Ken Nelson

The 14th amendment covers citizenship like this:

Section 1. 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.

The author of the amendment did not mean to make citizens of children born to foreign citizens currently residing on US soil:

The author of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

But as with most other things Washington and our courts touch, plain common sense has been corrupted so that now children of illegal aliens become citizens. This is wrong on many fronts, rare in the world (only about 30 countries and hardly any modern Western countries do this), and provides a tempting incentive to break U.S. immigration law.

Those who want to change this talk about tweaking the 14th amendment itself. Good luck with that. There are enough blue states legislatures that want future Democrat voters that this approach will go nowhere. Better, and sufficient, would be to have Congress define who is subject to its jurisdiction for purposes of the 14th Amendment.

Some say that wouldn’t survive a court challenge. I suspect it would face trouble in plaintiff shopped lower courts, but do just fine at the Supreme Court.

We need to do something, and since a Constitutional amendment isn’t feasible, passing a law is the correct next step.

Government is necessary. But just as people must be governed, so must government be governed. A government not governed, or held accountable, by the people, ceases to be an advantage to its people, becoming, instead, a tyranny, however soft, that rules their lives.

Dan Riehl

So is our government governed? Clearly not.  Maybe we can start to change that this November. I hope so, but I fear it will be too late.  That pesky 16th amendment seems to be the ripe fruit which once bitten causes mankind to fall….

Where corrupt fools go to work

I don’t want to raise taxes on those that already pay taxes. So where would I cut? I’ll start with a list of unneeded Government departments. Unless otherwise noted, these would be cut ENTIRELY:

Dept of Defense         -  $708 billion – I’d cut about $200 billion out. For a start.
Dept of HHHS             -  $81 billion
Dept of Transportation -  $79 billion  – I’d cut to level needed for air travel
Dept of Education   – $67 billion,  $100 billion in stimulus money
Dept of Housing      – $48 billion
Dept of Justice       – $29 billion – cut all outside funding of any other agencies
Dept of Energy       – $28 billion
Dept of Agriculture -  $26 billion
Dept of Labor         – $14 billion
Dept of Treasury    -  $14 billion  – I’d cut to 1/3rd present budget
Dept of Interior      – $12  billion (transfer lands to states)
Dept of Commerce – $9   billion
EPA                     – $10 billion  (I’d cut to less than a billion)
NASA                   – 19 billion    (I’d cut it all – sorry)
National Intelligence Program – undisclosed. Well, they would disclose it to me and then I’d cut it brutally. This is what happens to failures.
US Army Corp of Engineers – $4.9 billion  – I’d stop all new projects, only maintenance and correct fixes of what has already been built.

This represents all the Departments of the government. I’ve bravely cut stuff we don’t need, BUT I’ve ONY saved about $718 billion dollars.  Where is the rest of the money? We are $1.5 trillion in debt annually.

Well the department budgets do not include these spending items:

Medicare                           – $453 billion
Medicaid                           – $164 billion
Other Mandatory Programs – $571 billion

”Other”, it turns out, is things like Food Stamps, Unemployment, Supplemental Security for blind, Student Loans, and government retirement benefits (civilian and military)

I need another $700 billion in cuts to balance my budget. But… I’ll fudge a bit and suggest that my awesome discipline is causing the economy to grow as investors welcome my austerity with their money.  And some of my other costs, like interest and retirement costs are dropping because I’m borrowing less and have less employees to fund retirements for.

So I’ll set my goal at $500 billion.  Medicare isn’t going to go down, not a lick. Even if I contain costs it will grow based on demographics.

Medicaid.. I’ll cut that entirely and let the states handle it. $164 billion
I’ll then change Civil Service retirement benefits, get rid of Federal Food stamps, stop any kind of federal welfare spending and I’m at about $200 billion.

So I’m at $364 of me needed $500 billion.

And I’ll let economic grown eat that up, or maybe just inflate a bit cause I can.

Final notes. The above isn’t going to happen through a political process. But I hope I’ve shown just how hopeless it is to think that RAISING taxes would help either. Taxes would have to double or higher, and the resulting economic collapse wouldn’t fund much government.

What will happen, however, is that we won’t have the departments above, nor the mandatory spending above, because there won’t be a United States above. Oh there will be a US, but it will be a 1970’s Argentina. A land of rampant inflation, little job prospects, and cow towing to the whim of other countries.

Put another way… the piper will be paid.

My approach is difficult, sure, and it puts a lot on the states to make hard decisions too. But life ain’t easy. And I’d rather 50 local choices, some great, some bad, than one crappy national one. Grow up states – Sugar Uncle ain’t printing it no more!

Matt Drudge must never sleep!  Anyway, I was going to make this visual comparison today as well, but Drudge beat me to it as I snored away this morning:

 
Both Presidents are dangerous narcissists. And their staged photo ops are staged to appeal to their respective populations. So the photos say MORE about US than the subjects.  And I’m embarrassed by what ours implies.

