Greetings and happy new week, good citizens. We continue with the Rules Of Economic Recovery written by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloombert and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. The contents were published by Hillsdale College, in their monthly newsletter..
The following is the dialogue in the court case against the Schechters, who were wholesale butchers in Brooklyn, N.Y. Their crime was doing all the wrong things against the Code of Fair Competition for the Poultry Industry of the Metropolitan area in and about the City of New York. They paid their butchers too little. They charged prices that were too low. The allowed coustomers to pick there own chickens. Worst of all they sold a sick chicken.
In the court, on one side stands Walter Lyman Rice, a graduate of Harvard Law School, representing the government. On the other stands a small man in the poultry trade, Louis Spatz, who is afraid of going to jail. Spatz tries to defend his actions. But he barely speaks English, and the prosecutor bullies him. Nevertheless, Spatz is now and then able to articulatge, in his simple and common sense way, how business realy works.
Prosecutor: But do you claim to be an expert?
Spatz: No
Prosecutor: On the competitive practices in the poultry industry?
Spatz: I would want to get paid, if I wan an expert.
Prosecutor: You are not an expert?
Spatz: I am experienced, but not an expert....
Prosecutor: You have not studied agricultural economics?
Spatz: No Sir.
Prosecutor: Or any sort of economics?
Spatz: No, sir.
Prosecutor: What is your education?
Spatz: None, very little.
Prosecutor: None at all??
Spatz: Very little
Then at one point this everyman sort of pulls himself together.
Prosecutor: And you would not endeavor to explain economic consequences of competitive practices?
Spatz: In my business I am the best economist.
Prosecutor: What is that?
Spatz: In my business I am the best economizer.
Prosecutor: You are the best economizer?
Spatz: Yes, without figuring.
Prosecutor: I wish to have that word spelled in the minutes, just as he stated it.
Spatz: I do not know how to spell.
This dialogue matters because little businesses like Shechter Poultry are the natural drivers of recovery, and during the Great Depression they weren't allowed to do that driving. They weren't allowed to compete and accumulate wealth -- or, in terms of Monopoly, to place a house or hotel on their property. Instead they were sidelined. The Schechter brothers ultimately won their case in the Supreme Court in 1935. But the cost of the lawsuits combined with the Depression did not go away.
OK, this is it for monday and I will carry on this topic again on Wednesday. Thanks for stopping by. Cheers CJ
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......cont'd.
Ah yes, and a great TGIF to you, too. And may your weekend be as happy as you can make, and if you are not a happy person, get back to me and I'll show you how to be unbreakably happy. But for now I must continue with the Rules of Economic Recovery. And I hope you are paying attention.
ARROGANCE AND DISCRETION.............
Consider the centerpiece of the New Deal's first 100 days, The National Recovery Administration(NRA), which was in effect an enormous multisector mechanism calibrated to manage the business cyle through industrial codes that, among other things, regulated prices. The principles on which its codes were based appear risible from the perspective of microeconomics and common sense. They included the idea that prices needed to be pushed up to make recovery possible, whereas competition constrained recovery by driving prices down. They held that big firms in industry -- those "too big to fail" -- were to write codes for all members of their sector, large and small -- which naturally worked to the advantage of those larger firms. As for the consumers choice, it was deemed inefficient and an inhibitor of recovery.
The absurdity of these principles was overlooked, however, because they were put forth by great minds. One member of the Brain Trust, Ray Moley, described the myopic credentialism of this fellow Brain Trusters, Felix Frankfurter, in this way:
The problems of economic life were to Frankfurter matters were to be settled in a law office, a court room, or around a big labor-management bargaining table ...... The government was the protagonist. Its agents were its lawyers and commissioners. The antagonists were big corporate lawyers. In the background were misty principals whom Frankfurter never really knew at first hand.... These background figures were owners of the corporations, managers, workers and consumers.
One family that was targeted by the NRA bureaucrats was the Schechters, who were wholesale chicken butchers in Brooklyn. The NRA code that aimed to regulate what they did was called THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE LIVE POULTRY INDUSTRY OF THE METROPPOLITAN AREA IN AND ABOUT THE CITY OF NEW YORK. And according to this code, the Schecters did all the wrong things. The paid their butchers too little. They charged prices that were too low. They allowed their customers to pick their own chickens. Worst of all, they sold a sick chicken. As a result of these supposed crimes, they were prosecuted.
The prosecution would have been comic if it were not business tragedy. Imagine the court room scene: On one side stands Walter Lyman Rice, a graduate of Harvard Law School, representing the government. On the other stands a small man in the poultry trade, Louis Spatz, who is afraid of going to jail. Spatz tries to defend his actions. But he barely speaks English, and the prosecutor bullies him. Nevertheless, Spatz is now and then able to articulate, in his simple and common-sense way, how business really works.
Got to stop here friends, but will continue on monday, starting with the prosecution qustioning Mr. Spatz. Very interesting, so please do come back and visit then. You are much appreciated. CHeers CJ
ARROGANCE AND DISCRETION.............
