspring of tourists and illegal aliens. ◄Dave►

        • ◄Dave► says:

          I just reviewed her video again on CT’s site, and she does say Marco is a naturalized citizen, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, because his parents were subject to our jurisdiction at the time. Watch it again, Chris, carefully… ◄Dave►

    • Wow that video is interesting!
      Thanks for sharing!

      I too have been following this to find this woman and reading all of the aside articles.

      My brain is fried I need a long long vacation … lol

  • Chris says:

    A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad

    I would propose that the filing of paperwork with an embassy isn’t what gives citizenship. That person has the right to citizenship at birth. I would say it’s more a “notification” of a US citizen that has no documentation currently in the possession of the US. It would pretty much be a transfer of paperwork. It’s the process to prove you are a citizen not make you a citizen. To put it over simplistically it’s like moving to another state. You have to obtain a new drivers license but they don’t make you take another road test.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      I would propose that the filing of paperwork with an embassy isn’t what gives citizenship.

      No, it is not the act of filing the paperwork that makes the child born overseas a citizen, it is the act of the parent(s) meeting the requirements of the legislative naturalization statutes, including the obligatory consular application, which does.

      That person has the right to citizenship at birth.

      Only by a subsequent act of Congress, pursuant to their authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Chris. And then only if all the other statutory conditions are met (parentage alone is insufficient). Not by an act of nature, as in ‘natural born,’ as generally understood by our Founding Fathers at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Certainly not according to contemporary legal reference book, “The Law of Nations,” by Emmerich de Vattel, which they referred to regarding such issues (See: CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.). ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    Embarrassing as it should be to those patriotic Constitutionalists supporting Cruz, it appears that for the most part, the answer is political expediency.

    Exactly! Nothing is going to be done to establish the NBC issue in total. I reference the link I posted regarding the Cruz suit. It is carefully crafted to target only Cruz being sure to not effect any other more desirable yet questionable subjects. I believe a suit against Rubios situation could be as easily valid but they won’t touch it. That is “political expediency”. As you said a “hot potato”. They let Obama run and be seated for seven years. They are letting Rubio run and are supporting him. They are quite content. I’m content letting by far the most conservative candidate in the field run as well. Some would hope Trump wins to “burn the GOPe down”. That he might do but he will be sure to demolish the conservative wing of the party. He has already done great damage. I hope for someone that would burn them all down. Take out that whole Incumblocratduoploy we hear about. That is the farthest thing from Trumps goals. It would be like burning down Trump Tower to him. It’s where he lives.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Yeah, I saw that retweet somewhere else, and was going to ask you if you were the one who sent him the tweet, because it is the same as the link above. The cool thing is now that the media is making a big deal out of the tweet, a LOT of people are going to go look at her little talk, and learn that there is a lot more to the question than these guys act like there is. 😀 ◄Dave►

    • Chris says:

      Most will just label her a nut because to take what she says seriously would point right to Obama and the perfect example of why the NBC requirement.

    • Here is another good link that I stumbled on following the “HER” youtube channel.

      Talk about passion … I love this guy. Another who has given up in despair … ugggggg!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r1nmqkB-ik

      I keep thinking I am giving up on all of this drama … but then someone sends me something that draws me right back in the thick of things.

      Yesterday it was Glenn Beck calling Trump supporters brown-shirts.
      I HAVE GOT TO LAY OFF this stuff … LOL

      So I am hauling out my new smoker today. Put it together and smoke some chicken wings … that outta fix the world 🙂

  • Chris says:

    Quick FYI. A NY court will be considering the Cruz NBC status today in an attempt to get Cruz off the ballot. All expectations are that it will be another dead end but hey. It’s NY. It will depend on how scared Hillary is of Cruz. Of course the plaintiffs go out of their way to poo poo any question about Rubio. “He was born here. He’s obviously qualified.”

    • ◄Dave► says:

      They actually mentioned it on a cable news broadcast yesterday. They said the judge was questioning whether he had jurisdiction to rule on a Federal issue. The interesting thing is that actually, no court has such jurisdiction. It is actually up to Congress to vet the eligibility of any candidate chosen by the Electoral College. How the individual States go about choosing the electors is really none of the Feds business. The vast difference in the requirements for ballot access or the Primary process in the various States, make it obvious that the election of a POTUS does not become a Federal issue until the Electoral College meets. ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        Agreed. That view is highly bolstered by the various forms of primaries. open/closed, caucus/straight vote, winner take all/apportioned delegates. These are all left up to the state parties. Ballot access is based on registering with each individual state as well. That ballot access is controlled by the election board. My question would be does the court have jurisdiction to override the state election boards. At what point would the courts then start routinely picking our candidates that they feel should be running?

