No, It Is Not Racist To Oppose Birthright Citizenship

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent controversy over President Donald Trump’s comments on ending birthright citizenship. The most notable criticism came from Professor Lawrence Tribe who accused Trump of pursuing a racist agenda to “reverse the outcome of the Civil War.” Others have also labeled the effort as racist including media coverage. It isn’t and the underlying constitutional question is unresolved.

Here is the column:

It is not every day that you are accused of trying to change the outcome of the Civil War, unless you are Donald Trump. After the president had reaffirmed his intention to seek the end of birthright citizenship, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe unleashed a furious tweet declaring, “This fuxxxng racist wants to reverse the outcome of the Civil War” by changing the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Of course, birthright citizenship of immigrants was not what the Civil War was fought over. That was slavery.

Tribe is correct, however, that one of the outcomes was the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868 to guarantee the rights of citizenship to protect the status of freed American slaves. That much is clear. The problem is that little else is. Since the 14th Amendment was ratified, many leaders have opposed claims of birthright citizenship, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Moreover, most countries reject such claims of citizenship. One can be entirely on board with the outcome of the Civil War, not be a racist, and still oppose birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment starts and ends as a model of clarity, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” But between those two phrases, Congress inserted the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Those six words have perplexed scholars for 150 years. The dominant view of law professors is the line as a whole guarantees that anyone born within the United States becomes a American citizen. But many believe that the caveat means you must be here in a legal status, that if you are not a American citizen, then you are a legal resident.

At the time it was written, the sponsors expressly stated its purpose as protecting freed slaves and not the offspring of foreign citizens. Republican Senator Jacob Howard, who was a coauthor of the 14th Amendment, said that it was “simply declaratory” of the Civil Rights Act to protect freed slaves. He assured senators, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

Then there was Republican Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was the author of the 13th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and a drafter of the 14th Amendment. Trumbull stressed that the six words only included those “not owing allegiance to anyone else.” Yet, other members objected that the language could cover anyone physically within the United States.

The Supreme Court seems to reflect the same confusion over the caveat. Not long after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the justices seemed to affirm that the language was meant solely to protect the status of freed slaves. In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court explained the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was “intended to exclude from its operation” children of “citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” A few years later, the justices cast doubt over claims that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.”

Later, in 1884, the Supreme Court stated unequivocally in John Elk versus Charles Wilkins that parents must not merely be “subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and not subject to any foreign power,” as well as owe the United States “direct and immediate allegiance.” Yet, the Supreme Court also held later that the 14th Amendment “affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.” But the parents in that case were legal residents. The justices also rejected efforts to draw distinctions between individuals within the United States for other purposes of the 14th Amendment.

So what does all of this mean? It means that anyone who claims that this question is clear is being less than candid. There are strong arguments on both sides of this question. Moreover, it is true that birthright citizenship in the United States makes us one of the most permissive jurisdictions in the world on this issue. While inelegant, Trump has correctly described birthright citizenship “where you have a baby on our land, you walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby is now a citizen.”

Most of our closest allies in Europe reject such claims. They follow the common practice of “jus sanguinis,” or right of blood, and refuse to recognize citizenship solely because someone was on their territory at birth. Only around 30 countries, including the United States, follow “jus soli,” or right of soil. With no definitive decision by the Supreme Court, the existing precedent favors birthright citizenship, but the outcome is in no way certain. Nevertheless, some justices are likely to get sticker shock over the implications of a narrowing of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts is a judicial incrementalist who resists massive changes ordered from the Supreme Court, and ending birthright citizenship would put the boldest jurist in a fetal position.

If the Supreme Court maintains the broader interpretation of the 14th Amendment, Trump could not carry out his plan with an executive order or even a legislative fix. He would need a constitutional amendment to join the other countries following the rule of “jus sanguinis.” All of this is far more complicated that simply declaring that Trump is some Stars-and-Bars racist pursuing an antebellum agenda. This debate starts with a maddeningly vague caveat of six words followed by 150 years of conflicting legislative and judicial statements on its meaning. This explains why constitutional interpretation can be much like what General Robert Lee once said of combat, “It is well that [it] is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

200 thoughts on “No, It Is Not Racist To Oppose Birthright Citizenship”

  1. The American Indian tribe called the Laurence Tribe has dissolved. They never got caught up in the trail of tears and never went West to Oklahoma or such places. Laurence Tribe caged his name off of his ancestors. We got a guy in my neighborhoold whose name is Jim Osage Tribe. The name Tribe is the last name on his drivers license and James Osage goes first. Like Laurence he is a tribalist and does not like Trump.

    Birthright citizenship goes to all native American Indians. But not to folks who have slided across the Mexican border seeking asylum.

  2. The Civil War was not fought over slavery, although it was as issue. The war was about the state’s right to secede from the union.

    1. Funny Ray, but that’s not what the states that seceded from the Union said when they did it. Look it up.

        1. The catalyst for the Civil War was indeed slavery but the attitude that made war possible was the South’s resentment of a bullying North.

          1. the issue was not just slavery but individual and states rights

            there is a FIFTH AMENDMENT takings clause which says public taking of private property must be paid for at fair price

            the North presumed to “Take” the private property of chattel slaves without any money allocated to pay southernors for it. well, outside of DC that is, where they got $30 a head.

            the rest of the price was paid in BLOOD. that was cheaper for the Yankee industrialists than paying gold. they could just import more Irishmen and press them into service, send them and stack their bodies up like cordwood. in the Wheat field at Gettysburg it was said one could walk from one side of the field to the other and only stepping on corpses of Irishmen, never setting foot on grass.

            BUT, it did not need to happen that way. there was a limited compensation for slaveowners in certain jurisdictions. not 50 states:

            here’s a nice lesson from WIKI. “compensated emancipation”

            Compensated emancipation was a method of ending slavery in countries where slavery was legal. This involved the person who was recognized as the owner of a slave being compensated monetarily or by a period of labor (an “apprenticeship”) for releasing the slave.[1]

            The latter was chosen as a compromise between slavery and outright emancipation, the former slaves receiving a nominal salary, while still being bound in their labors for a period of time. This succeeded in many countries and the U.S. District of Columbia, but proved unpopular in the pre-Civil-War Southern United States, as for the slaves it amounted to little more than continued mandatory servitude, while it placed an added burden of wages on the former owner.[1]

            Transition away from slavery
            Compensated emancipation was typically enacted as part of an act that outlawed slavery outright or established a scheme whereby slavery would eventually be phased out. It frequently was accompanied or preceded by laws which approached gradual emancipation by granting freedom to those born to slaves after a given date. Among the European powers, slavery was primarily an issue with their overseas colonies. The British Empire enacted a policy of compensated Emancipation for its colonies in 1833, followed by Denmark, France in 1848, and the Netherlands in 1863. Most South American and Caribbean nations emancipated slavery through compensated schemes in the 1850s and 1860s, while Brazil passed a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation in 1871, and Cuba followed in 1880 after having enacted freedom at birth a decade earlier.[1]

            United States
            In the United States, the regulation of slavery was predominantly a state function. Northern states followed a course of gradual emancipation. During the Civil War, in 1861, President Lincoln drafted an act to be introduced before the legislature of Delaware, one of the four non-free states that remained loyal[citation needed] (the others being Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri), for compensated emancipation. However this was narrowly defeated. Lincoln also was behind national legislation towards the same end, but the southern states, which regarded themselves as having seceded from the Union, ignored the proposals.[2][3]

            Only in the District of Columbia, which fell under direct Federal auspices, was compensated emancipation enacted. On April 16, 1862, President Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act. This law prohibited slavery in the District, forcing its 900-odd slaveholders to free their slaves, with the government paying owners an average of about $300 for each. In 1863, state legislation towards compensated emancipation in Maryland failed to pass, as did an attempt to include it in a newly written Missouri constitution.[1][4][5][6]

            Nations and empires that ended slavery through some form of compensated emancipation
            British Empire[1][9]
            Danish colonies[1]
            French colonial empire[1]
            Mexico and Central America
            Spanish Empire
            United States (Washington, DC only)[11][12] [CATCH THAT GUYS? DC ONLY. YANKEE OLIGARCHS TO CHEAP TO PAY ANYWHERE ELSE. ]

    2. You are right that the war wasn’t fought over slavery, but you are wrong when you say it was for a State’s right to secede from the Union. The civil war was fought over compliance of the States with the laws formed by the Union. And yes, Slavery was at the center of that noncompliance! The slave States knew that with the addition of new states that the Free States would have the votes to form a Majority in the Senate to Concur with their Majority Consensus to end slavery in the House. They knew that the institution of slavery was coming to an inevitable end, so their only choice was to secede and form their own union so they could continue institutions like slavery.

      This was compliance plain and simple, something all States cede as Member States in the Union!

      1. Slavery was one of the components but certainly the real impetus, otherwise Lincoln would not have limited the abolition of slavery to just the of the states in Rebellion. The real issue was tariffs which the agricultural economy of the south was opposed and the manufacturing economy of the north needed to survive and to grow.

          1. No nation in history has ever ended slavery by imposing and prosecuting a war on its people. Abraham Lincoln was a psychotic megalomaniac. Slavery should have peacefully evolved out of existence through advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc. George Washington’s slaves were freed by his will upon his death.

              1. It is true that the original war aim was only to “preserve the union”.

                Lincoln made it clear that he would free none, some of or all of the slaves depending on the situation, if the result was to preserve the union. But emancipation did become a war aim as it progressed culminating in the adoption of the 13th Amendment.


              2. Res ipsa loquitur

                Complete and utter criminal nonsense.

                There was/is no such thing as a war to save the union because a war to save the union is unconstitutional.

                “Crazy Abe” Lincoln used the military as a psychotic dictator to brutally force states to remain united knowing full well

                that secession was irrefutably constitutional.

                America was established through secession from Great Britain.

                Ridiculous nonsensical statement to be spoken to fools.

        1. Shafar,
          One reason that Lincoln abolished slavery only in the Confederacy was to avoid antagonizing the slave states that did not secede.
          It was issued when The Civil War was less than 2 years into a 4 year war. Lincoln did not want to take on more seceding states in a war that was not going particularly well for the Union.

    3. States have the right to secede. Period.

      There is no preclusion of secession in the Constitution and none may be read into it by any judge or justice.

      America is founded on secession from Great Britain.

      1. Your comment is interesting, but wholly incorrect! The Constitution is a contract between interested parties, and once these parties enter into this contractual agreement, it would take the agreement of all parties to the agreement to dissolve, or displace , this agreement. Just like it took 9 of the 13 States to dissolve the Articles of Confederation in favor of the Constitution!

        But for discussion let’s say that a State could at will secede from the Union, and what could some of the possible reasoning be for said secession?

        First, if a State did secede all property, natural resources, and economic resources would be retained by the State, and none would be retained or forwarded to the Federal Government. Everything within the boarders of the seceding State would be the State’s Wholly!

        If you think about that for a minute then you would conclude that the State’s, according to the Federal Principle, already are Entitled to these rights of sovereignty, so secession would be unnecessary to attain these rights of sovereignty over a State’s natural and economic resources.

        The other reason for secession would be rights of Suffrage and participation as a Member State in the Union, which would mean a State’s rights to assemble in Congress and vote as an independent sovereign member to reach Majority Consensus of the States.