Consider the centerpiece of the New Deal's first 100 days, The National Recovery Administration(NRA), which was in effect an enormous multisector mechanism calibrated to manage the business cyle through industrial codes that, among other things, regulated prices. The principles on which its codes were based appear risible from the perspective of microeconomics and common sense. They included the idea that prices needed to be pushed up to make recovery possible, whereas competition constrained recovery by driving prices down. They held that big firms in industry -- those "too big to fail" -- were to write codes for all members of their sector, large and small -- which naturally worked to the advantage of those larger firms. As for the consumers choice, it was deemed inefficient and an inhibitor of recovery.
The absurdity of these principles was overlooked, however, because they were put forth by great minds. One member of the Brain Trust, Ray Moley, described the myopic credentialism of this fellow Brain Trusters, Felix Frankfurter, in this way:
The problems of economic life were to Frankfurter matters were to be settled in a law office, a court room, or around a big labor-management bargaining table ...... The government was the protagonist. Its agents were its lawyers and commissioners. The antagonists were big corporate lawyers. In the background were misty principals whom Frankfurter never really knew at first hand.... These background figures were owners of the corporations, managers, workers and consumers.
One family that was targeted by the NRA bureaucrats was the Schechters, who were wholesale chicken butchers in Brooklyn. The NRA code that aimed to regulate what they did was called THE CODE OF FAIR COMPETITION FOR THE LIVE POULTRY INDUSTRY OF THE METROPPOLITAN AREA IN AND ABOUT THE CITY OF NEW YORK. And according to this code, the Schecters did all the wrong things. The paid their butchers too little. They charged prices that were too low. They allowed their customers to pick their own chickens. Worst of all, they sold a sick chicken. As a result of these supposed crimes, they were prosecuted.
The prosecution would have been comic if it were not business tragedy. Imagine the court room scene: On one side stands Walter Lyman Rice, a graduate of Harvard Law School, representing the government. On the other stands a small man in the poultry trade, Louis Spatz, who is afraid of going to jail. Spatz tries to defend his actions. But he barely speaks English, and the prosecutor bullies him. Nevertheless, Spatz is now and then able to articulate, in his simple and common-sense way, how business really works.
Got to stop here friends, but will continue on monday, starting with the prosecution qustioning Mr. Spatz. Very interesting, so please do come back and visit then. You are much appreciated. CHeers CJ
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......See Year 1930
(This content was taken from a lecture at Hillsdale College by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloomberg. and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations.) So here we go.
If you are wise enough to liesten to Glenn Beck you will know that serious trouble is brewing world-wide. The focal point of it all is aimed directly at Israel and the USA. Check oil prices and food. I hope it doesn't take a wrap to the head to wake up, and even better, LISTEN TO GLENN BECK. Even if he is wrong, will be an excuse for a real celebration.
How is this game of Monopoly relevant to the Great Depression? We all know the traditional narrative of that event: The stock market crash generated an economic Katrina. One in four was unemployed in the first few years. It resulted from a combination of monetary, banking, credit, international, and consumer confidence factors. The terrible thing about it was the duration of high level of unemployment, which averaged in the mid teens for the entire decade.
The second thing we usually learn is the Depression was mysterious -- a problem that only experts with doctorates could solve. That is why FDR's floating advisory group -- Felix Frankfurter, Frances Perkins, George Warren, Marriner Eccles and Adolf Berle, among others -- was sometimes known as a Brain Trust. The mystery had something to do with a shortage of money, we are told, and in the end, only a Brain Trust's tinkering with the money supply saved us. The corollary to this view is that the government knows more than American business does about economics.
Another common presumption is that cleaning up Wall Street and getting rid of white-collar criminals helped the nation recovery. A second is that property rights may still have mattered less than government-created jobs, shoring up home-owners, and getting the money supply right. A third is that American democracy was threatened by the rise of potential plutocracy, and that the Wagner Act of 1935 -- which lent federal support to labor unions -- was thus necessry and proper. Fourth and finally, the tradional and finally, the traditional viw of the 1930's is that action by the government was good, whereas inaction would have been fatal.
The economic crisis mandated any kind of action, no matter how far removed it might be from sound monetary policy. Along these lines the humorist Will Rogers wrote in 1933 that if Franklin Roosevelt had "burned down the capital, we would cheer and say "Well at least we got a fired started anyhow".
To put this official version of the 1930s in terms of the Monopoly board: The American economy was failing because there were too many top hats lording it about on the board, trying to establish a plutocracy, and because there was no bank to hand out money. Under FDR, the federal government became the bank and pulled America back to economic health.
When you go to research the 1930s, however, you will find a different story.. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression -- the years upon which most economist have focused -- wa an economic Katrina. And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by the Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative. Overall, it can be said, government PREVENTED RECOVERY. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive -- as the old stereotypes suggest --while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the the latter half of the decade.
