WalMart vs. The Morons

Don’t know if the numbers are correct but pretty sure the analogy is spot on! Please READ TO THE END.

WalMart vs. The Morons
1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at WalMart Every hour of every day.
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. WalMart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. WalMart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco+ K-Mart combined.
5. WalMart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private employer,and most speak English.
6. WalMart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. WalMart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years
8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy
9 WalMart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. WalMart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at WalMart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a WalMart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the groundwork or suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run WalMart to fix the economy.
This should be read and understood by all Americans… Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To the 535 voting members of the Legislature :
It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:
a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”
and they only want more.
e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars !!!

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our “duly elected’ (they never read anything) and their
staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.
AND :
I know what’s wrong. We have lost our minds to “Political Correctness” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone, please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We’re “broke” & can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, etc.,???????????
In the last few months, we have provided aid to Haiti, Chili , and Turkey..And now Pakistan ……..previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks…
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without ‘needed’ meds, and mentally ill without
treatment -etc, etc.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn’t it?

Advertisements

Mueller Chose To Slime Trump On Obstruction Rather Than Indict

After two years and spending an estimated $35 million, Robert Mueller issued a 448-page report that ignored the governing special counsel regulations.
Margot Cleveland

By

After two years and spending an estimated $35 million, Robert Mueller issued a 448-page report that ignored the governing special counsel regulations. Those regulations required Mueller, at the conclusion of the special counsel’s work, to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.”

Yet, instead of issuing the mandated closing documentation, Mueller explained that his team “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” of whether “to initiate or decline a prosecution.”

Attorney General William Barr spoke during today’s press conference of Mueller’s failure to perform this regulatorily required duty. When asked why he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein felt it necessary “to take it to the next step to conclude there was no crime,” Barr retorted:

The very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and compulsory process that’s involved there, is for one purpose and one purpose only. It’s to determine yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal. That is our responsibility and that’s why we have the tools we have. And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. Yes.

Notwithstanding Mueller’s professed refusal to render judgment on whether to initiate or decline prosecution, Part 2 of the special counsel’s report served solely to indict President Trump in the court of public opinion by providing detailed factual conclusions that seemingly support obstruction of justice charges—at least based on the special counsel’s view of the law.

But Mueller’s view is decidedly wrong. Prior to his appointment, Barr decimated the obstruction of justice theory of criminal liability Mueller relies upon in the special counsel report.

Further, while Democrats and the media will put Barr’s view down to bias, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein agreed with those conclusions. Rosenstein, who supposedly floated the 25th Amendment as a basis to out the president, is anything but biased in favor of the president. Rosenstein appointed Mueller, and Rosenstein, who flanked Barr during the press conference, agreed with Barr’s conclusion that no crime had occurred.

Many believe lead special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann instigated the non-indictment indictment of Trump in Mueller’s report. The modus operandi is just too perfect.

Recall that Weissmann led the Enron task force and served as the lead prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s case against Arthur Anderson. Weissmann secured a conviction against the former accounting giant, shuttered the firm, and left tens of thousands of innocent employees without jobs. Then, “three years later, the Supreme Court reversed the Andersen conviction in a unanimous decision, holding that Andersen’s conduct was not criminal, and it ‘was shocking how little criminal culpability the jury instructions required.’”

Weissmann’s attempts to convict Merrill Lynch executives of non-crimes were likewise swatted down in court. And then there was Weissmann’s questionable conduct during those trials, which emails indicate included threatening witnesses.

Even if Weissmann holds responsibility for pushing to include the obstruction of justice analysis, Mueller approved the final report that pontificated on Trump’s potential criminal conduct, while refusing to make a decision to initiate or decline charges. Ironically, in justifying his non-decision, Mueller claimed any other outcome would be unfair to the president. From the special counsel’s report:

We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusations is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongfully accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusations of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequence that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.

But Trump has no process now to clear his name from the taint of obstruction of justice created by Mueller’s report. So, after two years of battling unjust and untrue charges of collusion with Russia, Mueller has destined President Trump to spend the second half of his first term combating claims of obstruction of justice—claims which, even if they had a basis in fact, have no basis in law.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

 

To whom it may concern ! | Jim Campbell’s

To whom it may concern !

Information Worth Sharing

Comments by Jim Campbell

April 11, 2019

If so-called “Man Caused Climate Change,” was real, why don’t the proponents answer the very simple question below.

Why has there been two ice ages and smaller ice ages when the industrial revolution had not begun?