        Again, each State already has these rights that they are entitled under Article 1 of the Constitution, and if they are being denied these rights is Assembly and Suffrage then they can demand at any time to have their rights restored, honored, and respected! Again, secession is not necessary to gain these rights of sovereignty which are bestowed fundamentally by the Constitution which is an agreement that they are a party to as a Member State in the Union.

        Therefore, if secession is considered then the State’s that are considering secession could demand their Constitutional Rights as a Member State in the Union, making Secession unnecessary, which should be acceptable to all the States which should guard their independence and sovereignty as a Member of the Union jealously!

        The Union, and therefore Congress, is an Assembly of States, not Parties, and the States have Suffrage to reach a Majority Consensus of the States, not a Bipartisan Majority Consensus of our Major Political Parties.

        The Civil War was a War between the States over the Union! Today if we have a Civil War it will be a War of Insurrection between competing factions, not over the Union, but over control of the Union.

        1. I read your posts with interest and surmise that you are another one of the “God and country”, original intent folks.

          Secession is regarded as illegal now only due to the force of arms as a result of the War Between the States. Southerners weren’t even the first people to conceive of the idea, it was originally advocated by New Englanders during the War of 1812.

          Secession will come again as the country Balkanizes due to divisons over multiculturalism and race. It might even come from the left this time, not the right.


        2. Does the court conduct an “election” in the case of divorce? Do family members, friends and acquaintances vote in a divorce case?

          Articles of Confederation

          “Under these articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes.”

          “…sovereign and independent,…”

          Brilliant. You just made that non-binding BULL—- up! Congratulations, Houdini.

          The Constitution is a constitution not a contract.


          noun: constitution; plural noun: constitutions

          1. a body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed.

          The American Founders WROTE the law, they did not follow the law.

          The Constitution, not a contract, holds dominion. Please cite the Constitution wherein secession is denied.

          The United States of America was established through the secession of the British Colonies from Great Britain.

          The United States of America constitute the very definition and manifestation of secession.

          The proof is in the pudding and known by all. You are a disingenuous fraud.

          You are the very personification of a pompous arse!

          As in the cases of Brexit, Catalan, Scotland, Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Virginia, every nation in the former Soviet Union, etc., etc., etc., secession was and is irrefutably constitutional.

          1. I don’t know where you got your Constitutional education, but you have no idea what you are talking about. And on top of that your revisionist History is pathetically juvenile. If you want to learn some History about the Civil War and Reconstruction, I would suggest Lincoln by Doris Kearns Goodman, or if you want the official version consult the Journal of the Senate the first 100 years.

            That is about as much as I can civilly say to you without crossing the line into being condescending and hurtful.

            Stop trying to rewrite history and the Constitution, there are better and more qualified persons to analyze and bring clarity on those periods of the History of our country!

            1. I’m not writing the Constitution, I’m reading it.

              The Constitution is fundamental law in America and distinctly not a contract.

              Please cite the Constitution wherein secession is denied.

              You haven’t because you can’t.

              “Under these articles, the states remained sovereign and independent, with Congress serving as the last resort on appeal of disputes.”

              No spouse is forced to stay in a marriage of irreconcilable differences.

              You present no legal basis, rationale or logic.

              I don’t read plagiarists like comrade Dumba– Kearns Goodwin.

              Again, the United States of America was established through the secession of the British Colonies from Great Britain.

              Secession is not precluded by the Constitution and is, therefore, irrefutably constitutional.

              The United States of America constitute the very definition and manifestation of secession.

              The proof is in the pudding and known by all.

              You are a disingenuous fraud.

              You are the very personification of a pompous arse!

              1. You are ignorant George, made more so by your refusal to read and consider others analysis, even those of persons who wrote the Constitution! And repeating your stupid interpretations of history and the Constitution won’t make them right.

                Grow up and learn some humility, everyone else isn’t wrong, if you think so that is your problem!

                Study and listen more and talk less, that’s my going away present, good bye, for now!

                1. You have not presented anything resembling a legal basis for your rewriting of fundamental law in America. The Constitution is not a contract, it is fundamental law. The fundamental law in America provides no denial or preclusion of secession. Period.

                  You believe you can ignore the text of the Constitution and “interpret” and re-interpret the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution to suit your sympathies and desires. Indeed, the Constitution does not need interpretation.

                  All you do is attack ad hominem.

                  You have no argument or evidence.

                  Britain held an internal vote to secede from the EU without regard for the various opinions of the EU states.

                  The 9th Amendment includes every conceivable, natural and God-given right, freedom, privilege and immunity not enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. Most certainly one of those is the right to divorce. You and “Crazy Abe” would force a woman to remain in a marriage of irreconcilable differences and violence; which defined “Crazy Abe” – violent and brutal “Crazy Abe.”


                  You are a disingenuous fraud.

                  You are the very personification of a pompous arse.

                  Alternatively, you are simply incoherent which is probably closer to the truth.

                2. I don’t interpret, I read the literal words and the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.

                  I am not concerned in the least with your incoherent “analysis.”

                  I am concerned with the text of the fundamental law in the U.S.

                  You’re a pompous arse and an incessant blowhard.

                  You don’t hold dominion in the U.S., the U.S. Constitution holds dominion in the U.S.

                  Please cite, in one sentence, where in the Constitution precludes secession.

                3. The freedom of assembly, by definition, provides the freedom of disassembly.

                  Without the freedom of disassembly, assembly is compulsory and coerced.

                  States are extensions of the people and must have the same rights. freedoms, privileges and immunities.

                  Americans and the states they reside in have the right to disassembly and secession.

                  1st Amendment

                  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

      2. @george

        And countries break up on a fairly regular basis. History is full of such examples. The USSR and Czechoslovakia are examples of a peaceful breakup, despite the evil of Communism. Of course, Yugoslavia is an example of a violent, nasty breakup due to ethnic and religious differences.

        The “Union” would never have been created in 1787 if the delegates had been told that whenever a state or territory enters it, they can never leave on pain of death.

        The American Civil War, was ultimately a war for Southern Independence. Rightly or wrongly, they saw themselves similarly as the Colonists of 1776. Unfortunately, they faced a much more determined and closer enemy who was willing to prevent them from leaving even by force.

        I’m always amazed at how Southerners tend to be hyper patriotic for a country which ultimately despises them and their values.


        1. NOT ALWAYS

          listen and see lyrics of this popular song circulating a long time, but not on the radio

          1. Be still my heart!

            Slavery was wrong but the Confederate States of America were right.

            No nation in history ever ended slavery by war.

            Lincoln was an unhinged zealot – a wackjob.

            Secession is constitutional.

            Secession and opposition to tyrannical and oppressive governments was advocated by the Founders.

            The CSA would have rejoined the union after failing due to opposing advocacy, boycotts, divestiture, etc.

  3. “Reagan died in 2004 and can no longer atone or apologize. Unfortunately, the National Archives hid the tape for decades in order to protect Reagan’s privacy, allowing him to evade any reckoning.”


    “Despite sunny image, Ronald Reagan’s racism paved the way for Trump’s”

    By The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board

    “It takes a lifetime to build a good reputation,” Will Rogers once said, “but you can lose it in a minute.”

    This certainly seems to be the case with former President Ronald Reagan, who served as California’s governor from 1967 to 1975. Just a few awful seconds of a 1971 conversation, secretly recorded by then-President Richard Nixon, is all it has taken to indisputably recast Reagan as an unabashed racist.

    In the shocking conversation, first revealed by The Atlantic, Reagan refers to African delegates to the United Nations as “monkeys” and says “they’re still uncomfortable wearing shoes.” Nixon guffaws.

    The two men – one a governor of California, one a president from California – were upset that the African delegates had voted to recognize the People’s Republic of China. So, in response to this political disagreement, two of the most powerful men in the world resorted to racist invective. Nixon, recounting his conversation with Reagan to a White House staffer, referred to the African delegates as “cannibals.”

    Hours after supporters of President Donald Trump chanted “Send her back” at a North Carolina rally for the president, Rep. Ilhan Omar delivered a sharp rebuke to the president. Trump told reporters he was unhappy with the chant.

    President Donald Trump’s increasingly racist rhetoric has stunned political observers, yet he’s simply playing to a constituency that was cultivated over decades by people like Nixon and Reagan. They may have operated on a more subtle level, saving the worst of their bigotry for private conversations instead of declaring it in tweets. Yet the core principle remains the same: racism.

    While some political observers wish to cast Trump as an anomaly of history, the truth is that he’s a logical heir to the bigoted lineage of his predecessors. In 1964, the Republican Party began using the “southern strategy,” a ploy to win over white voters in the south by stoking racial anxiety. In 1969, President Nixon launched the drug war as a way to lock up black people, according to one of his top aides.

    “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” said former Nixon domestic policy chief John Erlichmann in a 1994 interview with journalist Dan Baum. “We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news.”

    Reagan’s critics have long pointed out both the implicit and explicit racism in his statements and policies.

    “If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so,” said Reagan during his 1966 campaign for governor.

    He crushed Pat Brown in a landslide.

    As president, he notoriously embraced South Africa’s racist apartheid government. He also promoted the myth of the “welfare queen” – a stereotype used to attack impoverished African American women.

    As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recounted in his book “Conscience of a Liberal,” Reagan visited Philadelphia, Mississippi, in 1980 and declared “I believe in states’ rights.” It was an obvious bow to racism and segregation, especially in the town where three civil rights movement activists – James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner – were murdered in 1964.

    Yes, Reagan’s racism was there all along, in plain sight, for everyone to see. Yet, for decades, it was also easy for him to get away with it. Not anymore. Times have changed, and the taped conversation with Nixon lays bare Reagan’s unadulterated racism.

    Reagan died in 2004 and can no longer atone or apologize. Unfortunately, the National Archives hid the tape for decades in order to protect Reagan’s privacy, allowing him to evade any reckoning.

    But it’s never too late to set the record straight.

    Democrats and Republicans alike have often elevated Reagan as an example of political pragmatism and good old-fashioned American values. They hearken back to his sunny disposition and his hale, hearty image as “The Gipper.” At a time of increasingly extreme political division, it’s tempting for some to look to the past as simpler and better.

    Yet we must dispose of these comforting myths. Men like Nixon and Reagan held the most powerful posts in America for decades. Their legacy lives on today in the form of crushing poverty, overcrowded prisons and a nation where racial divisions and inequities still run deep.

    In his official gubernatorial portrait, Reagan stands in front of the State Capitol. The Sacramento sun shines bright and his famous smile beams. It was during this era that he uttered his ugly racist words to the president of the United States, who laughed. Reagan’s racism would later be reflected in the policies he pursued as president.

    Going forward, there’s no honest way to remember him without acknowledging this shameful fact.

  4. Mexican citizen who voted for Trump found guilty of voter fraud in 5 U.S. elections

    California Secretary of State Alex Padilla explains how counties will be given the option to eventually shift to a new way of voting under the Voter’s Choice Act by 2020. It’s said to improve voter turnout. By Michelle Inez Simon
    A jury on Friday found a Sacramento man guilty on all counts in a case charging him with being a Mexican citizen who assumed an American’s identity and voted in five federal elections.