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Not really; but that won’t stop them from trying. Primaries themselves would be entirely unnecessary were it not for political parties, which have nothing to do with the Constitution. The thing is that there is ample precedent for States to refuse to put the name of someone, who does not meet the Constitutional age or residency requirements, on their ballot. That doesn’t stop anyone from writing in whoever they want, so individual voters are not disenfranchised by capricious decisions by these boards. ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          The thing is that there is ample precedent for States to refuse to put the name of someone, who does not meet the Constitutional age or residency requirements, on their ballot.

          Absolutely, but that decision is made by the respective election boards, not courts. Election boards are the certifying body. Whether they act constitutionally is the issue at hand. Being at state level it has to be up to the people to insure they are performing their duty correctly. Not through court but voter oversight.

    • Chris says:

      FYI the court in NY booted the case. Didn’t consider it stating they filed the case too late. They should have filed it before NYS certified him.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      You win, Chris. I just don’t give a crap about the dead letter Constitution anymore. If the ignorant American sheeple want to elect the Canadian Born Again Citizen as their new Christian King, let them. He won’t have any more of my respect as POTUS than Obama does. They may be driven by different ideologies; but they are more similar than different, especially in their arrogant and condescending personalities. 🙁 ◄Dave►

      • Chris says:

        I don’t win. Not one bit. I have just removed myself from the position of losing to observing bystander.

        He won’t have any more of my respect as POTUS than Obama does.

        That is to be expected. We haven’t had a president respected by a plurality of the country since JFK. If they lean left the right hates them. If they lean right the left hates them. If they position in the center both left and right hates them. The only thing that is assured is that by the time a president leaves office everybody hates them.

        There is certainly no sign of this changing any time soon. Just look at the choices being made. On one side we have a committed communist who hides behind the title of “democratic socialist”, and a socialist with no concept of truth, no accomplishments and quite probably much blood on her hands who is a socialist hiding behind the title of “progressive”. On the other side we have an ego maniac with no filter who has had great success admittedly playing the system with bribes and favors in kind. We have no way of knowing where he stands on any issue because he also says he can be whoever he wants to be. He is the pitch man selling his wares. Nothing more nothing less. His alternative is someone who wears his faith on his sleeve to pander to one group while gambling it won’t alienate too many of another. He claims to be a constitutionalist and by nearly all measure is yet he turns a blind eye to a portion that’s inconvenient with the knowledge that it won’t matter to enough to make a difference. And it doesn’t.

        Our days of respected presidents are long gone. None can live up to the expectations of all so they are demonized into oblivion. Because of that we get the presidents we deserve. The good ones are too smart to even bother.

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Well said, Chris; and just further evidence that the American experiment with self-government has run its course. For me, it is effectively over. RIP…

          So, instead of critiquing the oligarchs’ Kabuki dance as spectators, let’s ponder and discuss what might replace it. Did you read Lysander Spooner’s book I linked for you a while back? Any interest in considering the merits of anarchy yet? 😀 ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    I have made it about half way in. Of late my dance card has kept me moving pretty much 24/7. I have however come to the conclusion that we should look to our communities and to a lesser degree states as a last resort to our liberty. Demand that they ignore the federal government as it has become largely illegitimate. It has not usurped power as much as responded to those crying for it to exert power. That tendency must be educated out of the masses.

    Anarchy as I believe your are referring is a concept that in the current climate won’t end in liberty. The individual is easily overwhelmed by the mob. Mr. Finicum is an example of that. Anarchy at a higher level is the only achievable goal. We used to call that federalism. A return to federalism would appear to a federal oligarch as anarchy, and anarchy nearly powerless to stop. Our states need simply say “we will not comply”. There are small signs of that starting now.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Keep plugging away at it, Chris. If anything, the second half is more thought-provoking than the first.