Also, to be sure, Climate change, as in “Real climate change,” does not exist in a vacuum.

The words to biggest polluters are China and India and they have refused to sign on to any world wide climate change agreement. (Source)

The reality?

It’s just another socialist scam put forth by the likes of Al Gore to enrich themselves while we The People are forced into paying higher taxes!

John Eidson

April 11, 2019.

Intentional brainwashing teaches the kids about global warming.

Get them while they are young, it worked for Adolph Hitler, this dogma is being taught in most U.S. schools which are run by teachers unions which require disbanding!

No prospective science no truth.

Lesson 1: Are polar bears dying out?

For those who worry about global warming is killing them off, QUIT WORRYING!

Dr. Taylor is a polar bear biologist at Lakehead University in Canada.

He’s studied polar bears for more than three decades and has published on the high side of 50 scientific papers on polar bear sub-populations.

The picture above shows him taking a blood sample from a BIG tranquilized bear.

Brave man! A bit crazy, but brave.

Dr. Taylor is as close as it gets to being an expert on polar bears.

Here’s his take on the Polar Bear population scenario.

There are more polar bears in Canada today than 30 years ago.

He said that of the 13 polar bear sub-populations in Canada, 11 are stable, one is increasing and only one is in decline.

Can you imagine she just said what she said to theses students?

What up with “My way or the highway on the 2nd Amendment Mrs. senile old dowager?

In his expert opinion, polar bears are not being wiped out by climate change or anything else.

His research shows they’re flourishing!

Dr. Taylor is not the only polar bear scientist who feels that way. Ditto Dr. Susan Crockford.

Dr. Crockford is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Victoria in Canada.

With 35 years experience, she’s a certified expert on the evolution of polar bears.

She says that in the 1960s there were an estimated 10,000 polar bears in the world.

I found out from doing some poking around on the web that by 2015,  the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated the number had risen to as high as 31,000.

To help celebrate International Polar Bear Day, Dr. Crockford recently wrote a paper reporting that polar bear numbers have continued to steadily rise, with 2018 data estimating there are more polar bears today than when they were first protected by an international treaty in 1973.

Dr. Crockford also told me that polar bears are resourceful creatures that have survived many periods in Earth’s past where the warming was much greater than the warming we’ve had since the Industrial Revolution.

I didn’t know that. Did you?

If you want to not worry as much about the fate of polar bears, you might want to read her new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.

Because their good faith scientific opinions upset the people who try to scare kids by saying that polar bears are being killed off by global warming, Dr. Crockford and Dr. Taylor are demonized as “climate deniers.”

That’s not a very nice thing to say, and it’s not true.

They’re not denying that climate change is real—the climate is always changing. Always has, always will. What they dispute is that polar bears are dying out.

The best available population estimates support their view.

Music Please !

Anyway, that’s today’s global warming report l. Stay tuned, more to come!

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it’s up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.

Can’t Win: Now That Vital Glacier Is Growing Again, Scientist Says That’s Bad News

Can’t Win: Now That Vital Glacier Is Growing Again, Scientist Says That’s Bad News

You’ve probably heard the alarmed scientists and politicians before: Global warming is causing glaciers to melt, serving as the proverbial canary in the mine shaft of a planet on the brink of disaster — and the world could end in just over a decade as a result.

But many of those same scientists are now scratching their heads and scrambling to come up with an explanation after an important glacier in Greenland was found to be growing again.

The Jakobshavn glacier is a massive ice sheet that’s about a mile thick. This frozen wonder has influenced history in the past, with many experts believing that the iceberg that famously sunk the Titanic broke off from this ice sheet before drifting into the North Atlantic.

Over the last few years, climate experts pointed to retreating ice on the Jakobshavn glacier as Exhibit A in the global warming debate.

“The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually,” The Associated Press reported.

TRENDING: James Woods Celebrates Trump’s ‘Slam Dunk Victory’ with Video Roasting ‘the Liberal Press’

That is, until now. Despite climate experts and politicians alike insisting that massive, economy-changing regulations were needed to stop glaciers from melting, it seems the Earth had other plans.

Over the last two years, the Jakobshavn glacier has been growing again at the same rate it was previously shrinking.

“Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid-1980s,” the glacier study found.

Yes, despite human population growth and fossil fuel use bemoaned by figures like Al Gore over the last few decades, ocean temps in that region have been going down.