    Gustavo Araujo Lerma, who has insisted he is an American-born man named Hiram Enrique Velez, was found guilty on all seven counts by a jury in federal court in Sacramento.

    Lerma showed no emotion as the verdict was read by U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez, and family members declined to comment afterward.

    Mendez set sentencing for Nov. 26, and Lerma could face at least two years in prison for his conviction on a count of aggravated identity theft.

    The defendant has been held in custody since his 2017 indictment by a federal grand jury and faced one count of aggravated identity theft, one count of making a false statement on a passport application and five counts of voting by an alien in federal elections from 2012 through 2016.

    Prosecutors say Lerma voted illegally for the past 20 years, using the Hiram Velez identity that he adopted after buying a birth certificate and Social Security card in that name in Chicago in 1992.

    The defense contended there is no proof that the defendant actually is Lerma – a Mexican citizen – and the defendant testified Wednesday that he didn’t know where he was born or when because he was found as a 5-year-old on the streets of San Antonio.

    Lerma testified that he was an ardent fan of President Trump and a Republican who sent money in to support the Republican party.

    Prosecutors said he was born in Mexico in 1955, married his wife and had children there, then came to the United States and remarried his wife in Los Angeles so that, as a purported U.S. citizen, he could provide legal resident status for his wife and children.

    1. that’s a great story. this guy needs a medal.

      proves two key points

      a) there is voter fraud by immigrants
      b) some Hispanics actually like Trump

  5. Another indication, in case we needed one, that liberals are bereft of arguments and can only utter incantations. So, why do we bother with them?

    1. 😆😆😆

      Psychiatrist On CNN: Trump May Be Responsible For Millions More Deaths Than Hitler, Stalin, And Mao

      Dr. Allen Frances, the former chairman of the Psychiatry Department at Duke University, told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday that President Trump is as bad as the worst dictators in history and his presidency could end up causing more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Frances, the author of “Twilight of American Sanity,” warned that calling Trump crazy “is a terrible insult to the mentally ill” and “hides the fact that we’re crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist.”

      “I think ‘medicalizing’ politics has three very dire consequences,” Dr. Frances said. “The first is that it stigmatizes the mentally ill. I’ve known thousands of patients, almost all of them have been well-behaved, well-mannered good people. Trump is none of these. Lumping that is a terrible insult to the mentally ill and they have enough problems and stigma as it is.”

      “Second, calling Trump ‘crazy’ hides the fact that we’re crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist,” Frances explained. “Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, Mao in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were.”

      He continued: “He needs to be contained but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person. It’s crazy for us to be destroying the climate our children will live in. It’s crazy to be giving tax cuts to the rich that will add trillions of dollars to the debt our children will have to pay. It’s crazy to be destroying our democracy by claiming that the press and the courts of the enemy of the people. We have to face these policies not Trump’s person. Now it’s absolutely impossible, you can bet the House, that the Congress, that Pence, that the cabinet will never ever remove Trump on grounds of mental unfitness. That will never happen. Discussing the issue in psychological name-calling terms distracts us from getting out to vote.”

      CNN host Brian Stelter tweeted after receiving criticism about the segment that he should have questioned Dr. Frances about the statement but he was distracted by technical difficulties.

      1. Some people pursue the mental health sciences because of their own mental health issues. Dr Frances appears to be suffering from some sort of diseased mind, if he believes that Donald Trump killed more people than Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. He appears to have offered no explanation for his deranged comment. Apparently, we are all so used to Republicans being called evil, that the studio just carried on.

        They made lampshades out of the skins of murdered Jews in concentration camps. Stuffed pillows with their shorn hair. Tortured them and experimented on them. Gassed them. The trio of monsters, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao killed millions of people.

        Comparing Trump to murderers is vile. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about Trump. The man needs a speechwriting staff between his finger and the post button on Twitter. He says very rude things to and about very rude people. There is lots to debate on the tariffs issue. But to compare him to savage murdering dictators is ridiculous. What is wrong with people to actually believe this? Oh, that’s right. The media, activists, politicians, academics, Hollywood, GOOGLE, Twitter, FB, and YouTube are all chanting at them that Republicans are evil and Trump is their overlord. That throws legitimate criticism out the window and goes straight to Crazy Town.

        Conservatives want to conserve the Constitution, and everyone’s individual rights. Classical Liberals believe in personal freedom and limited government interference. The Democratic Party has tried to erode Free Speech (hate speech, mandatory gender pronouns, proposed blasphemy laws), the Second Amendment. The party is increasingly hostile to Christians based on their religion. It’s going after the Electoral College in a blatant attempt to render most voting districts in the country irrelevant and disenfranchised. The Green New Deal would prohibit air travel. CA banned free plastic grocery bags and plastic straws. A store is not allowed to provide a bag for free. It is required to charge 10 cents for each one. One after another, it’s ticking down the list of individual rights to weaken in the name of the greater good. There is no lane for it to stay in. Government can encroach and intrude into every aspect of people’s lives, including showers and bathrooms.

        These aren’t fringe lunatics doing this. It’s mainstreamed. I hope the party recovers soon. It’s hard for moderate Democrats to maintain their centrist attitudes under the onslaught of politicized propaganda constantly blaring at them.

        1. Dr Frances actually has made solid critiques of negative trends in psychiatry overdiagnosing things. You can look it up. He was pretty sharp in that matter. His words about Trump are just totally wrong and ridiculous.

          As lawyers we are careful to not try and qualify experts outside their own wheelhouse. Others should beware likewise.

        2. Karen, Honey, you are not an educated person and it shows. You receive your “facts” from Faux News, and your cutesy phraseology from watching movies. You are not qualified to critique the Democratic Party or to describe the values and views of “classical” or non-“classical” liberals, much less critique them. You have no clue what “mainstreamed” media reports because you only watch Faux News, and this is an example of the some of the daily slop served to disciples like you. Part of the reason they make these outlandish claims is because so many Trumpsters are beginning to see the light–just today, Trump once again praised Putin for “outsmarting” Obama, and that’s why Russia was kicked out of the G-8, not the invasion and occupation of the Crimea. Despite being told in advance that Russia’s not coming back until or unless it gets out of the Crimea, Trump continued to advocate for readmitting Russia. Why do you suppose he continues to advocate for a murderous dictator to be treated as though he belongs in the company of democratic nations at a trade summit? Why did he publicly side with Putin and against American Intelligence officials in Helsinki? Why won’t Moscow Mitch call for a vote the bills to strengthen the security of elections, at minimum, to require paper ballots? Why won’t Trump admit it happened in 2016, much less take steps to prevent Russia from interfering again with the next Presidential election? Some of us know why. Those who aren’t disciples.

          Faux News wants to keep you thinking Democrats are socialists, anti-Semitic, and out to take away your rights and your guns, so even if you join the growing ranks of people who find Trump not only unqualified but repulsive, you won’t leave the fold.

          Democrats are not “hostile” to Christians or any other religion. Cite some examples. What, specifically, has the Democratic Party done to try to stop free speech? Maybe Hannity will cover this tonight. You can watch while you’re getting your roots done.

          California has taken steps that eventually every state will take, and that is to reduce plastic waste and to encourage people to bring their own shopping bags, which isn’t asking much, and falls far short from interfering with a Constitutionally-protected right. How many dead whales, dolphins and other marine life, and how many tons of plastic waste need to be cleaned up from oceans and beaches does it take before someone like you sees that it’s not asking much to get you to re-use shopping bags or purchase permanent ones?

          When, where and how is the “Government” encroaching into showers and bathrooms? As to the Electoral College, in 2016, it was used by Russia to force an unqualified person into the White House against the will of the majority of the American people. They’re in the process of doing this again, but to keep disciples like you from seeing the truth, Faux News preaches that this is an effort to impose the tyranny of the majority on the minority. Talk about propaganda.

          1. Natacha – you know nothing about me or my education, obviously. Why do you keep making things up?

            As for CA, our politicians prohibited grocery stores from providing any kind of grocery bag free of charge. They are required to charge at least 10 cents. For those who had an interest in reusable bags, they know that you have to clean them. Otherwise, they become soiled carrying meat one week and lettuce the next, transmitting food borne illness. It increased the food cost of the poor. I used to use thin plastic bags already included in the cost of groceries to clean the kitty litter box. Now, I use thick ones that cost 10 cents each, wasting more plastic in landfills than before.

            Granted, I already had reusable, machine washable grocery bags, and only got the free ones when I was running low on bathroom trash can liners or kitty litter bags.

            Meanwhile, CA politicians encourage and enable the homeless to camp in ephemeral streams. There is now garbage strewn all over the place, blown from homeless encampments. The average shopper does not toss their free plastic bag on the ground, but they are all over the place at homeless camps. Then, the winter rains wash all that garbage, trash, dirty needles, and infectious human waste down to the beach.

            If CA was serious about keeping plastic trash out of the ocean, it would address the homeless crisis.

            It took multiple fires and the discovery of a military training grenade before the LA mayor finally started rooting the homeless out of some areas of dry brush. They are still encouraged to poop in front of businesses because, of course, the blue state is antagonistic towards business owners.

            If you’re worried about the floating islands of plastic trash, then address the polluting nations – China, Indonesia, Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Thailand, Malaysia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Brazil. All of these pollute the ocean with more plastic than the US. China dumps 8.8 metric tons, while the US sheds 0.3 metric tons. As stated earlier, to get serious on plastic pollution, deal with the homeless crisis. Ephemeral streams that run into the ocean are a favorite place for the homeless to camp out, do drugs, and dump trash. And the winds out here just blow it all around so the native plants are festooned with shreds of plastic like ribbons. Those straws in turtles’ noses don’t come from the US. We keep wasting our time, money, and effort on ineffective solutions. I buy glass straws because I prefer a plastic free taste and less waste, but realistically, those floating islands of plastic are not made up of US straws.

            How is government encroaching into bathrooms? The transgender issue. Pay attention. There was a man, who looked like a man, and dressed like a man, who barged into the girls bathroom at one of the soccer parks nearby. No one could do anything because men now have access to girls’ spaces. All anyone has to say now is they identify as a woman. They can have a beard. There are now transgender bathroom laws in CA. In CA, transgender students get to pick their bathroom or shower of choice, which means that there are now male genitalia in the girls room.

            1. Natacha – you know nothing about me or my education, obviously. Why do you keep making things up?

              She’s loosely wired and has very little integrity. This isn’t that difficult.

      2. Like a missing synapse between his two gray cells? The fact that he and his guest “expert” are both treasonous leftist/marxist scum is probably what blocked the synapse.

      3. Dr Frances is full of garbage about Trump but if you read his criticisms of the DMS 5 and trends in psychiatry he sounds pretty wise actually– in his wheelhouse

  6. Also from the Vox article, linked by Anonymous downthread:


    Trump’s bigotry was a key part of his campaign

    Regardless of how one labels it, Trump’s racism or bigotry was a big part of his campaign — by giving a candidate to the many white Americans who harbor racial resentment.

    One paper, published in January 2017 by political scientists Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta, found that voters’ measures of sexism and racism correlated much more closely with support for Trump than economic dissatisfaction after controlling for factors like partisanship and political ideology.

    Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta
    Another study, conducted by researchers Brenda Major, Alison Blodorn, and Gregory Major Blascovich shortly before the 2016 election, found that if people who strongly identified as white were told that nonwhite groups will outnumber white people in 2042, they became more likely to support Trump.

    And a study, published in November 2017 by researchers Matthew Luttig, Christopher Federico, and Howard Lavine, found that Trump supporters were much more likely to change their views on housing policy based on race. In this study, respondents were randomly assigned “a subtle image of either a black or a white man.” Then, they were asked about views on housing policy.

    The researchers found that Trump supporters were much more likely to be impacted by the image of a black man. After the exposure, they were not only less supportive of housing assistance programs, but they also expressed higher levels of anger that some people receive government assistance, and they were more likely to say that individuals who receive assistance are to blame for their situation.

    In contrast, favorability toward Hillary Clinton did not significantly change respondents’ views on any of these issues when primed with racial cues.

    “These findings indicate that responses to the racial cue varied as a function of feelings about Donald Trump — but not feelings about Hillary Clinton — during the 2016 presidential election,” the researchers concluded.

    There is also a lot of other research showing that people’s racial attitudes can change their views on politics and policy, as my colleague Dylan Matthews as well as researchers Sean McElwee and Jason McDaniel previously explained for Vox.

    Simply put, racial attitudes were a big driver behind Trump’s election — just as they long have been for general beliefs about politics and policy. (Much more on all the research in my explainer.)

    Meanwhile, white supremacist groups have openly embraced Trump. As Sarah Posner and David Neiwert reported at Mother Jones, what the media largely treated as gaffes — Trump retweeting white nationalists, Trump describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals — were to white supremacists real signals approving of their racist causes. One white supremacist wrote, “Our Glorious Leader and ULTIMATE SAVIOR has gone full-wink-wink-wink to his most aggressive supporters.”

    Some of them even argued that Trump has softened the greater public to their racist messaging. “The success of the Trump campaign just proves that our views resonate with millions,” said Rachel Pendergraft, a national organizer for the Knights Party, which succeeded David Duke’s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. “They may not be ready for the Ku Klux Klan yet, but as anti-white hatred escalates, they will.”

    And at the 2017 white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, David Duke, the former KKK grand wizard, said that the rally was meant “to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump.”

    So while Trump may deny his racism and bigotry, at some level his supporters seem to get it. As much as his history of racism shows that he’s racist, perhaps who supported him and why is just as revealing — and it doesn’t paint a favorable picture for Trump.

    1. Anonymous – so you are so brainless that you are going to let the NYT and Vox run you around by the nose. You couldn’t beat him with meh Russia, so the new call is meh racism.

      1. Meh

        The Left are sheep who meh just for mehing sake much like the Captain Marvel film…feminists mehing gond wild

        Batman: My parents were killed in an alley as I watched helplessly.
        Superman: I’m the last surviving member of my species who was sent to Earth moments before my home planet was destroyed.
        Spiderman: My uncle was killed by someone I had the chance to stop after gaining my powers.
        Captain Marvel: Men were mean to me.

        1. ZG – wasn’t Captain Marvel given her powers by an alien race? Asking for a friend.

    2. Rachel Pendergrast, daugher of Thom Robb, who was the only guy to make a profit from selling klucker membership certificates, after David Duke sold the operation to Robb and moved on to greener pastures. Robb is so smart that he came to the obvious conclusion that the hoods and such were holding back sales.

      These people are a footnote, unless you’re with them in the Ozarks, in which case, they’re a bare-foot-note.

      lol, sorry couldnt resist that one.

  7. CNN BREAKING NEWS: Christine Blasey Ford finally acknowledges that she made a mistake. She now remembers clearly, that it was not Justice Kavanagh. It was William Barr!

    VOX Online comfirms!

    Take it away Left Wing Trolls


    1. Wait!!!

      Mr. Deep Deep State victimizes Feminazi Gaystapo White Shirt???

      That dudn’t make any sense!

      The Feminazi Gaystapo White Shirts are tools of Mr. Deep Deep State.

      1. both ends against the middle george. remember the words of clever Lenin:

        the best way to control the opposition is lead it ourselves

    2. Gee, Anonymous, I’m still waiting for Dr. Ford to start making money by writing books and going on the speaking tour and talk show circuits to recount her “false” accusation of Brett Kavanaugh, like Karen S. said she would, because that was allegedly her motivation.

  8. Excerpt from the Vox article posted by Anonymous @ 5:50 pm:

    Trump has a long history of racist controversies

    Here’s a breakdown of Trump’s history, taken largely from Dara Lind’s list for Vox and an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times:

    1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to black tenants and lied to black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to discriminating before.

    1980s: Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, accused another one of Trump’s businesses of discrimination. “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Brown said. “It was the eighties, I was a teenager, but I remember it: They put us all in the back.”
    1988: In a commencement speech at Lehigh University, Trump spent much of his speech accusing countries like Japan of “stripping the United States of economic dignity.” This matches much of his current rhetoric on China.
    1989: In a controversial case that’s been characterized as a modern-day lynching, four black teenagers and one Latino teenager — the “Central Park Five” — were accused of attacking and raping a jogger in New York City. Trump immediately took charge in the case, running an ad in local papers demanding, “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!” The teens’ convictions were later vacated after they spent seven to 13 years in prison, and the city paid $41 million in a settlement to the teens. But Trump in October 2016 said he still believes they’re guilty, despite the DNA evidence to the contrary.

    1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”

    1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.

    1993: In congressional testimony, Trump said that some Native American reservations operating casinos shouldn’t be allowed because “they don’t look like Indians to me.”

    2000: In opposition to a casino proposed by the St. Regis Mohawk tribe, which he saw as a financial threat to his casinos in Atlantic City, Trump secretly ran a series of ads suggesting the tribe had a “record of criminal activity [that] is well documented.”

    2004: In season two of The Apprentice, Trump fired Kevin Allen, a black contestant, for being overeducated. “You’re an unbelievably talented guy in terms of education, and you haven’t done anything,” Trump said on the show. “At some point you have to say, ‘That’s enough.’”

    2005: Trump publicly pitched what was essentially The Apprentice: White People vs. Black People. He said he “wasn’t particularly happy” with the most recent season of his show, so he was considering “an idea that is fairly controversial — creating a team of successful African Americans versus a team of successful whites. Whether people like that idea or not, it is somewhat reflective of our very vicious world.”

    2010: In 2010, there was a huge national controversy over the “Ground Zero Mosque” — a proposal to build a Muslim community center in Lower Manhattan, near the site of the 9/11 attacks. Trump opposed the project, calling it “insensitive,” and offered to buy out one of the investors in the project. On The Late Show With David Letterman, Trump argued, referring to Muslims, “Well, somebody’s blowing us up. Somebody’s blowing up buildings, and somebody’s doing lots of bad stuff.”

    2011: Trump played a big role in pushing false rumors that Obama — the country’s first black president — was not born in the US. He even sent investigators to Hawaii to look into Obama’s birth certificate. Obama later released his birth certificate, calling Trump a ”carnival barker.” (The research has found a strong correlation between “birtherism,” as this conspiracy theory is called, and racism.) Trump has reportedly continued pushing this conspiracy theory in private.

    2011: While Trump suggested that Obama wasn’t born in the US, he also argued that maybe Obama wasn’t a good enough student to have gotten into Columbia or Harvard Law School, and demanded Obama release his university transcripts. Trump claimed, “I heard he was a terrible student. Terrible. How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?”
    For many people, none of these incidents, individually, may be totally damning: One of these alone might suggest that Trump is simply a bad speaker and perhaps racially insensitive (“politically incorrect,” as he would put it), but not overtly racist.

    But when you put all these events together, a clear pattern emerges. At the very least, Trump has a history of playing into people’s racism to bolster himself — and that likely says something about him too.

    And of course, there’s everything that’s happened through and since his presidential campaign.

    1. “1973: The US Department of Justice ”

      Let’s deal with the biggie. An accusation of discrimination against a company. Based on this type of rational all NYC landlords were guilty of racism even black landlords. The fact is the US Department of Justice that chose the landlord to go after, despite unlimited funds and time, could not prove their case.

      1. Let’s look at the following –

        From the Vox excerpt, above:

        1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump at first denied the remarks, but later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.

        1. Vox makes things simple for people. It removes context so that the juvenile mind can be convinced about almost anything.

          Vox makes you comfortable so read it but don’t pretend you are educated on the subject. I know little about the book you have provided. That is one man’s opinion. I do know for a fact that the Department of Justice failed to prove its case despite nearly unlimited taxpayer paid funding. That was one of your charges. Stick with it. Either retract what you said or prove it. Don’t bring up another stupid argument.

      2. of course I know a black landlord here who is notorious. I’ll just leave it at that since he is also an official and not a bad guy, I dont want to blacken up his reputation. ROFLOL. but seriously, yes

      1. I don’t like Trump so I’ll call him a racist, Mespo.
        And I’ll second anything Natacha says about Trump being xenophobic and a misogynist, since neither of us like him.
        Also, I heard that he cheats at cards, and cheated at marbles when he was a child

          1. If Natacha was still in 6th grade, she’d be calling Trump “conceited.” He’s like, sooo conceited. Ick. 😉

  9. The 14th Amendment was an attempt to circumvent the Constitution and establish national qualifications for a national electorate based upon White Males of means and tie representation and participation in our Government and society to that standard. To better understand why the 14th Amendment is racist, sexist, classist, and anti poor, basically the initiation of the eugenics period of the United States, you must read Federalist #’s 52 and 54 to understand what the Convention did to prevent this by Article 1 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution:

    * ”The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”

    This clause prevents the establishment of national qualifications for the electorate, and it is done in a manner that makes it unalterable by any legislation, State or Federal, and not alterable by Amendments to the Federal Constitution, the only way to change the qualified electorate in any State is to change the State’s own Constitution for the process to assemble the State’s own Most Numerous Legislative Branch. This also prevents the establishment of federal congressional districts, and the Selection of Representation in any manner that is not distributed in the same manner as the State’s Constitution establishes for assembling representatives for its own Most Numerous Legislative Branch.

    The entirety of the 14th Amendment should be disqualified on this basis alone, but the other basis for its disqualification is that it violates Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution:

    * ”The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”

    This is a double edged sword for the States because it means that the States must have a republican form of Government established in their State in order to form the Confederated Republic to which all states in the Union are guaranteed. To be a republican form of Government the assembly of representatives must be based upon the number of inhabitants alone, and all persons, regardless of age, demographics, or citizenship, must be equally represented in the resulting Congress! This is nonpartisan noncompetitive assembly of all Governing institutions.

    Any attempts to secure Representation and Suffrage disproportionate to that enumeration is Unconstitutional, which includes all assembly by Party and Control of our Governing institutions by Party, which do not adhere to this most basic and fundamental principle of republican Government!

    So call it what ever you will, racist classist, sexist, etc. it is prevented by Constitution. Furthermore, who is going to tell a State, a Member State in the Union, who, and by what criteria, they can admit persons into their State and what criteria must be met to be a full member of their community and a citizen of their State? As long as people come to our State with the intention of being a member of our community, then there should be nothing to prevent them, and it’s our responsibility, as a community, to set the qualifications, or disqualifications, on immigration and citizenship in our State.