In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance -- arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights.
Checking out here and looking forward to the next chapter of section of this wonderful history lesson. You should start to see similarities or may already have. Cheers CJ
If you are wise enough to liesten to Glenn Beck you will know that serious trouble is brewing world-wide. The focal point of it all is aimed directly at Israel and the USA. Check oil prices and food. I hope it doesn't take a wrap to the head to wake up, and even better, LISTEN TO GLENN BECK. Even if he is wrong, will be an excuse for a real celebration.
How is this game of Monopoly relevant to the Great Depression? We all know the traditional narrative of that event: The stock market crash generated an economic Katrina. One in four was unemployed in the first few years. It resulted from a combination of monetary, banking, credit, international, and consumer confidence factors. The terrible thing about it was the duration of high level of unemployment, which averaged in the mid teens for the entire decade.
The second thing we usually learn is the Depression was mysterious -- a problem that only experts with doctorates could solve. That is why FDR's floating advisory group -- Felix Frankfurter, Frances Perkins, George Warren, Marriner Eccles and Adolf Berle, among others -- was sometimes known as a Brain Trust. The mystery had something to do with a shortage of money, we are told, and in the end, only a Brain Trust's tinkering with the money supply saved us. The corollary to this view is that the government knows more than American business does about economics.
Another common presumption is that cleaning up Wall Street and getting rid of white-collar criminals helped the nation recovery. A second is that property rights may still have mattered less than government-created jobs, shoring up home-owners, and getting the money supply right. A third is that American democracy was threatened by the rise of potential plutocracy, and that the Wagner Act of 1935 -- which lent federal support to labor unions -- was thus necessry and proper. Fourth and finally, the tradional and finally, the traditional viw of the 1930's is that action by the government was good, whereas inaction would have been fatal.
The economic crisis mandated any kind of action, no matter how far removed it might be from sound monetary policy. Along these lines the humorist Will Rogers wrote in 1933 that if Franklin Roosevelt had "burned down the capital, we would cheer and say "Well at least we got a fired started anyhow".
To put this official version of the 1930s in terms of the Monopoly board: The American economy was failing because there were too many top hats lording it about on the board, trying to establish a plutocracy, and because there was no bank to hand out money. Under FDR, the federal government became the bank and pulled America back to economic health.
When you go to research the 1930s, however, you will find a different story.. It is of course true that the early part of the Depression -- the years upon which most economist have focused -- wa an economic Katrina. And a number of New Deal measures provided lasting benefits for the economy These include the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the push for free trade led by the Secretary of State Cordell Hull, and the establishment of the modern mortgage format. But the remaining evidence contradicts the official narrative. Overall, it can be said, government PREVENTED RECOVERY. Herbert Hoover was too active, not too passive -- as the old stereotypes suggest --while Roosevelt and his New Deal policies impeded recovery as well, especially during the the latter half of the decade.
In short, the prolonged Depression can be put down to government arrogance -- arrogance that came at the expense of economic common sense, the rule of law, and respect for property rights.
Checking out here and looking forward to the next chapter of section of this wonderful history lesson. You should start to see similarities or may already have. Cheers CJ
Monday, February 21, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Rules for Economic Recovery ......
Ah yes my friends, here we all are after a good weekend and ready to get smarter for having visited this site today and for the rest of the week, at least. This blog is about the Economic Recovery that has not recovered yet and is a long way from doing so. But here are the rules of the game involved as this admin fumbles and bumbles along. Let's pray some sensible heads will persevere and get this country turned to the right direction.
This content was taken from a licture at Hellsdale College by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloomberg. and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. So here we go.
THE RULES OF THE GAME AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY----
The Monopoly board game originated during the Great Depression. At firts its inventor, Charles Darrow, could not interest manufacturers. Parker Brothers turned the game down, citing "52 design errors". But Darrow produced his own copies of the game, and Parker Brothers finally bought Monopoly. By 1935, the New York Times was reporting that "leading al other board games...is the season's craze, 'Monopoly, the game of real estate.
Most of us are familiar with the object of Monopoly: the accumulation of property on which one places houses and hotels, and from which one receives revenue. Many of us have a favorite token. Perennially popular is the top hat, which symbolizes the sort of wealth to which Americans who work hard can aspire. The top hat is a token that has remained in the game, even while others have changed over the decades.
One's willingness to play Monopoly depends on a few conditions -- for instance, a predictable number of "Pay Income Tax" cards. These cards are manageable when you know in advance the amount of money printed on them and how many of them and how many of them are in the deck. It helps, too, that there are a limited and predictable number of "Go To Jail" cards. This is what Frank Knight of the University of Chicago would call a knowable risk, as opposed to uncertainty. Likewise, there must be a limited and predictable number of "Chance" cards. In other words, there has to be some certainty that property rights are secure and that the risks to property are few in number and can be managed.