Has the media exaggerated climate change fears?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“That was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said Jason Box, a scientist who works with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

Other scientists admitted that the new ice being added to the glacier was likely part of a natural process largely outside of human control.

“A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland project,” the AP reported. “The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago.”

It’s worth pointing out the Greenland-sized elephant in the room here: If “natural cyclical cooling” is a major factor in glacier density, wouldn’t that imply that the inverse — natural cyclical warming — also sometimes occurs?

This seems a bit like a shell game. When there appears to be a cooling pattern, it’s cyclical and natural; when there’s a warming pattern, it’s all the fault of humans and we need massive government takeovers to stop it.

RELATED: Flashback to 1989: UN Predicted ‘Disaster’ If Global Warming Not Checked by 2000

Scientists seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to explaining the unexpected shift in the Jakobshavn glacier. Experts were quick to breathe a sigh of relief that ice was expanding, but went on to still call the glacier expansion “bad news.”

“(T)his is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought,” the AP said.

A University of Washington ice scientist named Ian Joughin called it “a temporary blip” and predicted that the glacier would continue to melt even after the last few years of data showed the opposite.

“In the long run we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” NASA climate scientist Josh Willis said.

Again, those same climate scientists failed to predict that the glacier was going to grow over the last two years and called it a “surprise.”

And that’s the big point here: Scientists have a pretty poor track record at making large-scale predictions years into the future. Climate models are useful, but as this unexpected glacier growth just showed, they’re also deeply flawed.

“We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient,” the glacier study said.

That is exactly why caution and conservatism should be the watchwords when experts preach doom and gloom. We simply don’t know enough about the climate and the planet to gamble entire economies on predictions, and we should be wary when only one side of the facts are used to push big-government expansion.

Good science will acknowledge that there are far more unknowns than knowns — which is exactly why there’s far less of a consensus on global warming than the political left wants to admit.

Wal-Mart vs. The 535 Morons

Wal-Mart vs. The 535 Morons

  1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.
  2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
  3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
  4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
  5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private employer, and most speak English.
  6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
  7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years .
  8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
  9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
  10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
  11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
  12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the groundwork for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans… Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To the 535 voting members of the Legislature

It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:

  • The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 244 years to get it right and it is broke.
  • Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 84 years to get it right and it is broke
  • Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 81 years to get it right and it is broke.
  • War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
  • Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
  • Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 49 years to get it right and it is broke.

You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.

Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our “duly elected’ (they never read anything) and their staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.
AND I know what’s wrong. We have lost our minds to “Political Correctness”!

Someone please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run this country!

We’re “broke” & can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.

In the last few months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey…And now Pakistan previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!! (And you can’t agree to a simple $5B for a wall to help keep us safe?!!!)

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks…

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without ‘needed’ meds, and mentally ill without treatment – etc, etc.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn’t it?

99% of people won’t have the guts to

send this to their Clown in Office.

Via Vermont Loon Watch

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments

https://vermontloonwatch.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/political-speak-24/

 

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments. That he has none is a fallacy.

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

All have been fact checked

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Rick Wagoner of GM) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to go golfing more than 150 times in his eight years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

Quite impressive a list, is it not?

 

The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

How is it possible that, according to one recent poll, a stunning 52 percent of millennials would like to live in a socialist or communist America?

Source: The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

The Rutherford Institute :: Uncle Sam Wants Your DNA: The FBI’s Diabolical Plan to Create a Nation of Suspects |

Uncle Sam Wants Your DNA: The FBI’s Diabolical Plan to Create a Nation of Suspects

John Whitehead

“As more and more data flows from your body and brain to the smart machines via the biometric sensors, it will become easy for corporations and government agencies to know you, manipulate you, and make decisions on your behalf. Even more importantly, they could decipher the deep mechanisms of all bodies and brains, and thereby gain the power to engineer life. If we want to prevent a small elite from monopolising such godlike powers, and if we want to prevent humankind from splitting into biological castes, the key question is: who owns the data? Does the data about my DNA, my brain and my life belong to me, to the government, to a corporation, or to the human collective?”―Professor Yuval Noah Harari

Uncle Sam wants you.

Correction: Uncle Sam wants your DNA.

Actually, if the government gets its hands on your DNA, they as good as have you in their clutches.

Get ready, folks, because the government— helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget)—is embarking on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

As the New York Times reports:

“The science-fiction future, in which police can swiftly identify robbers and murderers from discarded soda cans and cigarette butts, has arrived. In 2017, President Trump signed into law the Rapid DNA Act, which, starting this year, will enable approved police booking stations in several states to connect their Rapid DNA machines to Codis, the national DNA database. Genetic fingerprinting is set to become as routine as the old-fashioned kind.