    The United States of America is a Confederated Republic, not a Consolidated Republic, which would be a Simple Republic! The sovereignty and independence of our State is implied in the Confederated form of a Republic.

    Instead of interpreting the Constitution to gain political advantage, maybe we should try applying its principles as written!

    1. When a Constitutional Amendment comes into power it may revoke previous provisions of the Constitution. That is what the 14th Amendment did. A statute may be passed by Congress to help enforce an Amendment. The 14th Amendment has a clause at the end which says so. LBJ passed some civil rights acts to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.

      1. I would suggest that you read Federalist #52 by Madison to get the full explanation. They made it impossible to change Article 1 of the Constitution by any means, for a reason. They needed to protect the people from Factions like parties, and the consolidation of the States into one Simple Republic, an explanation for which is in Federalist #’62 and 63, also by Madison.

        That’s all I will say, because Madison is more eloquent in his elucidation on the subject of Representation and Assembly of Congress!

      2. Article 1 of the Constitution is the most important to the maintenance and prosperity of republican Government, and therefore they protected Article 2 in a manner that it could not be changed by any Legislative or governing body, unto and including a Federal Constitutional Amendment.

        Federalist #52 Madison;

        * “I shall begin with the House of Representatives. The first view to be taken of this part of the government relates to the qualifications of the electors and the elected. Those of the former are to be the same with those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of the Congress, would have been improper for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the States, would have been improper for the same reason; and for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone. To have reduced the different qualifications in the different States to one uniform rule, would probably have been as dissatisfactory to some of the States as it would have been difficult to the convention. The provision made by the convention appears, therefore, to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State, because it is conformable to the standard already established, or which may be established, by the State itself. It will be safe to the United States, because, being fixed by the State constitutions, it is not alterable by the State governments, and it cannot be feared that the people of the States will alter this part of their constitutions in such a manner as to abridge the rights secured to them by the federal Constitution.”

        I think this is self explanatory, and yes, I posted it because I know people in this group refuse to read the parts of the Federalist Papers which directly contradict what we have chosen to do today by our interpretations which empower Parties over the People.

  10. From Vox:

    Donald Trump’s long history of racism, from the 1970s to 2019

    Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise.

    By German Lopez

    Updated Jul 15, 2019, 9:40am EDT
    Trump has repeatedly claimed he’s “the least racist person.” His history suggests otherwise.

    By German Lopez

    Updated Jul 15, 2019, 9:40am EDT

        1. It’s true. I’d go so far as to say few over the age of 30 read Vox. It’s like a subreddit for people too lazy to study history and too lacking in the ability to critically think to form actual opinions. It’s a mama bird regurgitating into baby bird mouths. It’d be really nice if you’d refrain from polluting the comments feed with the novel-length manifestos, it’s a lot to skip through to get to the real comments, no one is reading that tripe. Is there a mod around?

          1. James, in his infinite wisdom said:

            “It’d be really nice if you’d refrain from polluting the comments feed with the novel-length manifestos, it’s a lot to skip through to get to the real comments, no one is reading that tripe. Is there a mod around?”

            LOL, James. Scroll.

            There are plenty of other lengthy comments. (What’s one more.)

            A case in point:


            I don’t see you complaining about any other comments.

            Suck it up, buddy.

          2. Very true, James. One has to consider some are only looking for confirmation of what they believe and are seeking the lowest common denominator that avoids thinking and information to the contrary. It appears Vox has found its audience.

  11. The most important statement Turley made is that Trump’s views on Birthright citizenship do not make him a racist.

    That same statement could and should be applied to all the “Trump” or anyone else is a “racist” garbage floating arround.

    We can disagree about myriads of issues – legal, political and even factual. We can even be Wrong about issues, the law, facts, without being evil, immoral or racist.

    But falsely accusing someone of being evil, immoral or racist – is evil and immoral.

    The question is not whether the 14th amendment is clear – though it is not.
    The question is whether disagreement over the 14th amendment makes you a racist.
    It does not.

    When we call Trump racist on the basis of opinions that are held by tens of millions of americans – THAT is what is tearing the country apart.

    Once you have called someone an evil, bigoted, racist, hateful, hating hater, it is damn near impossible to sit down together, to reason together, to compromise if necescary, to work together, to even coexist.

    1. What about labeling ALL Mexicans “rapists, murderers, criminals, vermin, breeders and invaders”? What about caging ONLY South Americans here illegally? Last I checked, he’s not rounding up or caging Asians or Europeans over staying their visas, and there’s plenty of them. What about referring to African countries as “shi*hole”, or praising White Supremacists as “fine people “?

      While opposing birthright citizenship MIGHT NOT necessarily be per se racist, there’s plenty of other proof of Trump’s racism.

      Then, there’s his anti-semitism: calling Netanyahu “your” prime minister, and saying that American Jews who don’t vote for him are “uninformed “–i.e., stupid, or that they would be voting against their own interests because he’s pro-Israel. American Jews fight constantly against the notion that they are Jews first and Americans second.

      1. Natacha – Trump did not label all Mexicans such. If you listen to his comments in full, he said that there were good people among them, too.

        Huffpo ran an article in 2014, back when criticizing immigration wasn’t “racist”, about how upwards of 85% of women and girls who immigrate here illegally are raped. Many mothers gave their unaccompanied daughters, who could skip the deportation process, Plan B One Step to deal with the possibility of pregnancy from rape.


        So, yes, obviously, there are a hell of a lot of rapists on the illegal immigration trail. That’s what happens when people pay over $15,000 to organized crime to skip the legal immigration process.

        This was never in question until Trump uttered it, and then everyone apparently got instant amnesia about this very problem that was in the papers for years. That’s one of the problems with illegal immigration, and why our country has a duty to end it to the best of its ability.

        It is also irrational to keep calling Trump anti-semitic. That would mean that he would want his own daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren to die. It’s ludicrous.

        Trump has made similar statements about Jewish people as he has for black people – why keep voting for politicians who leave you worse off? I have wondered, myself, at what point do people stop and realize this. With all the promises, Detroit and Baltimore should be Nirvana. They have got to see through the scapegoating eventually. It is intuitively obvious that such reasoning is not racist. Calling it so is an effort to derail a discussion.

        Why does anyone have to prioritize their qualifiers? If Hamas and BDS succeed, and Israel is one day destroyed, the whole rational empathetic world would identify with Judaism and mourn. When America was struck by terrorists, everyone was strengthened in their patriotic bond.

        Critics keep trying to read between the lines of Trump’s statements to accuse him of racism and anti-semitism. Ilhan Omar and Tlaib do everyone a favor and are quite open about their anti-semitism. They were raised that way, and that kind of brainwashing is hard to shake. BDS has favor with many Democrat politicians, while many Jewish Democrats argue against it. Democrats sent two open anti-semites to Congress, and rather than be condemned, they watered down a resolution to make it sound like they were victims. Rather than censure, they became part of the popular Squad, buddies with AOC.

        Democrats who truly believe that Trump is racist, evil, Nazi, Fascist, or whatever ask Republican voters why they would vote for someone who is bad for them. That is exactly what Trump is doing when he questions voting behavior. When you truly believe that the trend in the Democrat Party is moving towards being pro-Palestinian terrorists, pro-BDS, and even to the point of putting forth open anti-Semites to Congress, you have to wonder why Jewish voters keep supporting this party.

        1. He DID call them “criminals, rapists and murderers” when he announced his candidacy–then he added: “I assume some of them are good people too”. What he said was racist and xenophobic. His after-the-fact addendum did not change the intended meaning. Since then, he has called them “invaders, vermin and breeders”. He treats them like animals, too, and blames migrants for the border crisis rather than those who entice them to come by hiring them.

          It is a fact that native-born Americans commit more crimes than naturalized Mexicans or illegals. Rapes that happen in Mexico do not excuse Trump calling all Mexicans “rapists, murderers and criminals. ”

          Being anti-semitic does not mean that you wish for all Jews to die. It means that he generically insulted the intelligence and patriotism of American Jews by asserting that Jews who oppose Trump are stupid and that Jewish people’s first loyalty should be to Israel rather than the United States. You keep repeating the endless drivel you hear on Faux News. American Jews, as a group, are better-educated and more prosperous than average people, and they mostly vote Democratic, so are you and Faux News also insulting their intelligence when you claim that somehow American Jews don’t realize that Democrats are pro-terrorist? Maybe, just maybe, you don’t know what you are talking about. Faux News keeps trying to put the faces of Omar and Talib on the entire Democratic party, and disciples like you accept this as true, which it isn’t.

          As to black people, the growth in the economy is due more to Barak Obama’s policies than Trump, who is on the verge of triggering a major recession with the trade war he started when China wouldn’t buckle under his threats.

          See, Karen Honey, American Jews and blacks are smarter than you and they know that the slop put out by Faux News is just that. They also see racism and anti-semitism and know it is un – American. They see Trump’s narcissism and find it offensive, like most reasonable people do.

          1. Natacha – there are plenty of “rape trees” in the US to testify to the crimes on this side of the border. Live close enough to the border and you know what kind of problem those scofflaws can be.

          2. Natacha – the media was talking about the high incident of rape and murder along the illegal immigrant trail. The media used to discuss the cartel violence. A cartel cooked an entire village alive in makeshift ovens South of the Border. A female journalist was hung by her entrails.

            This was in the news until Trump started talking about it, and then, it suddenly became racist. It was not racist for myriad reporters to discuss illegal immigrant criminal gangs, sex trafficking, Tenencingo, pedophile smugglers, massive incidents of rape of illegal immigrants along the way, murder, abandoning unaccompanied kids…no one thought it was racist to discuss pressing issues, because it wasn’t.

            A racist would not say that there were good immigrants too. A racist literally would not believe that anyone of another race was any good.

            It is an incredibly ignorant remark to claim there are no black or Jewish people who listen to Fox News. Do you actually believe that the most watched cable network in America only has white viewers, reporters, and anchors?

            Professor Turley occasionally appears on Fox, as do many Democrats. Since all you seem to do is obsess over what Fox might be covering, or doing, or who might be watching, why are you so active on a blog where the host appears on Fox?

            You also seem to not understand what anti Semitic means, or what being a Neo Nazi means. Anti-Semitic is extreme prejudice against Jews. It’s not the equivalent of telling a dumb blonde joke being rude to blondes. It’s an extreme bigotry against Jews. Trump’s own family is Jewish. Neo Nazis don’t just dislike Jews. They want them dead. All dead. Trump has been accused of being anti-Semitic and a Neo Nazi. Which would mean he was extremely bigoted against his own family…and want them dead.

            I notice that you are no longer hyper focused on Russia or Hannity. You appear to have moved on and forgotten about what you were so sure of not too long ago. Funny. I don’t hear the accusations of Trump being a Russian spy or in cahoots with Russia anymore when I check out mainstream media. Is the instant amnesia a trained response? It’s like a ripple effect across America. And yet, people don’t question the next accusation tossed down to them.

            Whoopi Goldberg asked once on the View why Democrats keep getting it wrong about Trump. Joy said something like, “Becasue we hate him.” That’s about right. But it’s not just, or rational.