The bank must be dependable, too. There is a fixed supply on Monopoly money and the bank is supposed follow the rules of the game, exercising little or no independent discretion. If players sit down at the Monoploy board only to discover a bank that overreaches or is too unpredictable or discretionary, we all know what happens. They will walk away from the board. There is no game.
I wil stop at this point, as you ae so alert to notice, and continue this presentation on Wednesday, which will be on The Relevance to the 1930s. For all of you who are not familiar with earlier history of America, and maybe its not your fault, as in modern education in schools, but if your concern is for good old USA, then you should enjoy "the rest of the story". You, you, and you will participate in Amercia's economical future so get into the basics here and be able to interpret what is happing today and/or as it progresses or regresses into the weeks and years ahead. Cheers CJ
This content was taken from a licture at Hellsdale College by Amity Shlaes, syndicated columnist for Bloomberg. and a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. So here we go.
THE RULES OF THE GAME AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY----
The Monopoly board game originated during the Great Depression. At firts its inventor, Charles Darrow, could not interest manufacturers. Parker Brothers turned the game down, citing "52 design errors". But Darrow produced his own copies of the game, and Parker Brothers finally bought Monopoly. By 1935, the New York Times was reporting that "leading al other board games...is the season's craze, 'Monopoly, the game of real estate.
Most of us are familiar with the object of Monopoly: the accumulation of property on which one places houses and hotels, and from which one receives revenue. Many of us have a favorite token. Perennially popular is the top hat, which symbolizes the sort of wealth to which Americans who work hard can aspire. The top hat is a token that has remained in the game, even while others have changed over the decades.
One's willingness to play Monopoly depends on a few conditions -- for instance, a predictable number of "Pay Income Tax" cards. These cards are manageable when you know in advance the amount of money printed on them and how many of them and how many of them are in the deck. It helps, too, that there are a limited and predictable number of "Go To Jail" cards. This is what Frank Knight of the University of Chicago would call a knowable risk, as opposed to uncertainty. Likewise, there must be a limited and predictable number of "Chance" cards. In other words, there has to be some certainty that property rights are secure and that the risks to property are few in number and can be managed.
The bank must be dependable, too. There is a fixed supply on Monopoly money and the bank is supposed follow the rules of the game, exercising little or no independent discretion. If players sit down at the Monoploy board only to discover a bank that overreaches or is too unpredictable or discretionary, we all know what happens. They will walk away from the board. There is no game.
I wil stop at this point, as you ae so alert to notice, and continue this presentation on Wednesday, which will be on The Relevance to the 1930s. For all of you who are not familiar with earlier history of America, and maybe its not your fault, as in modern education in schools, but if your concern is for good old USA, then you should enjoy "the rest of the story". You, you, and you will participate in Amercia's economical future so get into the basics here and be able to interpret what is happing today and/or as it progresses or regresses into the weeks and years ahead. Cheers CJ
Friday, February 18, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ? Remember 9/11? How about 2/26/1993?
RELIGION or POLITICS ? Remember 9/11? How about 2/26/1993?
Hello friends, how's it going this week.....Oh good!
Today as you may or may not note, is friday and I am back in cinc. I read this report in IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale oollege and I felt it had a worthwhile message for some of you out there. Soo here goes. oh, this article was written my Michille Malkin, columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, I consider her a very knowledgable individual in American Affairs.
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY.......
So from Thursday -- Let's look at some FACTS---
Despite the fact that Congress created the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, there is still no systematic tracking of criminal alien felons across the country; sanctuary for illegal aliens -- that is, deliberate non-enforcement of the laws -- remains the policy in almost every major metropolis; and "catch and release" remains standard operating procedure for untold thousands of of illegal aliens who pass through the fingers of federal immigration authorities every day.
My book (Michelle's), INVASION, argued in reat detail that our current immigration and entrance system is in shamble, partly by neglect and partly by design. From America's negligent consular offices overseas, to our ouous air, land, and sea points of entry, to our ineffective detention and deportation policies, our federal immigration authorities have failed at every level to protect our borders and preserve our sovereignty.
Michelle said, Immigration in a post 9/11 world must be treated as a national security issue. Enforcement of immigration laws must be cler and consistent. Lawbreakers must be punished, not rewarded. Illegal aliens must be deported, nat naturalized. And the national interest, not special interests -- whether Big Business or liberal multiculturalism -- must drive immigration policy.
The late Barbara, a Texas Congresswoman -- a liberal black Democrat and respected immigration authority -- who saidhat credible immigration policy rests on three simple principles: "People who should get in, get in; people who should not enter are kept out; and people who are deortable should be rquired by law to leave.
Contrary to the misguided claims of today's open-borders lobby, the demand for a more discriminating immigration policy - one that welcomes American dreamers and bars American destroyers -- does not stem from fear or hatred of foreigners, but from the idea of self-preservation and from love of country.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states clearly: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion". We are not a boarding house for the world. We are a sovereign nation. It's time we started acting like one.