      Yes, once the notion that the Feds were responsible for taking care of citizens, rather than just defending them, was abroad in the land, the cries for them to do more and more have been incessant. I vividly recall my shock and consternation when the Berlin Wall came down, and Germany reunified. In very short order, the once subjugated East Berliners were complaining about the lack of order in a ‘free’ country.

      They were so accustomed to government controlling every aspect of their lives, that they found they preferred the certainty of a well-regulated society, to the uncertain outcomes of freedom of choice. They certainly liked the shops full of food; but they still wanted government to assign them to jobs and living quarters. They were the very definition of sheeple, with zero ambition to become free people, and my astonished mind vacillated between pity and disgust for them.

      The return to local government, out from underneath the jackboot of the oligarchs in DC, would certainly be a step in the right direction; but please don’t allow any preconceived ‘impracticality’ of anarchism, to deter you from giving open-minded consideration to the valid arguments for it. It has taken me a couple of years of serious independent thought, to get to where I am on the subject. If nothing else, it is an infinitely more interesting topic to kick around, than the Trump vs. Cruz act in the Kabuki theater. 😉 ◄Dave►

    • Chris says:

      I use great caution when approaching the concept of anarchy because I see forces at work hoping for just that very thing but to an end that is nowhere near liberty. We have had over seven years of groups on the left being whipped up into hateful frenzy. Their destruction and hateful rhetoric being condoned or at the very least reasoned into being justified. BLM, New Black Panthers, Gay rights folks, planned parenthood, socialists and communists of every stripe becoming valid mainstream opinion with youth groups unwilling to even hear any alternate opinion. Even the right to religious conscience diminished to be nothing but hate. The active use of government agencies to quash dissent from any of these views. “Anarchy” is actually alive and well on the left. Invading group functions to disrupt those functions simply because a different viewpoint is being expressed. In effect attempting to shut down the 1st amendment. It’s all there but one thing. Opposition.

      Those pushing the buttons are completely bewildered at this point because the US has not yet devolved into what has been quite successfully accomplished in the middle east and Europe. They underestimate the tolerance of the majority of Americans and particularly the American right. Those they label the most intolerant. By now in their minds we should be in the streets with torches and pitchforks or at the very least the militias should be rising up and going to battle with those who have demonstrated ample hate for them. Why hasn’t that happened?

      The answer to that is quite simple. America is at the core conservative. I don’t mean conservative in the sense of political conservative but in the sense of reactionary conservative. Our system of government up until now has allowed for patience in resolving issues and we are conditioned because of that to think that sort of action is wrong. That is until somebody comes along to say it’s not. Enter Donald Trump. Closely examined Trump is the Obama of the right. Playing on the base instinct of the anger on the right. Whipping up discontent everywhere he goes. His message is that of Obama’s. You have been wronged and we aren’t going to take it any more. There is no message for America. No hint of unity. His is a message of overpowering opposition.

      When Trump first entered the race I was a passive supporter. I thought to myself we could do a lot worse and I could support him. That position was short lived. I don’t know what a Trump presidency would look like. Nobody does, but his candidacy is doing as much harm as seven years of Obama. He seeks anarchy. The type of anarchy only a heavy handed government like a middle east dictator can keep under control.

      I know this isn’t the type of “anarchy” you are referring to but it is the anarchy that’s on the table. Liberating anarchy is not even understood by the masses.

      https://youtu.be/DohRa9lsx0Q

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Boy are we ever talking about two entirely different concepts, Chris. None of the current ills of our culture that you lament, would be even possible without the state. To suggest that using government to quash dissenting views is an example of anarchy, is to turn the actual definition of anarchy on its head.

        It happens that last night I read about half of an excellent little free primer on the subject by philosopher Stefan Molyneux, “Everyday Anarchy: The Freedom of Now“:

        It’s hard to know whether a word can ever be rehabilitated – or whether the attempt should even be made…
        The word “anarchy” evokes images of dangerous mobs, spiky-haired youths hurling garbage cans through Starbucks windows, and the chaos of the war of all against all.

        However, the word “anarchy” simply means “without rulers” – and this state of affairs is something we desperately desire and defend in so many areas of our own lives. If a political ruler were to tell us who to marry, what to learn, and which job to take, we would rebel against such tyrannical intrusions on our freedoms. If the government were to tell us what to read, want to watch and what to listen to, we would justifiably cry “censorship” and lead the charge against such mind control.
        How can we reconcile this contradiction? Is being “without rulers” good, or bad? How can we fear something so terribly, while at the same time treasuring it so mightily?