            1. Trump’s “family” is NOT Jewish. Poor, dumb bleached little Ivanka had to convert because Jared wouldn’t marry her unless she did. That does not make the “Trump family” Jewish. Anti-Semitism is prejudice against Jews, and Trump’s comments are anti-Semitic: Jews who don’t vote for him are “uninformed”–i.e., stupid. He called Netanyahu “your” prime minister. American Jews are Americans first, and Jews second. Anyone implying otherwise is anti-Semitic, because it is saying they cannot be patriotic Americans because they are Jewish. Jews deeply resent this. You don’t have to want all Jews to be dead to be anti-Semitic. If you assume that someone who is Jewish owes his or her first loyalty to Israel and secondly to the United States, you are anti-Semitic. Maybe if you knew some Jewish people and got your information someplace other than Faux News, you’d know that.

              Racism is prejudging people based on their race and not their individual merits–assuming things about them because of their race. Trump began his campaign by saying he was going to build a wall that Mexico would pay for to keep out the “murderers, rapists and criminals”. Then he said that he assumed some were “good people” too. The thrust of his comments was to label Mexicans and South Americans as “murderers, rapists and criminals”. Since then, he has called them “vermin, breeders, animals and invaders”. The man who committed the El Paso massacre repeated the “invader” screed. Trump IS indeed, a racist.

              I never said Trump was a Russian “spy”. I said he is beholden to them. I said that the Mueller Report found that his campaign provided sensitive, insider polling information to Russians who used the information to lie about Hillary Clinton on social media in certain key precincts Trump needed to win in certain key states. Russians knew where to focus the lying because Trump’s campaign told them where to target social media. During the campaign, he actually said: “Russia–if you’re listening–I hope you find the missing e-mails”. Was it just a coincidence that Russians were hacking into the computers of HRC and the DNC? I said that Trump praised Putin, and at Helsinki, he actually sided with Putin over American intelligence agencies–not just providing propaganda beneficial to Putin, but slamming U.S. Intelligence. Just today, he again repeated the lie that Putin “outsmarted” Obama, so to retaliate, Obama got Russia kicked out of the G-8 organization. So, he lied to praise a murderous dictator and to smear his predecessor. You accuse people of being stupid for not questioning what you, as a Faux News disciple, claim is propaganda, but how do you spin these facts?

              1. Karen–since you like movies so much, you might want to watch “Gentlemens’ Agreement”, a film starring Gregory Peck as an investigative journalist posing as a Jew to learn first-hand how Jews were discriminated against. They were barred from certain hotels and clubs. Those who barred Jews didn’t want to kill them–they just didn’t want them around. That was anti-Semitic.

          3. Here Natch speaks for “American Jews and blacks”

            ten bucks say she is not black
            five bucks says she is not jewish

            even if she were black and jewish, who appointed her the PR agent for jews and blacks?

            Natch, just put a cork in it before you further embarass yourself!

    2. John, there are over 300 million Americans, so it is more than probable that “tens of millions” of them might be racist. Not all who voted for Trump are racists, and maybe not even most of them, but he has made statements which appeal to racists – you can witness their approval yourself on neo Nazi and alt right web sites – on many occasions, including recently. I’m not sure that it would be charitable to say he doesn’t believe these things and is only playing on the prejudices of others, but that is the only reasonable explanation which does not include him being a racist.

      1. Anon – racists would agree with stopping illegal immigration.

        Stopping ilegal immigration is not racist.

        Racists agreeing with stopping illegal immigration does not mean it is racist, or cast aspersions on those reasonable people who understand the obvious reasons for stopping illegal immigration.

        Racists are pretty open about it. You don’t have to parse their words, redefine common phrases as dog whistles suddenly off limits, or try to guess what they stand for. They will tell you to their face.

        The entire world knows what Trump thinks pretty much the moment he thinks it. It is not possible that he would be devious in this one area. If he were racist, then he would shout it from Twitter, and it would be clear. You would not have to read anything into it or wonder what he really meant. It is not possible that he would be a loving father and grandfather to his Jewish family, but secretly want them dead like a Neo Nazi.

        Many of us conservatives have been called racist many times just for disagreeing the a Leftist. So, at this point, when we hear someone is called a racist, it’s a case of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. No one believes it anymore, because the once meaningful accusation has devolved to an expletive of disagreement.

        We recently witnessed Hill call Cindy a racist, because she pointed out that President Obama said that Climate Change would put miles of oceanfront land underwater, and then bought a beach house mansion. Racist is just a meaningless expletive.

        That’s what happens when a movement keeps hurling false accusations. No one believes them anymore.

        1. Karen, I did not say that opposing illegal immigration was racist. Stopping illegal immigration was also the goal of the 2013 immigration bill written primarily by democrats and killed in the house by Boehner after receiving bi partisan support in the Senate. It included $46 billion for border security.

          Calling out the race of those immigrants you want to limit is racist, as is calling out some struggling neighborhoods of known racial population as rat infested while not using similar disparaging descriptions of others – Appalachia or any number of rural small towns overcome by meth. Telling African American members of Congress, who’s ancestors have been here longer than yours, to go back where they came from is racist, and so is describing the home countries of others as sh.t jokes, when you own parents came from a murderous sh.t hole – Germany – and simultaneously wishing for Norwegians, is racist.

          But you know that.

          1. Anon – You said that Trump was popular with racists. I explained an example of why. In fact, were you to run on the previously bipartisan effort to curb illegal immigration, your platform would be popular with racists, too.

            Your remark reinforces the fact that Democrats used to have more in common with Republicans than they do today. It is too bad we cannot seem to return to that common ground.

            Someone claimed they heard Trump call African nations s(&hole countries in a meeting. They also said that he allegedly wondered why we didn’t get more people from better off countries that would contribute to our economy. So, the very people who repeated the story, gave the explanation that the reason was economic. In fact, some of the countries he allegedly wanted more of were Asian. Minorities. You neglected to mention that when you selected only one of the countries he allegedly mentioned, Norway. The reason given was not racist, but rather about straining the economy.

            Many people call San Francisco and Los Angeles total sh*(*&holes now. In a sense, they literally are, although I would not use that term. It is now common to hear California referred to as one, usually from business owners who are leaving.

            Countries around the world limit immigration of those who require more benefits. The Kennedy Airlifts were merit based for students. In order to immigrate to Denmark, you have to prove that you have a job ready and waiting, and that you will immediately support yourself. This is common policy around the world.

            It was absolutely rude to refer to such nations as sh(&holes, just as it’s rude to do so to San Francisco and Los Angeles. However, it is also not automatically racist, especially in light of the fact that the reason was allegedly given in the same breath – economics.

            When too many of our immigrants require extensive resources in too great numbers, then it strains the entire benefit ecosystem. We have homeless lurching around our streets like the Walking Dead. Even Cher admitted that we can’t seem to take care of our own. ESL learners are far behind native speakers in too many of our schools, and need more resources. Kids who don’t get enough help at home for school need more resources. We are graduating seniors who can’t read.

            A responsible immigration system would control the logistics, moderating immigration to align with our jobs and housing markets, benefits structure, and resources. When we need more low skilled workers, we should have higher low skilled immigration. When we need more skilled workers, we should have more H1B visas. And we should always make room for some people who are impoverished, but want to be Americans and have a shot at the American dream. It should be managed. It should be obvious.

            This is a heartbreaking article on the constant warfare in Africa. Do you want to import an undifferentiated cross section of abusers and victims, or do you want to save the victims who would embrace the West?


      2. Anon1, that is an interesting figure. It may be accurate. Definitions are difficult.

        Let me discuss my opinion on that question briefly. Using moderate means of classification, i would say about one out of twenty whites is “racist” that’s 5%. there’s about 200 million whites in america, so my figure would be closer to about 10 million.

        (but keep in mind that census figure counts whites of non-european ancestral origin such as arabs, jews, and various central asians as whites, such as Turkish, and also self defining people such as white hispanics as white as well….. excuse me if that sounds racist to even identify this particular categorization, but you can take it up with the census people who get to define “white” or not)

        as to who is racist? when i say moderate means, I mean ,folks who would admit to thinking often about race in social contexts. now hardly any of them would admit to being racist, but they might admit to thinking a lot about race. i would not admit to being racist but I think about race a lot and I Have racial, ethnic, and national preferences. I can admit that much. categorization along these lines is imprecise using any method of course. is it racist to like chinese but not vietnamese? i can admit to such a preference easily, i am not sure that means I am racist or not, however. surely many people find me racist, perhaps some do not. this is a vague and overused label, but one that can have meaning in some contexts, to be sure.

        another issue: I would say the average nonwhite person thinks about race a lot more than whites. the reasons for that are obvious and related to what the leftists call “white privilege,” structural oppression, whatever. but they think about race a lot more than whites do. does that make them racist? maybe, yes maybe it does. but I am not counting them in my estimation that there are about 10 million racist whites in america.

    3. not at all. shot callers among the various racist prison gangs (yes the mexicans and blacks qualify as racist too) but shot callers cooperate on enforcing various social rules in jails all the time, every day.

      social cooperation among racially segregated communities is not exceptional. indeed throughout history it may have been the norm.

  12. “It isn’t” Maybe not, but it was cynically directed at those who are, by another one who demonstrates it daily. Quibble away- that’s what lawyers do.

    1. There is no maybe here. Differences of oppinion over something you value – are NOT racist.

      Further No Trump does NOT demonstrate racism daily. What he demonstrates – just like this, is disagreement with the left in particular, and sometimes many of the rest of us over values. That MIGHT be wrong, but it is not racist.

      When you make everything racist – nothing is racist.

      Turley got into the legal weeds on this – there is an interesting debate over what the constitution means with respect to citizenship.

      but that is NOT the core issue. If Trump was wrong on the law – and it is not clear that he is. That would NOT be proof of racism.

      Disagreement over issues, the law, even facts, even being WRONG in those disagreements DOES NOT make you a racist.

      But calling someone else racist when it is not crystal clear that they are makes you immoral.

      Further it is PRECISELY this nonsense that is dividing the country today.

      We have disagreed on myriads of issues for centuries and still managed to live together as a nation.

      Never before have so many so loudly call so many of their fellow citizens evil, racist, sexist, homophobic, hateful, hating haters.

      When you declare those you disagree with to be evil – the next step is violence.
      YOU have decided that cooperation is not possible.

      There is only one legitimate means of dealing with evil – and that is to resist it in every possible way – including force. We do not negotiate with evil. We do not compromise with evil. We do not talk with evil.

      So when you call someone else evil – racist, you had damn well be absolutely certain you are right. Because there is no stepping back.
      Either you are right, and they are evil. Or YOU are immoral.

      YOU have destroyed any middle ground.

      1. John, beyond your inability to see the fact of Trump’s racist appeals, you are confused about racism – no, it is not “evil”, meaning some preternatural impulse from Hades, but an ignorant and emotional reaction to other people which is changeable – and the nature of democracy, which often requires us to compromise with others who’s ideas we find repugnant and morally reprehensible. Others on this board who mostly agree with you regularly express their eagerness to meet on the street at high noon with their imagined enemies on the left, enemies being a category raised regularly by Trump. I think you are confused about several things.

      2. People don’t call Trump evil because they disagree with him. It’s because he is a malignant narcissist, he lies all the time, he brags about assaulting women, he engages in racist, xenophobic and misogynist rhetoric, he committed obstruction of justice and colluded with Russians to steal the election.