Right on, Michelle, you said a mouth full, doubled in spades. I hope those who read this article will keep this in your memory bank when you see riots and chaos led my illegal aliens, hiding behind the screen of legality.
Cheers CJ
Hello friends, how's it going this week.....Oh good!
Today as you may or may not note, is friday and I am back in cinc. I read this report in IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale oollege and I felt it had a worthwhile message for some of you out there. Soo here goes. oh, this article was written my Michille Malkin, columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, I consider her a very knowledgable individual in American Affairs.
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONAL SECURITY.......
So from Thursday -- Let's look at some FACTS---
- There are now upwards of 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
- Roughly 1 million legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S. every year.
- Some 400,000 illegal aliens have been ordered to be deported , but are on the loose in the U.S. after being released by federal immigration courts.
- There are only 20,000 detention beds in the entire country to hold illegal aliens.
- There are only 2,000 federal agents employed by the Department of Homeland Security to track down the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens who are living, working, going to school, getting driver's licenses and, yes, committing crimes and plotting terrorist attacks in America as we speak.
Despite the fact that Congress created the behemoth Department of Homeland Security, there is still no systematic tracking of criminal alien felons across the country; sanctuary for illegal aliens -- that is, deliberate non-enforcement of the laws -- remains the policy in almost every major metropolis; and "catch and release" remains standard operating procedure for untold thousands of of illegal aliens who pass through the fingers of federal immigration authorities every day.
My book (Michelle's), INVASION, argued in reat detail that our current immigration and entrance system is in shamble, partly by neglect and partly by design. From America's negligent consular offices overseas, to our ouous air, land, and sea points of entry, to our ineffective detention and deportation policies, our federal immigration authorities have failed at every level to protect our borders and preserve our sovereignty.
Michelle said, Immigration in a post 9/11 world must be treated as a national security issue. Enforcement of immigration laws must be cler and consistent. Lawbreakers must be punished, not rewarded. Illegal aliens must be deported, nat naturalized. And the national interest, not special interests -- whether Big Business or liberal multiculturalism -- must drive immigration policy.
The late Barbara, a Texas Congresswoman -- a liberal black Democrat and respected immigration authority -- who saidhat credible immigration policy rests on three simple principles: "People who should get in, get in; people who should not enter are kept out; and people who are deortable should be rquired by law to leave.
Contrary to the misguided claims of today's open-borders lobby, the demand for a more discriminating immigration policy - one that welcomes American dreamers and bars American destroyers -- does not stem from fear or hatred of foreigners, but from the idea of self-preservation and from love of country.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution states clearly: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion". We are not a boarding house for the world. We are a sovereign nation. It's time we started acting like one.
Right on, Michelle, you said a mouth full, doubled in spades. I hope those who read this article will keep this in your memory bank when you see riots and chaos led my illegal aliens, hiding behind the screen of legality.
Cheers CJ
Thursday, February 17, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ? Remember 9/11? How about 2/26/1993?
Hello friends, how's it going this week.....Oh good!
Today as you may or may not note, is Thursday and I am out of cinc. but I'll catch up. I read this report in IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale oollege and I felt it had a worthwhile message for some of you out there. Soo here goes. oh, this article was written my Michille Malkin, columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, I consider her a very knowledgable individual in American Affairs.
IMMIGRATION & NATIONAL SECURITY-------
We all know what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. But, how many of us recall what happened on Feb. 26, 1993? That was the date of the first World Trade Center attack, the precursor of 9/11 carried out by a cell of Middle Eastern jihadists. Key members of that cell were illegal aliens.
Mahmud Abouhalima was an Egyptian illegal alien working as a cab driver in New York. He falsley claimed to be an agricultural worker under the illegal alien amnesty law and snagged a green card that allowed him to travel back and forth to Pakistan for al Qaeda training. Abouhalima said he was a strawberry picker, even though he had never been anywhere near a strawberry field. Overwhelmed INS workers -- who are driven to reduce backlogs by simply shredding or rubber stamping applications -- failed to vet his claims.
Mohammed Salameh, the operative who rented the truck in the 1993 bombing, was denied amnesty after filing a bogus claim. But because the INS didn't have the resources or the will to deport him, he was able to work and plot freely right under our noses.
The mastermind of the 1993 plot and of another foiled plot to bomb New York landmarks, Sheik Abdul Rahman, won asylum here based on a fraudulent laim and was allowed ot remain thanks to a deadly combination of immigraton and intelligence lapses. Seven people died and thousands were injured in the first World Trade Center bombing, which amounted to a trial run for the attack that would lead to the deaths of another 3,000 innocent men, women, and children eight years later.
All of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country with short-term visas issued by the State Department consular offices abroad. Fifteen of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia, where a special program allowed them to get fast-track visas. The program, called Visa Express, was hatched by Anerican bureaucrats who were concerned about wealthy Saudis waiting in long lines. So no one bothered to double-check the hijackers' applications, which were so sloppy that they made no sense. To give you a couple examples, one of them put "Washington hotel" as his ddress and another described his occupation as "Teeter". Thus, despite obviously lying on their applications, they gained entry to plot mass murder on American soil.