Referred to as “magic boxes,” these Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

Suspect Society, meet the American police state.

Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say.

By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write.

By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.

By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do.

By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember.

And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof.

Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking or user bias.

Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Consequently, no longer are we “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals.

The government’s questionable acquisition and use of DNA to identify individuals and “solve” crimes has come under particular scrutiny in recent years.

Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That has all been turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings that pave the way for suspicionless searches and herald the loss of privacy on a cellular level.

Certainly, it was difficult enough trying to protect our privacy in the wake of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King that likened DNA collection to photographing and fingerprinting suspects when they are booked, thereby allowing the government to take DNA samples from people merely “arrested” in connection with “serious” crimes.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Maryland v. King is worth reading not only for the history lesson on the Fourth Amendment but for its clear-sighted rebuke of the police state’s tendency to justify every encroachment on our freedoms as necessary for security.

As Scalia noted:

“Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches… Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

The Court’s decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA, made Americans even more vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission.

Although Glenn Raynor, a suspected rapist, willingly agreed to be questioned by police, he refused to provide them with a DNA sample.

No problem. Police simply swabbed the chair in which Raynor had been sitting and took what he refused to voluntarily provide.

Raynor’s DNA was a match, and the suspect became a convict.

As the dissenting opinion in Raynor for the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly warned, “a person desiring to keep her DNA profile private, must conduct her public affairs in a hermetically sealed hazmat suit…. The Majority’s holding means that a person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver’s license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”

Yet in refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its tacit approval for government agents to collect shed DNA, likening it to a person’s fingerprints or the color of their hair, eyes or skin.

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving.

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

However, unlike a fingerprint, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.”

With such a powerful tool at their disposal, it was inevitable that the government’s collection of DNA would become a slippery slope toward government intrusion.

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. However, in many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

For the rest of us, it’s just a matter of time before the government gets hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with geneological services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

All of those fascinating, geneological ancestral searches that allow you to trace your family tree can also be used against you and those you love. As law professor Elizabeth Joh explains, “When you upload your DNA, you’re potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family.”

While much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

Yet as scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases. Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name.

As Forensic magazine reports, “As officers have become more aware of touch DNA’s potential, they are using it more and more. Unfortunately, some [police] have not been selective enough when they process crime scenes. Instead, they have processed anything and everything at the scene, submitting 150 or more samples for analysis.”

Even old samples taken from crime scenes and “cold” cases are being unearthed and mined for their DNA profiles.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way.

Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup until circumstances and science say otherwise.

Of course, there will be those who point to DNA’s positive uses in criminal justice, such as in those instances where it is used to absolve someone on death row of a crime he didn’t commit, and there is no denying its beneficial purposes at times.

However, as is the case with body camera footage and every other so-called technology that is hailed as a “check” on government abuses, in order for the average person—especially one convicted of a crime—to request and get access to DNA testing, they first have to embark on a costly, uphill legal battle through red tape and, even then, they are opposed at every turn by a government bureaucracy run by prosecutors, legislatures and law enforcement.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense of against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

Yet if there are no limits to government officials being able to access your DNA and all that it says about you, then where do you draw the line?

As technology makes it ever easier for the government to tap into our thoughts, our memories, our dreams, suddenly the landscape becomes that much more dystopian.

With the entire governmental system shifting into a pre-crime mode aimed at detecting and pursuing those who “might” commit a crime before they have an inkling, let alone an opportunity, to do so, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which government agents (FBI, local police, etc.) target potential criminals based on their genetic disposition to be a “troublemaker” or their relationship to past dissenters.

Equally disconcerting: if scientists can, using DNA, track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers, how easy will it be for government agents to not only know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place but collect our easily shed DNA and add it to the government’s already burgeoning database?

As always there will be those voices—well-meaning, certainly—insisting that if you want to save the next girl from being raped, abducted or killed, then we need to give the government all the tools necessary to catch these criminals before they can commit their heinous crimes.

If you care for someone, you’re particularly vulnerable to this line of reasoning. Of course we don’t want our wives butchered, our girlfriends raped, our daughters abducted and subjected to all manner of atrocities.

But what about those cases in which the technology proved to be wrong, either through human error or tampering? It happens more often than we are told.

