Mario Apuzzo - Natural Born Citizen

For anyone who may be interested in the subject, I've added a blog I learned of the other day to my blogroll (*): Natural Born Citizen



(*) which now seems to be at the point that if I wish to add another, I'll have to begin removing some of the defunct ones.

Socialism? Heck yeah

Bruce McQuain at Q and O: Stray Voltage

Socialism? Heck yeah. Why look at how well Venezuela is doing:

And now, the announcement of the “nutritional emergency” makes it official. Venezuela is out of food, and it’s only a matter of time before Venezuelans are quite literally starving due to a long series of terrible decisions by their leaders.

That’s right, it’s no longer about not having diapers and toilet paper. Nope, the socialist government has run the country out of food as well. Feel the Bern!

On the bright side, the food crisis *does* solve the toilet paper and diaper crises — so, one step back, but two forward. That counts as Progress, doesn't it?


PS: be sure to check out the "meme" at the bottom of his post; it's pretty funny.

"Supreme Court" vs "supreme Court"

Selwyn Duke at American Thinker: Did Justice Scalia Already Give Us the Solution to the Problem of Filling His Seat?

The real issue here is not whether Scalia’s successor will abide by the Constitution.

It’s whether we will.

Consider: in a representative republic of 320 million people, we’re all now talking about how one appointment of one unelected lawyer can radically change the face of American law, rights, and freedoms. Anything wrong with this picture?

This isn’t to say that a civilization’s fate being radically altered by one man’s death and another’s ascendancy hasn’t been humanity’s norm. Autocracy has been humanity’s norm. The king would pass on and people might lament, “You mean Aylwin, that kid who drools on his cloak, is next in line? How shall we be ruled?” But does this sound like a concern in a land of, by and for the people? The fact is that a government cannot be stable if one man’s fancies and fortunes can have such a great impact on it and the wider society. Did the Founding Fathers -- who were most concerned about avoiding the aggregation of power by any one entity -- really devise such a flawed system?
...
The legislative branch has the power to make law because the Constitution grants it. The executive branch has the power to enforce law because the Constitution grants it. And the courts exercise judicial supremacy -- where its decisions constrain not just its own branch but the other two as well, making it not a “co-equal” branch but a super-legislature/über-executive -- because ____________?

The answer has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court unilaterally declared the power in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.

That’s right: Like an upstart seizing the reins in a palace coup, the Supreme Court assigned the Supreme Court its oligarchic power, all without the force of arms. It’s a nice con if you can pull it off.

This isn’t how our system is meant to work. A governmental branch derives its power from the Constitution -- not from itself. ...

Moreover -- and this is something most persons will resist knowing ... even when it is directly pointed to in the Constitution ... for is it contrary to the indoctrination they received when they were ignorant teens -- the US Constitution creates the federal courts, including the supreme Court, as creatures of Congress, rather than as a "co-equal" (and therefore, somehow, Supreme) branch of government.

UK cops arrest man for “offensive” comment about Muslim Moslem migrants invaders

Jihad Watch: UK cops arrest man for “offensive” comment about Muslim migrants

This isn't a new development in the UK, or in other European countries. When one understands how bureaucrats think, when one understands the incentives by which they operate, it's entire predictable: bureaucrats, like Mohammedans, always go for the "soft targets". And when bureaucrats are leftists, they will always turn state violence against the peaceable and law-abiding rather than against the violent and law-breaking.

Socialism ... explained‏

A "meme" from V the K at GayPatriot: Boom!

First they outlaw your guns ...

Jihad Watch: Denmark: Girl faces charges for protecting herself against sexual attack -- In this story, it's pretty much beside the point whether the would-be rapist is or is not a Moslem. The point is that if you are a normal law-abiding person, then leftists are your enemy: leftists are on the side of the deviants and criminals; and they are always liars: no matter what they say to gull you, they don't care about you (well, other than to hate you and work to destroy you and all you cherish), they don't care about "the children", and if they ever manage to disarm normal law-abiding Americans, they will then make non-lethal self-defense illegal.

Natural Born Citizen Definition

Doo Doo Economics Blog: Natural Born Citizen Definition

Here is a comment I posted in response --

As you correctly, though indirectly, point out, being a natural born citizen is not about *where* a person is born.

At the same time, while this is true -- “This is the simple and indisputable definition: Two citizens who have a child, naturally create a new citizen. This is a Natural Born Citizen” – it’s actually the case that it is true because natural born citizenship is inherited from the father; this is what the Founders understood and meant by the term.

These days, as people want to pretend that sexual egalitarianism is the truth about nature and about society – if one can even get them merely to admit that the above is what the Founders understood and meant by the term – people will tend to assert that natural born citizenship can be inherited from either parent … never mind that no law (*) has ever been enacted to so change the meaning of the term. BUT – and what such people will then *refuse* to acknowledge – if that were the case, then a person so born of citizens of two different countries would be a “natural born citizen” of two different sovereignties, which is a logical impossibility: or, as you put it, a “mule”.


(*) I question whether Congress even has the power to make such a change to the meaning of the term, absent a Constitutional amendment.

Another compare and contrast

... in this case, I don't think it's even necessary to post something for the un-islamic column

Jihad Watch: Pakistani boy cuts off his own hand after accidentally committing “blasphemy” -- The boy's "blasphemy" was misunderstanding the poobah's question, and thus raising his hand when the islamicly-correct response was to not raise it. But, give him his chops: he was wise enough in the ways of Moslem mobs to know that if he didn't cut off his own hand, his kith and kin would cut off his head, lest even worse be dealt them all.

But, hey! All cultures are "equal" and all religions are "teaching the same thing".

After all, a rapist is just as likely to look like Bill Clinton as Bill Cosby

V the K, at 'Gay Patriot': Swedish Police No Longer Allowed to Describe Race or National Origin of Suspects -- "... There is a great huge difference between the racist assumption “All members of Race X are criminals” and the equally racist counter-assumption “Acknowledging that some members of Race X commit crimes is equivalent to saying all members of Race X are criminals.” However, this nuance is lost on the Progressive Left.

After all, a rapist is just as likely to look like Bill Clinton as Bill Cosby."

Trick question

Was George Washington a natural born US citizen, or was he a naturalized US citizen?

Answer -- he was *neither*, which is *why* the Constitutional provision setting forth the required citizenship of the president (and vice-president) was written exactly as it was written --

Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ..."

One can be a non-naturalized US citizen and *still* not be a natural born US citizen.