Once in the U.S. several of the hijackers needed fake government documents. They hooked up with illegal alien day laborers who hung out at a Virginia convenience store near the Pentagon. After waiting around with a couple of $20 bills, an illegal alien from El Salvador was willing and able to give them the documents that they needed to board the planes they flew on 9/11. The local cops whom I interviewed admit knowing that these people hanging around the convenience store were here illegally, but they did nothing about it.
The lesson is this: Lax immigration enforcement enables enemy foreign agents to exploit a system that was intended to welcome those who want to make better lives for themselves on our terms. Before 9/11, our nation convinced itself that it could afford massive, systematic abuse and under-mining of immigration laws. After 1993, in an age of Islamic terrorism and nuclear threat, we should have been permanently disabused of that notion. But we continued in our folly. And we continue in it still today.
Now I close and tomorrow I will contiue and complete this report and you should come back then and learn stuff that will make you uncomfortable to say the least. So Cheers CJ
Today as you may or may not note, is Thursday and I am out of cinc. but I'll catch up. I read this report in IMPRIMIS published by Hillsdale oollege and I felt it had a worthwhile message for some of you out there. Soo here goes. oh, this article was written my Michille Malkin, columnist for Creators Syndicate since 1999, I consider her a very knowledgable individual in American Affairs.
IMMIGRATION & NATIONAL SECURITY-------
We all know what happened on Sept. 11, 2001. But, how many of us recall what happened on Feb. 26, 1993? That was the date of the first World Trade Center attack, the precursor of 9/11 carried out by a cell of Middle Eastern jihadists. Key members of that cell were illegal aliens.
Mahmud Abouhalima was an Egyptian illegal alien working as a cab driver in New York. He falsley claimed to be an agricultural worker under the illegal alien amnesty law and snagged a green card that allowed him to travel back and forth to Pakistan for al Qaeda training. Abouhalima said he was a strawberry picker, even though he had never been anywhere near a strawberry field. Overwhelmed INS workers -- who are driven to reduce backlogs by simply shredding or rubber stamping applications -- failed to vet his claims.
Mohammed Salameh, the operative who rented the truck in the 1993 bombing, was denied amnesty after filing a bogus claim. But because the INS didn't have the resources or the will to deport him, he was able to work and plot freely right under our noses.
The mastermind of the 1993 plot and of another foiled plot to bomb New York landmarks, Sheik Abdul Rahman, won asylum here based on a fraudulent laim and was allowed ot remain thanks to a deadly combination of immigraton and intelligence lapses. Seven people died and thousands were injured in the first World Trade Center bombing, which amounted to a trial run for the attack that would lead to the deaths of another 3,000 innocent men, women, and children eight years later.
All of the 9/11 hijackers entered the country with short-term visas issued by the State Department consular offices abroad. Fifteen of the 19 came from Saudi Arabia, where a special program allowed them to get fast-track visas. The program, called Visa Express, was hatched by Anerican bureaucrats who were concerned about wealthy Saudis waiting in long lines. So no one bothered to double-check the hijackers' applications, which were so sloppy that they made no sense. To give you a couple examples, one of them put "Washington hotel" as his ddress and another described his occupation as "Teeter". Thus, despite obviously lying on their applications, they gained entry to plot mass murder on American soil.
Once in the U.S. several of the hijackers needed fake government documents. They hooked up with illegal alien day laborers who hung out at a Virginia convenience store near the Pentagon. After waiting around with a couple of $20 bills, an illegal alien from El Salvador was willing and able to give them the documents that they needed to board the planes they flew on 9/11. The local cops whom I interviewed admit knowing that these people hanging around the convenience store were here illegally, but they did nothing about it.
The lesson is this: Lax immigration enforcement enables enemy foreign agents to exploit a system that was intended to welcome those who want to make better lives for themselves on our terms. Before 9/11, our nation convinced itself that it could afford massive, systematic abuse and under-mining of immigration laws. After 1993, in an age of Islamic terrorism and nuclear threat, we should have been permanently disabused of that notion. But we continued in our folly. And we continue in it still today.
Now I close and tomorrow I will contiue and complete this report and you should come back then and learn stuff that will make you uncomfortable to say the least. So Cheers CJ
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??????? WARNING !!!!!
Yeah, I know it is Tuesday and I didn't get out my blog on monday which I usually do. Sorry, I hope nobody had trouble sleeping last night because of it. Just didn't have much of interest to write about, and maybe I should have said so, ya think???? Anyway, my heading today was -- WARNING. Here is why.................
There was a head line from NewsMax today entitled " THERE IS A 100% PROBILITY THAT THE U.S. WILL BE HIT BY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION". And who says?? Our F.B.I. Now if you have any sense at all, this should wake you up, if not already, that we are in trouble at home here, and relatively few seem to be concerned, or so it seems to me.