For example, David Butler spent eight months in prison for a murder he didn’t commit after his DNA was allegedly found on the murder victim and surveillance camera footage placed him in the general area the murder took place. Conveniently, Butler’s DNA was on file after he had voluntarily submitted it during an investigation years earlier into a robbery at his mother’s home. The case seemed cut and dried to everyone but Butler who proclaimed his innocence. Except that the DNA evidence and surveillance footage was wrong: Butler was innocent.

Moreover, despite the insistence by government agents that DNA is infallible, New York Times reporter Andrew Pollack makes a clear and convincing case that DNA evidence can, in fact, be fabricated. Israeli scientists “fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva,” stated Pollack. “They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.”

The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish.

Yet as history shows—and as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People—the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”

Obama Was Hand-Picked, NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew & Tried to Protect Him – Freedom Outpost

Dean Garrison

Let’s kick a dead horse.  The debate is settled and the damage is done. But who thinks Obama was eligible to be president?

Even President Donald Trump questioned Obama’s citizenship in 2014 by offering $50 Million to see his college records, but Obama never responded to his offer. Nothing has been done to this point.

And sadly, nothing ever will.

Let me show you today how Congress protected him from both sides of the aisle and guaranteed the debate would never go too far.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.

Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.

Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who would benefit greatly from the happenings by gaining his spot in the Oval Office.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”

There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.

But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:

  1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
  2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
  3. In the end, they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.

It appears to have worked.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.

Let’s take a trip back through recent history:

Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.

The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]

There you have it. Make of this what you will.

It raises many questions.

Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?

Why were people like InhofeIssa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men were later three of Obama’s biggest critics. We heard lots of threats and promises from them that yielded no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)

If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?

Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knew it.

So why was nothing ever done?

Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison

 

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Ending Birthright Citizenship

History, as the saying goes, is a lie agreed upon, and there has perhaps been no bigger lie detrimental to the future  national security and economic well-being of the United States that the 14th Amendment, clearly written to protect the rights of African-American slaves liberated by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, somehow confers citizenship on the offspring of anybody whose pregnant and can sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.

U.S. citizenship is rendered meaningless if it is defined as an accident of geography and it is the clear that this was not the intention authors of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and shepherded it into the Constitution. President Trump has rightly targeted birthright citizenship as an historical error that needs to be corrected:

President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil — a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle…

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that “there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

“What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”

Anton is stunningly correct and clearly echoes the sentiments and legislative intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. The only question is whether this historical error is better corrected though a clarifying amendment, legislation, or through a Trump executive order. GOP Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has proposed legislation:

In January of this year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (HR 140) that seeks to amend current law by making requirements for citizenship more narrow, and, in King’s opinion, more constitutional…

“A Century ago it didn’t matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda,” King said. “When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal immigrants. That has got to stop.”…

King’s bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill states that a person born in the United States is a citizen if one parent is “(1) a citizen or national of the United States, (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.”

But some would argue that no clarifying legislation is necessary and that as a result of President Trump’s appointment of originalist interpreters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the original intent of the 14th Amendment can be restored.

The Supreme Court has never said birthright citizenship is constitutional and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote it.

Peter H. Schuck, Yale University’s Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law Emeritus and self-described “militant moderate,” reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Though opposed to many of the president’s positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy…

On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump. In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called “anchor-babies” — those born to illegal aliens — was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters. Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, “We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.”

This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

Trump during the campaign correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration.  He would end it and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As The New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.

“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration”. Once of age the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth. 

Critics have said that the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment — only correctly interpreting it — perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The 14th Amendment, passed, on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision had held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens:

John Eastman of the Claremont Institute testified before the subcommittee, saying, the Supreme Court has never actually held that anyone who happens to make it to U.S. soil can unilaterally bestow citizenship on their children merely by giving birth here.

Although such an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has become widespread in recent years, it is not the understanding of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, or of those who ratified it, or of the leading constitutional commentators of the time. Neither was it the understanding of the Supreme Court when the Court first considered the matter in 1872, or when it considered the matter a second time a decade later in 1884, or even when it considered the matter a third time fifteen years after that in the decision many erroneously view as interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, whether their parents were here permanently or only temporarily, legally or illegally, or might even be here as enemy combatants seeking to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

Eastman argues that the modern view of the Fourteenth Amendment ignores a key phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Mere birth on U.S. soil just isn’t enough. “A person must be both ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ and ‘subject to its jurisdiction.’”

During debate on the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

HR. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system, a very costly one. 

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right — becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the Border Patrol.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.