I couldn’t attend, but my wife and kids did.  If I have it right, the blue arrow above points to them. Reports have attendance between 300 and 500 thousand. My wife said it was packed.  At 6AM this morning she called excited to report she had met David Barton on the way to get a Diet Pepsi.

She and the kids had it easier than most attendees. They walked down from plush Dupont Circle digs and didn’t have to fight bus or metro crowds to get home.

When she Facebook’s about it, I’ll link to her posts.

 
Once hero, now soulless         No thanks, you scare me

John McCain beat J.D. Hayworth.  Which is what happens when you send a bad candidate against a soulless incumbent.

McCain no doubt will now revert to form on immigration and other core Tea Party issues, and will likely continue to stab conservatives in the back in the Senate for 6 more years.

It says much that these two fools are the best Arizona, a large, prosperous and largely conservative state, can put up for office. Actually what it says is “pathetic”.

Any random Tea Party member would represent Arizona better than these two narcissistic careerists.  In terms of what would help Arizona and the nation, this race was done when it started.

Opportunity lost.

No more meetings!

Check out Keith Hennessey’s description of the White House policy process. It is amazing anything happens there, or that they sleep, or that any good ever comes out of it. Unsurprisingly, good things rarely come out. And I’m not talking about just Obama’s administration, which has the double whammy of having wacky Marxists having all these meetings.

If I were President… it would be a little simpler. I would focus it more on what I want. They could meet on how to get it done, but what I want wouldn’t be an option.  Anything from Congress would be laughed at or used as origami fodder. They would react to me, not the other way around.

I might have just one term, but fun, or, as I hope, it would be 2 terms and fix the countries direction. And the pension is GREAT either way!

    
Earned a school.  Hasn’t

Apparently the Nobel Committee also builds schools in Maryland… what else could explain a school named for Barack Obama before he is out of office, or dead?  Isn’t one of those the normal standard for naming schools?

Now if he didn’t suck so bad, maybe.

But come on Maryland… you only have 2.5 more years to go till he is out of office, and he will be just as (1/2) black then (the real reason it is named after him).

If you have to name it after a black person, and I’m quite sure no whites were considered, why not pick one that has actually succeeded in helping the US, or Maryland, or even black people?  Or as I show above, Denzel Washington who I’d gladly have them name a school after here in St. George.  In other words, if he is still alive, have the role model at least be at the top of his game, not flailing and failing.

I’d actually favor not naming things after politicians. Or, at least be honest, like “The John Murtha ripped off a bunch of taxpayers Airport”, or the “William Byrd gets the credit, you get the bill Federal Building”.

Hey Maryland… how about naming schools after Medal of Honor winners, or those who died in service to their country?  Come on Maryland, there is a better way.

BTW: I quite liked Washington’s recent “Book of Eli”.

Roger Ebert, film critic, says this (about the Ground Zero Mosque):

The First Amendment comes down to this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

I’m just picking on Roger because he is the latest I’ve caught saying it. Nor am I going to demand military experience, or even for that matter, know what the hell they are talking about.

What I do wish for, however, is similar concern for all the amendments and rights.

For instance, the 2nd amendment. I’d be happy to have Roger sacrifice for my right to defend myself, but I doubt he is interested.

And I didn’t hear any liberals going on about “defending to the death” property rights in the Kelo eminent domain case. (4th amendment)

Nor are they beating down the doors complaining about how powerful the Federal government is, and how it has usurped, effectively the 10th Amendment.

And those cops that were declared innocent in state court, and then brought up on charges in Federal court. No liberals were screaming about dying for the 5th amendment then.

Here is a tip….  if it is bad for the country, then to a liberal, the Constitution protects it. If it is good for the country, well… we may let you do it, but we will tax it.

He attended mosque before converting to a church with Africa (not the US) on its logo.

Since his Dad was Muslim, by formal Muslim definition he is. His step-father (Lolo Soetero) was Muslim (although not pious), and Obama attended mosque with him as a child.

He claims to be Christian. He attended the radical black separatist church for 20+ years.

I personally think he is whatever is convenient. I think he worships one god – Barry.

But back to the main question… is he Muslim?

What does it matter?  I can’t believe a President that has attended mosque ever as a Muslim was elected.  I can’t believe a President that attended a black separatist church regularly was elected.  Sure, he has the right to attend whatever he wants. But both are so far from the mainstream, that any one should have disqualified him as an extremist in voters minds.  But he didn’t have one, he had BOTH in his history.  He shouldn’t have made dog catcher much less Senator and President.

What the HELL were 53% of the American people thinking?   This isn’t evidence of “tolerance” on their part, just stupidity.

I like the throwing in of the classic Howard Dean “yeaahhhh” wackiness. I always giggle when I hear that, partly because it is funny and partly because it continues to mock a man I grew to despise when I lived in Vermont.