And who is going to be the perpetrator? Well, it could be a foreign terrorist, a Lone Wolf terrorist, or even someone in the criminal element.
But, one way or the other, the attack will happen sooner or later.
WHY??????
Well, if you are even half smart, you are listening and paying attention to Glenn Beck, like him or not. He said there are 50 Charter Muslim Societies in America, like Islamic American Society in Virginia.
He has claimed over the past 2-3 weeks, such as our "Western way of life is OVER". Predicting the Fall of Capitalism in the desired goal of these organizations. And it will be done from within America itself.
The initial thrust will be by revolution starting in the Middle East. This he predicted even before it happened in Egypt. What was the National Socialist Society in Germany is now Islamic Socialists, for example. Seeds are being planted constantly world wide. Again, like in Texas where the language of the future, Arabic, is being taught in schools, language and culture.
They want to turn Capitalism into New World Order, a goal of George Soros and President Obama, who doesn't believe capitalism works.
There goal in the Middle East is to wipe out Israel and then on the to the U.S. The fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam, into New World Order. All behind there method of creating revolution gradually through out M.E. and into Europe itself, and then U.S. A.
And it is happening before your very eyes and if not already, you, you and you, should wake up before we all become victims of passivity.
Take care, y'all, and see you again soon. Cheers CJ
There was a head line from NewsMax today entitled " THERE IS A 100% PROBILITY THAT THE U.S. WILL BE HIT BY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION". And who says?? Our F.B.I. Now if you have any sense at all, this should wake you up, if not already, that we are in trouble at home here, and relatively few seem to be concerned, or so it seems to me.
And who is going to be the perpetrator? Well, it could be a foreign terrorist, a Lone Wolf terrorist, or even someone in the criminal element.
But, one way or the other, the attack will happen sooner or later.
WHY??????
Well, if you are even half smart, you are listening and paying attention to Glenn Beck, like him or not. He said there are 50 Charter Muslim Societies in America, like Islamic American Society in Virginia.
He has claimed over the past 2-3 weeks, such as our "Western way of life is OVER". Predicting the Fall of Capitalism in the desired goal of these organizations. And it will be done from within America itself.
The initial thrust will be by revolution starting in the Middle East. This he predicted even before it happened in Egypt. What was the National Socialist Society in Germany is now Islamic Socialists, for example. Seeds are being planted constantly world wide. Again, like in Texas where the language of the future, Arabic, is being taught in schools, language and culture.
They want to turn Capitalism into New World Order, a goal of George Soros and President Obama, who doesn't believe capitalism works.
There goal in the Middle East is to wipe out Israel and then on the to the U.S. The fall of Capitalism and the Rise of Islam, into New World Order. All behind there method of creating revolution gradually through out M.E. and into Europe itself, and then U.S. A.
And it is happening before your very eyes and if not already, you, you and you, should wake up before we all become victims of passivity.
Take care, y'all, and see you again soon. Cheers CJ
Friday, February 11, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN?? Finale...
Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.
Greetings on this TGIF day and we are all excited about another great weekend. You tooooooooo? So to get on with the closure of this particular topic, here goes........
DUAL CITIZENSHIP and DECLINE..............
Those who advocate open borders tend to share this cosmopolitan view of transnational citizenship. Illegal immigrants, they say, are merely seeking to support their families and improve their lives. Borders, according to them, should not stand in the way of "family values"-- those universal "values" that refuse to recognize the importance or relevance of mere political boundaries.
Somehow, for those who hold these views, political exclusivity and the requirement of exclusive allegiance are opposed to these universal "values" if not to human decency itself.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon was in California recently pushing for more liberal immigration immigration policies. He assured his fellow citizens who reside in the U.S. that he is "actively working to defend their human rights," no matter their immigration status, Calderon said, "they are human beings with dignity and rights that should be respected. We are working, with the full effort of teh Mexican government, to bring a halt to the campaigns that harass migrants." However much Calderon may be worried about the human rights or his fellow citizens, he is fully cognizant of the fact that Mexico's economy depends on the remittances of its citizens working abroad. These remittances have become Mexico's second largest source of revenue, trailing only its rapidly declining oil revenues. It is far easier -- and politically safer -- for Mexico to export its poverty than to reform its own political and economic system.
We must constanly remind ourselvesm however, of the historical fact tht constitutional democracy has existed only in the nation-state, and that the demise of the nation-state will almost certainly mean the demise of constitutional democracy. No one believes that the Europian Union or similar organizations will ever produce constitutional government. Indeed, the EU is well on its way to becoming an adminstrative tyranny. Nor would the homogenous world-state -- the EU on a global scale -- be a constitutional democracy; it would be the administration of "universal personhood" without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed.
The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a "separate and equal" nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.