        1. I stand corrected. Natacha does still bring up Russia, while the mainstream media has moved on.

          1. A thirty-two month long fishing expedition (not including the preliminaries when they were running informants) which turns up bupkis and Natacha still doesn’t get it. Recall that she pretends in this forum to be a lawyer, even though all of her posts consist of repetitive screeds derived from her emotional life.

            As ever, you cannot reason someone out of a position they were never reasoned into.

          2. I’m with Natacha. Whenever I candidate I support loses, it’s because the other candidate cheated.
            And when a sports team that I like loses, it’s because the other team cheated.

            1. Except that HRC won the popular vote and Trump cheated with the assistance of Russia, for whom he sides against his own administration and for which he advocates, even against the leaders of other democracies, as he showed this weekend in Biarritz. Despite all of whatever faults you think Hillary Clinton has, she still WON the popular vote. Trump has never won over even half of the American people, despite more than 2 1/2 years to do so. He continues to be an embarrassment to this country every single day when he shoots off his mouth or fire of a tweet, and he has managed to alienate many allies as well.

        2. People don’t call Trump evil because they disagree with him.

          Journalists do not represent the “people” as you would believe and certainly not the body of American thinking. Slate offers an excellent window into what your people in the newz are

          Journalism has been among the heroes of the #MeToo movement. Journalism has surfaced the women who were finally ready to speak out against Harvey Weinstein, stalled and almost blocked the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation, and triggered the re-arrest of Jeffrey Epstein. Journalism has stepped into the void that had been created by an economic system in which wealthy men could use an array of legal workarounds—from NDAs to threats of blackballing to payoffs and intimidation—to avoid the consequences of their actions; a sobering lesson in all the ways the law and lawyers can be deployed to contract out of legal liability. If Epstein stands for anything, it’s how grotesquely an army of well-paid lawyers with insider connections can distort legal accountability and redress, right to the end. So journalism and journalists have stepped up to do the work that courts and lawyers and money had been able to stymie.


          Modern journalists are wannabe moralists who want to pontificate without living a holy, nay Sacramental life. You can’t have morality without religion. And then there’s CNN, NYT, WahPutz, et al: a clanging cymbal, an empty

          IF I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
          1 Corinthians 13:1

        3. spam drivel name calling again. narcissist, russia, misogynist, zzzz, gosh, do you ever outgrow your obsessions?

      3. you assertion that dealing with evil includes force is inconsistent with your liberterian notion of rights john and I am assuming you are the one who has posted as dhili before

        I will not go into that but implicit in the notion of opposing prohibition of alcohol use is the sense that some evils are more trouble for society to prohibit than they are to allow, ie a sort of choice of lesser evils

        the Puritannical streak in American society is what impels it to make illegal every stupid thing, whether it be drinking booze, getting sex for money, or for that matter, irrational discrimination based on social categories

        I am not a liberterian anymore but remain with liberterians in their inclination to measure wisely the difficulties in prohibiting bad behavior by means of crime and punishment

        1. Mr Kurtz – are you subsuming that evil exists, and if it does is there a way to identify it? And to that end, who gets to identify it and punish it? Are there levels of evil? For instance are there lesser evils and greater evils? Would we have lesser punishments and greater punishments? And who gets to draw the line? You? Me? The greater us? Or do we just throw our hands in the air and let it all hang out.

  13. Illegal aliens must be deported.

    Children born of illegal aliens must be deported as they are not and will never be citizens of the U.S.

    Children born in the U.S. must be “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof,…” to become citizens.

    Unconstitutionally allowing the children of illegal aliens to become citizens of the U.S. has been an act of abuse of power, usurpation, illicit

    malicious legislation and treason by the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, for 150 years.

    At what point do Americans get their Constitution and their country back?

    We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    – Ben Franklin

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  14. There is no such thing a “birthright citizenship.”

    That is a fraud perpetrated by communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) in America.

    Citizens must be BORN in the U.S. and UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the U.S. A good example of being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. is being subject to the military draft of the U.S. Illegal aliens and the children they bear in the U.S. are not subject to the military draft in the U.S., they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and they are not citizens of the U.S.


      1. We can’t draft them because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

        Illegal aliens and the children they bear in the U.S. are citizens of and subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin.

    1. You need to read more. Boris Johnson, now the PM of the UK, found out that his birth in the US made him subject to our tax laws. He had to “give up” his US citizenship to avoid an enormous tax bill!

      1. But you attempt obfuscation.

        You cite no legal basis for Johnson being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

        To be citizens, children born of illegal aliens in the U.S. must also be “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..”

        Please cite wherein it is established that children born of illegal aliens in the U.S. are “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..”

        Most certainly you will not find it in the U.S. Constitution.

        The entire extant American welfare state is unconstitutional.

        Legislation from the bench is unconstitutional.

        The singular American failure for 150 years has been the judicial branch with emphasis on the Supreme Court.

        It is long past time for impeachment, conviction and punishment en masse a la the guillotines of the French Revolution.

        We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

        – Ben Franklin

        Ben Franklin knew that someone was going to attempt to take the republic away.

        You need to read more.

        “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

        “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

        – Alexander Hamilton

      2. You cite no legal basis. You sound like a parasite ready to alter the letter and spirit of the law for personal gain. You probably believe that redistribution of private property through affirmative action is in any aspect or method constitutional. You probably differ with the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution which allows only taxation for “…general Welfare…” by Congress as it excludes any taxation for individual welfare. You don’t like free-dom, you like free-stuff.



    Put aside, for a moment, anchor babies born to Hispanic migrants. Less publicized are anchor babies born to ‘vacationing’ Chinese nationals.

    Here in California there is a minor industry catering to pregnant Chinese women. They come here to stay at ‘maternity resorts’. The entire thrust of these visits is citizenship for Chinese anchor babies. These babies will grow up in China, of course. But they could return to the U.S. as adults to provide a Fifth Column for a future Chinese invasion. The possibility of this happening should be taken most seriously.

    Donald Trump, however, is a radioactive messenger for the cause of ending birthright citizenship. If Trump attempts to promote it, the cause becomes toxic. Trump’s xenophobic image would make a serious debate on this issue totally impossible. Therefore I hope Trump forgets this issue until his presidency is over. Only when Trump is gone can a sincere discussion begin.

    1. The problem is not Trump – it is the left.

      Anything Trump says – they knee jerk disagree with – no thought involved.

      On myriads of issues – Trump may not be right, but the opposite of what Trump advocates for is wrong.

    2. Hill – there are expensive birth tourism packages offered by companies to Chinese and Russian mothers. It’s an entire industry. Then, they go back to their original countries, with a child who is a US citizen, able to apply for chain migration.

    3. mostly these are smart communist people who realize that they may need to defect if they get pinched for corruption in some long overdue purge of self dealing officials

      not being shy about stating my national preferences, I would take 100% of Chinese anchor babies at the same time I threw 100% of hondurans back.

      question is if white folks are so bad, then why is it that white folks from the white homelands in Europe rarely do this stuff?

      er, because European nations are a great place to live? but why? I’ll just let that hang.

      maybe these things have something do with race on some level after all. I know, call me crazy

  16. “One can be entirely on board with the outcome of the Civil War, not be a racist, and still oppose birthright citizenship.”

    True. But only a fool believes that Trump wants to end it because he has a principled constitutional objection to it. It is about the brown people and other minorities such as Muslims. If instead of hispanics, this nation was experiencing an enormous migration of white western Europeans to the U.S. who were having children here, I do not for a moment believe Trump would be upset about birthright citizenship. Trump does hold racial and ethnic prejudices and I have no doubt that his opposition to birthright citizenship is motivated by these prejudices.

      1. Not mind reading. It is all there for one to see in an examination of Trump’s words, behaviors and acts during his presidency and all the years before it. I have read three biographies about Trump and numerous magazine articles and profiles stretching back for than 30 years. What I know of his conduct over those years leads to the conclusion that he has many prejudices and he is motivated by those prejudices.

        1. Its clear that you’re the racist. No one accused Trump of being a racist until he ran for President.

            1. Well Vox goes off the rails in the first few sentences.

              When make a claim such as racism – the obligation is on you to provide the actual evidence. Not to merely claim you have it.

              The actual quotes about “rapists and criminals” were qualified –
              Trump has made this assertion many times – in many forms and every one I am aware of is correct.

              MS-13 members are rapists and criminals.
              Some illegal immigrants – a disproprtionate number are “rapists and criminals”

              Regardless, even totally opposing immigration in any form – does not inherently make you racist.

              Your “evidence” boils down to
              Trump is a racist – because many many many times other people have said that he says racist things.

              That is not evidence. That is nonsense.
              That is converting opinions into facts.

              Further finding a few ACTUALLY stupid inarticulate quotes quotes – from millions of words in the past – also does not make you racist.

              The left is currently eating its own. Whether it is Sarah Silvernman or Governor Northam. A few stupid remarks or actions in a lifetime does not make you a racist – unless you are a republican.

              We have as a nation forgiven the democratic party of being the advocates and enforcers of slavery, or starting a bloody civil war, of forming the KKK, or jim crow, of thousands of lynchings, of Selma, and Montgomery, of opposing the civil rights and voting rights act, or separate but equal, of great society programs that have destroyed minority families, yet today the republican party is somehow historically racist – because of false presumptions of racism in a supposed “southern strategy” and for supporting the CRA and VRA, and ending slavery.

              If we are going to judge the past heavily – ALL democrats are evil racists, all republicans are saints.

              Now if you wish to make moral claims about ANY other person – you better have DAMNING evidence.

              Trump has said many things that other people think are racist is NOT evidence.

              1. John, get your facts down.

                Immigrants, undocumented and legal, both gave lower crime rates than native born Americans.

                Democrats overwhelmingly supported the CR Act of 1964, which was pushed by a Democratic president. I was there.

                On the 19th century, you are correct sir, but today’s GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln either, and surely you know that. States Rights and small government was not his thing.

                1. @anon1

                  The only reason “immigrants”, illegal and otherwise have a lower crime rate than the native born is due to the astronomically high black crime rate. Asians and White Americans have a lower crime rate than either Hispanics or Blacks, with Blacks being significantly higher than any other group.

                  I suggest you download a free pdf copy the Color of Crime but of course you won’t. You’ll just call me a racist instead.

                  Despite your constant virtue signaling in an attempt to appear as a good and virtuous person I doubt you wish to live in a 50-50 black or Hispanic neighborhood. But of course, you still like to pontificate and say “all of the right things”. Being PC costs you nothing, only the ability to say what is acceptable.


                2. yeah lower crime rate if you don’t count the initial act of border hopping

                  probably not lower crime rate if you figure in hard to detect crimes like:
                  TAX EVASION & WELFARE (most of all, medicaid) FRAUD

                  when it comes to other more sketchy crimes, sure I bet they have lower rates, because they want to lay low, they steer away from disorderly things

                  but one rarely hears about tax evasion among immigrants. unless you know a lot of them in which case then you know full well it is part and parcel of the usual objectives.

            1. So what – you seem to think that accusations are evidence ?

              You can go into the past of just about anyone and find something you can paint as racist and bigoted.