Lots of idiots blather on about “rights”, as in “right to build a mosque”.  Most of these same fools just don’t see the right to property, or self-defense, or even the right to choose not to subsidize the marriage of two men.  So to a certain extent it is silly to argue with them because they are silly people based in an unreal abstract world leeching of the reality others fund and build.

To me it isn’t so obvious that Muslims have a “right” to build a mosque where ever they want. That generally may be true, but not at the site of a national tragedy caused by MUSLIMS.

Who should you be mad at?  First off… Muslims.  And not just radical Muslims, because, you see, every practicing, true, Muslim, is a radical by American standards.   Muslims flew airplanes turning an office tower into a cemetery. And Muslims want to pour salt on that wound by building a base symbolizing (to them) their sick victory. They have earned your concern and scorn.

Who else?  How about our State Department?  They let this fool Iman into our country. They let those 19 hijackers in. They are currently paying the Iman fronting this project $2000 a week and flying him around on our nickel.  This is a Department in serious need of change.

Who else? How about New York voters?  There… that you didn’t expect. But they elected these foolish local zoning commissioners that permitted this crazy scheme. And they elected Bloomberg.  Get a grip New York voters, this is what you get when you send fools to “represent” you. Who is the fool now? 

I’m sure, though, that New York will continue being stupid. And this mosque will be built. And the State Department will continue being a travel agent for our enemies.  Because ultimately, about 1/2 our country is flat out insane. They elect idiots like Obama, Pelosi, Gore, Clinton, Hatch, Graham, Collins, Byrd, and all the others who have spent the last 40 years bringing us to our knees.

I worry about Muslims, sure. They want to behead me.  But… they stand in line for those who want a piece of me – and most of them live here and claim to be Christian.

I don’t believe in public libraries. Go ahead, close them.
BUT… don’t make believe that substitutes for cutting real government fat.

As I’ve traveled of late, I’ve had numerous different cities and region newspapers placed at my hotel doorstep. Most front pages have had articles about “draconian”, or “huge”, or “dramatic” cuts local and state governments face and how hard “critical” services have to be hit. 

What has been missing from ALL of these articles was any documentation as to the budgets of these governments. That would have been useful so we, the reader, and potentially we the CITIZEN, could determine just how much bullshit the politicians were feeding us in this thinly disguised press release cum “news” article. We would likely learn that there was lots of fat to cut before hitting police, fire, and libraries. Just ask Bell, California….

Our “press” has really let us down in recent years. Decades of turning out uninterested compliant liberals has made the newspaper a tool of, rather than a defense against, the state.

We will, we already do, regret the loss.

States that went for Obama love to indenture future children. And the trend becomes more pronounced the more they went for Obama.

The strongest Obama states had a per capita debt high of $4,606 for Massachusetts and a low of $709 for Vermont—remember, the average per capita debt in the McCain states was only $749, barely above the debt level in Vermont, with its “less is more” ethic.

And once they trash their state, they are after the rest of us… We OWE them after all.

 
Poster child for urban decay
Image via www.builtstlouis.com an interesting site worthy of a visit

East St. Louis is in the news these days because they are laying off 19 police officers (out of 62).

Drudge responds with:

But why would criminals run wild?  Police don’t usually prevent crime, they respond to it. Arrests can prevent crime, if the criminals are kept locked up.   But just having police out and about in relatively small numbers (sector car for instance), doesn’t.  If St. George didn’t have police on the streets pentyanty money raising traffic tickets would drop but crime would’t rise.

So what is different in East St. Louis?  Primarily culture and government.

One big difference…the town has mostly black residents. St. George is mostly white. For some reason, black folks seem to commit more crime than white folks do, especially when congregated together. Facts are facts.  There are lots of theories on root causes of black crime rates.  But large populations of blacks didn’t have higher crime rates always. The trend seems to be related to the “war on drugs” and the decline of black males as involved Dads.  It is related to culture not race. A failed culture, I’d submit, that has high percentages of its men in prison, and higher percentages of its woman bearing children without male involvement or support.

What else is different?  Democrats run the East St. Louis. Republicans run St. George.  East St. Louis. Googling East St. Louis corruption finds plenty of hits. St. George, none (except for hits on application page for the police force banning corruption).

Those same Democrats also banned handguns in East St. Louis.  So that now that they have run the city’s finances into the ground and severely hampered police coverage, they’ve also left their citizens defenseless.

I’m sure there are other issues, such as St. George treats business well (except for brazenly high electricity rates), and East St. Louis views them as things to plunder.   But at the core, I think culture and governance sums up how East St. Louis has gone astray.

Well done East St. Louis!   You’ve provided a model of WHAT NOT TO DO.  Alas, I fear many cities with similar cultural demographics and management will be in the news for similar reasons in months to come.