        “Everyday Anarchy” addresses this challenge head-on, arguing that being free of rulers is not something to fear – personally or politically – but rather a goal that we must constantly strive towards.

        Please be so kind as to download it and read just the first 10 pages. I am betting you will find it interesting enough that you won’t stop there; but if you read just that much, we should be able to agree on a definition for the term. If not, we will need to find another more useful term for discussion – perhaps laissez faire society, as I suggested the other day.

        In any case, the chaos you describe is entirely the result of mobocratic efforts to control the behavior of others, which would be utterly fruitless without the coercive mechanisms of the state. ◄Dave►

        • ◄Dave► says:

          Let me know when you have read the first 10 pages, Chris; but please don’t stop there. I just finished it, and it is the very best rational discussion of the virtues of anarchy that I have yet encountered. Just superb! ◄Dave►

        • Chris says:

          Will do. Can’t promise when though. I’ll be on the road the rest of the week.

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Here is another one:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/breaking-new-jersey-judge-decide-cruz-eligible-run-due-birth-canada/

    …I reckon this issue will never die, as long as the Canadian Born Citizen keeps trying to usurp the throne, in blatant disregard for our Constitution. 😉 ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    Sooner or later one of them might hit. Then it will go to SCOTUS. Then the decision will be so narrow that it won’t really settle the complete issue. Until then…

  • Chris says:

    There’s some real meat to this decision. The judge didn’t just blow the issue off. http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/williams-v-cruz-decision/

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Thanks for the link, Chris. I read the whole thing, and what struck me most was how simple the job of judge is, and how inconsequential their opinions are, when all is said and done. Basically, his ruling boils down to something like this:

      I have read the assorted legal scholarship submitted by the litigants, regarding the likely intent behind the Founders use of the term of art, ‘natural born.’ I tend to agree with those asserting that the original meaning, as described in Vattel’s “Law of Nations,” was voided by the statute passed by Parliament in the 18th Century, shortly before our Revolution, to remove the venerable ‘jus solei’ (by soil) requirement for the king’s natural born subjects, effectively modifying English common law.

      I further agree with those claiming that the original common law ‘jus sanguinis’ (by blood) patrilineal notion, that a child inherits his status and position in society from his father, is now obsolete in our modern world of universal suffrage, feminism, ubiquitous single mother parenthood, and political correctness. Thus, since the people have not seen fit to do so by the established Constitutional means, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to amend our ‘living’ Constitution to reflect modern mores.

      Thus, I have concluded that the term ‘natural born citizen’ had no special meaning to the drafters of the Constitution, beyond ‘legally entitled to American citizenship at the time of one’s birth,’ the requirements of which they surely expected would change from time to time, by legislative statute and/or judicial fiat.

      Therefore Canadian Born Citizen Rafael Edward Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban father, was entitled by the US immigration statutes in effect at the time of his birth, to claim American citizenship; because his mother, while subject to the jurisdiction of Canada at the time of his birth, was incidentally born in America before emigrating to Canada. This means that in the opinion of this court, until he chose to renounce his Canadian citizenship in 2014, Cruz was for 44 years, simultaneously a Natural Born Canadian Citizen, and a Natural Born American Citizen. This legal paradox in and of itself, should serve to show how insignificant the term ‘natural born’ is to Constitutional law.

      Speaking of insignificant, this decision is binding on absolutely nobody. It may be adopted, modified or rejected by the SECRETARY OF STATE, who by law is authorized to make a final decision in this matter. Furthermore, any party may file exceptions with the DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

      Then I ask, what the hell was the point of the exercise? If the judge’s opinion is of no consequence, why not just publish the submitted legal scholarship he reviewed, and let others decide for themselves the merits of the plaintiff’s case? I reckon that I am as adept as he is at reading such arguments and favoring the more persuasive ones. As a strict constructionist, perhaps even more so. 😉 ◄Dave►

  • Chris says:

    LOL I read the whole thing too. Fell asleep twice but managed. BTW I only posted it to justify my prediction not bolster a position. It’s quite my thinking that a SCOTUS decision would read pretty much the same.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►