              Unless you are going to define racism such that it is about as offensive as chewing gum – you are going to need LOTS of SOLID evidence – and primarily of CONDUCT.
              not ambiguous or out of context words.

              And just to be clear here – the actual question we are testing is NOT “is Trump a racist” it is “Are you immoral”.
              Because if you are making accusations of racism – or any other moral failure, you are required to PROVE your claims, because false – even merely unsubstaintated claims of moral failure in another are actual proof of moral failure in yourself.

              Two people can disagree on facts – without either being immoral.
              They can hold different oppions – without a question of morality.
              One can be wrong – and still be moral.

              But when you make an accusation of morality about another person – either they are immoral, or you are and the burden of proof is YOURS, and it is high.

              So the question is NOT – is Trump a racist.

              It is are you and all of those who are lobbing accusations of racism. homophobia, immoral.

              1. 1) John Say said: “No one accused Trump of being a racist until he ran for President.”

                2) Snopes looked into this:

                “Donald Trump was never accused of racism before he ran for president in 2016.”




                3) John Say responds with:

                “So what – you seem to think that accusations are evidence ?”

                Thanks for the laughs, John Say.

            2. Anonymous, you are a racist.

              Now you and Trump have something in common. Both of you have been accused of being a racist. Trump’s life has been open. There is no proof he is a racist and a lot of proof showing he isn’t. You on the other hand have no proof you are not a racist yet you have been accused of being one. Using your own criteria and the criteria of people thinking like you, you are a racist.

              1. Allan – be sure to send a copy of this to Snopes so they will be able to say Anonymous has been accused of racism.

          1. He was taken to court and found guilty of discrimination against Black folks who wished to live in his properties. LONG before he ran for President.

            1. Anonymous, you can believe what you wish but he was never found guilty despite the unlimited resources and time unleashed against him. I’m surprised you don’t know this.

          2. It doesn’t matter if anyone actually called him a racist before his election. He and his father before him have a long history of racist remarks. Trump isn’t a hardcore, white sheet KKK kind of racist. But he is a racist.

            Trump has a long, demonstrated history of racist remarks and acts of racial bias, the evidence of which is easily accessible, and you call a racist a person who points this out? Have you any notion of how idiotic this makes you appear?

        2. It is mind reading and circular reasoning. When you define disagreement as racism – it is self evident the other side is racist.

          You claim Trump has predjudices – don’t we all – you have predjudices too – against Trump and against people like him.
          Predjudice is just another word for choice.

          Within the past week Trump has been called “anti-semetic” repeatedly.
          His daughter converted to Judiasm, His son-in-law and one of his closest advisors is an orthodox jew. His life is permiated by jewish people, he has pardoned jews, His foreign policy has favored jews like no president before.

          The “evidence” based on CONDUCT is that Trump is NOT anti-semetic.
          Further the EVICENCE is that those accusing him of anti-semitism are idiots and immoral.

          That is just a single area.

          But I want to go beyond merely Trump – because this was a major factor in his 2016 election, and likely will drive his 2020 re-election.

          When you call Trump racist, anti-semite, hateful, hating hater, based on the last tweet that set YOU off, you are making the same accusation against the tens of millions who hold the same views.

          You do not seem to grasp that you are calling more than half the country hateful hating haters.

          Even if you were actually right – that is a recipe for disaster.
          But you are not right, and that makes you immoral.

          1. “You do not seem to grasp that you are calling more than half the country hateful hating haters.”

            Wrong. I am not calling them hateful hating haters. Racism comes in gradations. This is something you seem not to understand. Not all racists are hateful hating hater grade racists.

    1. No society in the history of mankind has ever ended slavery through the conduct of brutal warfare.

      The Civil War was egregiously unconstitutional.

      The heinous acts of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln were unconstitutional including prosecuting an undeclared unconstitutional war of aggression not defense, suspending Habeas Corpus and throwing every opponent in prison, issuing a proclamation in a condition of legal secession not insurrection, confiscating private property, deploying his military to “fix” the election of 1864, conducting “war crimes” as “total war” on civilians and civilian properties, etc., etc., etc.

      1. Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. He prosecuted a war that killed 600,000 out of a nation of 30 million and turned the South into a virtual colony of Northern Capital for the next 80 years.

        Slavery was an albatross around the neck of the South, kept them down and backwards. Was an inhumane system. Unfortunately Southerners dug their heels in as a result of the abolitionists and to their own detriment. As put by Stephen A. Douglas, gradual emancipation was occurring over time as long as those in the free states minded their business but the advent of the radical abolitionists prevented further emancipation.

        Brazil is probably a model at how gradual emancipation was done, peacefully and over time.

        The mainstream anti-slavery opinion in 1830 was gradual emancipation and repatriation to Africa over time, not immediate, radical abolition and its attendant problems.

        It is all so tragic and as race was a cause of the 1861 conflict, it will be a cause of our inevitable, upcoming conflict.

        Leftists want to remake America demographically in an attempt to cleanse us of racism, sexism, etc without realizing that these disparate groups who will replace us have their own conflicts and issues, which have nothing to do with the historic American nation. And leftists truly believe the result will be a racial utopia in the end. They believe if it weren’t for those evil racist, Trump supporters, “wreckers” if you will, we would already be there or darn close to it. I’m afraid the Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks, Feminists and LGBT crowd will not be a good mix in the end when Whitey is out of the way. And Whites will be in for some hard times as a despised minority in another 50 years. I’m afraid the Left’s complaining won’t end when the Confederate statues and Columbus are gone.

        Mainstream Conservatives wrap themselves in the “Constitution” and “Federalist Papers”, as if that is going to save them. They treat these documents like saint’s relics. They believe “we just need to go back to the constitution” and “original intent”. That only works with a united culture and nation. We are irretrievably past that.


    2. You have already lost the argument – when your reasoning is based on what you beleive to be the thought process of another person.

      Only a Fool beleives they know more about what another person is thinking than what they have said.

      You assert this is about brown people. The largest single group of legal immigrants and the 2nd largest group of all immigrants is “yellow people”.

      So does Trump favor yellow people over brown people ?

      You make this about race, when it is CLEARLY not.

      I personally favor “open borders” – but open borders is only sustainable if your presence within the borders of the country creates no duties beyond protection of your natural rights.

      But I will suggest a simple change to our immigration system – that I will bet republicans including Trump will support fully that elimantes all of these questions.

      Get government entirely completely out of the process of deciding who can come to the US. Allow ANYONE to come here – with ONE proviso.
      That they MUST have a sponsor who takes meaningful responsibility for them.
      Who guarantees they will obey the law – in a way that has consequences if they do not, who guarantess they will be provided for – if they can not provide for themselves.

      Any citizen of legal resident, or business, or civic group, or non-profit, or church or charity can sponsor whoever they please – but THEY are then responsible.

      The government does not get to decide how many brown people, or yellow people or muslims, or poor people or oppressed people get it.

      We do. And anyone who wished to come here who can not get a sponsor – can not come.

    3. So therefore he should adopt the UK and the Australian system that if a child was born to a Permanent Resident hes a citizen at birth that’s definitely subjected to duristrictoin thereof.
      But he should rethink going with it entirely, it wouldn’t end illegal immigration most European countries who adopted the right of blood have the same issue with immigration in fact worse and when theas illegalls become Permanente Residents they have access to all benefits
      Countries who grunt Citizenship by blood only see it as principle doesn’t mean it will end the actual problem

  17. The amount of legal, logical and moral gymnastics Leftists use to circumvent our Constitution, laws and common sense in order to “fundamentally transform America” never ceases to amaze me or cause me to fear for the future of our Republic.

  18. “Differing cultural standards, behaviors, languages, and attitudes caused many of the conflicts between the Powhatan Indians and the English. At first, the Powhatan Indians tried to help the newcomers, but the English overstayed their welcome and overstepped the Powhatan’s hospitality. By 1609, Chief Powhatan was tired of the constant English demands for food and officially told his people not to help them. The relationship deteriorated between the two peoples.“

  19. How common is it for illegal immigrants to skip our legal immigration system via anchor babies?

    “The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that approximately 7.5% of all births in the U.S. (about 300,000 births per year) are to unauthorized immigrants.”

    This is significant, in light of the fact that the authors of the 14th Amendment made their intentions crystal clear, that it was not to be used for foreign nationals. Indeed, that troubling clause in the middle appears to be how they restricted its application.

    1. To apply your metric you shouldn’t be in this North American land mass nor should any other White Anglo Saxon Protestant considering your forefathers decimated and plundered, as unwelcome immigrants, that which belonged to the sole residents for more than 12,000 years.

      At first, the peace endured, but John Rolfe’s tobacco experiments started to flourish, becoming the cash crop that the Virginia Company, which had funded the Jamestown settlement, had long anticipated. More and more English came to Virginia and began pushing Powhatan Indians from their lands. The Powhatan Indians had been respectful and helpful to the English because it was their way, but their patience began to wear thin.

      In March of 1622, Opechancanough coordinated an attack against all English settlements. Because of a young Indian boy’s warning, Jamestown was spared. Many outlying settlements were attacked. Of a population of about 1,200 English settlers, about 350-400 were killed. Afterwards, the Powhatan Indians withdrew, as was their way, waiting for the English to learn their lesson or pack up and leave. The English, instead, retaliated and more conflicts arose and continued on and off for the next ten years, until a tenuous peace was reached.

      By 1644, the English numbered about 8,000 and continued to encroach upon Powhatan Indian lands.

      1. The prior occupants of North America – were likely only there for less than 9000 years, They too came from elsewhere – driving the occupants of the time out, and those people several thousand years before drove their predecessors out.

        Regardless, if you wish we can re-litigate every bad action all the way back to Adam and Eve if you wish.

        The constitution – before the 14th amendment established as citizens all the white males living within the united states at the time.

        You can like that, or dislike it. You can shriek that it is racist – and I might agree.
        But it is long past. And we can not fix it, and we do not owe past generations or future descendants for misconduct that was not even committed by our own ancestors.

        We should not forget the past. We should not hide from the bad parts.
        Nor should we hide from the good either.
        The United States is far from perfect. We have stains in our past. We have also done extraordinary things beyond those of any other nation and we deserve to be proud of that.

        1. 12,000 years

          If you wish to accept the standard you suggest then it must be applied to the here and now…and tomorrow. Thus you really have no standing in this discussion. You must accept the new settlers knowing they will decimate you like the English “settlers” did to the Powhatans natives

          Or there is a better path: accept the new settlers, share your personal excess of goods, shelter and food, and intermarry. The Powhatans did that with the English invaders and yet we know how that ended

          When the English arrived in Virginia in 1607 and created the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, they did not encounter an uninhabited land. An estimated 50,000 Virginia Indians had called what is now the Commonwealth of Virginia home for more than 12,000 years. The tribes the English encountered first, and most often, belonged to the powerful Powhatan Chiefdom. The land occupied by the Powhatan Indians encompassed all of Tidewater Virginia, from the Potomac River in the north to south of the James River, and parts of the Eastern Shore. This area, which they called Tsenacommacah, was about 100 miles long from north to south and about 100 miles wide from southeast to northwest. Before the arrival of foreigners, and their unknown diseases, the Powhatan Indians were estimated to have numbered 25,000.

Comments are closed.