I hope you who read this will digest what is being written and realize the dangers this country is facing over the next years ahead. Hiding your head in the sand will not make it go away, so best you wake up and get ready to defend your citizenship and your country before you realize you are no longer FREE. Wake the hell up, huh??? Cheers CJ
Greetings on this TGIF day and we are all excited about another great weekend. You tooooooooo? So to get on with the closure of this particular topic, here goes........
DUAL CITIZENSHIP and DECLINE..............
Those who advocate open borders tend to share this cosmopolitan view of transnational citizenship. Illegal immigrants, they say, are merely seeking to support their families and improve their lives. Borders, according to them, should not stand in the way of "family values"-- those universal "values" that refuse to recognize the importance or relevance of mere political boundaries.
Somehow, for those who hold these views, political exclusivity and the requirement of exclusive allegiance are opposed to these universal "values" if not to human decency itself.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon was in California recently pushing for more liberal immigration immigration policies. He assured his fellow citizens who reside in the U.S. that he is "actively working to defend their human rights," no matter their immigration status, Calderon said, "they are human beings with dignity and rights that should be respected. We are working, with the full effort of teh Mexican government, to bring a halt to the campaigns that harass migrants." However much Calderon may be worried about the human rights or his fellow citizens, he is fully cognizant of the fact that Mexico's economy depends on the remittances of its citizens working abroad. These remittances have become Mexico's second largest source of revenue, trailing only its rapidly declining oil revenues. It is far easier -- and politically safer -- for Mexico to export its poverty than to reform its own political and economic system.
We must constanly remind ourselvesm however, of the historical fact tht constitutional democracy has existed only in the nation-state, and that the demise of the nation-state will almost certainly mean the demise of constitutional democracy. No one believes that the Europian Union or similar organizations will ever produce constitutional government. Indeed, the EU is well on its way to becoming an adminstrative tyranny. Nor would the homogenous world-state -- the EU on a global scale -- be a constitutional democracy; it would be the administration of "universal personhood" without the inconvenience of having to rely on the consent of the governed.
The doctrine of birthright citizenship and the acceptance of dual citizenship are signs that we in the U.S. are on the verge of reinstituting feudalism and replacing citizenship with the master-servant relationship. The continued vitality of the nation-state and of constitutional government depends on the continued vitality of citizenship, which carries with it exclusive allegiance to what the Declaration calls a "separate and equal" nation. Unless we recover an understanding of the foundations of citizenship, we will find ourselves in a world where there are subjects but no citizens.
I hope you who read this will digest what is being written and realize the dangers this country is facing over the next years ahead. Hiding your head in the sand will not make it go away, so best you wake up and get ready to defend your citizenship and your country before you realize you are no longer FREE. Wake the hell up, huh??? Cheers CJ
Thursday, February 10, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN??
Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.
Oops, sorry I had to skip publishing yesterday, went to visit my son, who is a golf teaching professional in Brandon. Fl., and you know, hit some golf balls to show off, since I am awed at how well I can hit golf balls at my age, which is quite high on the old age ladder, actually only a few years short of 100, which, incidentally, I don't believe I can break any more, ummm, or reach, but will die trying, aha, maybe close in both instances. Tempus fugits, ya know. But to go on now, and thanks for stopping by.
Dual Citizenship and Decline.......
The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe 'exclusive allegiance' to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship -- and dual allegiance -- is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.
It is remarkable that 85% of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow -- and encourage -- dual citizenship. Dual citizens of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence in the U.S., and many countries use theri dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure on American policy makers. Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine. Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny.
Elite liberal opinion has for many years considered the sovereign nation-state as an historical anachronism in an increasingly globalized world. WE ar assured that human dignity adheres to the individual and does not require the mediation of the nation-state. In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of nation-state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate "universal personhood". In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous.
Please do come back tomorrow as I will complete section and it is a good one for you to read and the information or observations therein. I will appreciate your visit. Cheers CJ
Oops, sorry I had to skip publishing yesterday, went to visit my son, who is a golf teaching professional in Brandon. Fl., and you know, hit some golf balls to show off, since I am awed at how well I can hit golf balls at my age, which is quite high on the old age ladder, actually only a few years short of 100, which, incidentally, I don't believe I can break any more, ummm, or reach, but will die trying, aha, maybe close in both instances. Tempus fugits, ya know. But to go on now, and thanks for stopping by.
Dual Citizenship and Decline.......
The same kind of confusion that has led us to accept birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens has led us to tolerate dual citizenship. We recall that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specified that those who are naturalized must owe 'exclusive allegiance' to the U.S. to be included within its jurisdiction. And the citizenship oath taken today still requires a pledge of allegiance. But in practice dual citizenship -- and dual allegiance -- is allowed. This is a sign of the decline of American citizenship and of American citizenship and of America as a nation-state.
It is remarkable that 85% of all immigrants arriving in the U.S. come from countries that allow -- and encourage -- dual citizenship. Dual citizens of course, give the sending countries a unique political presence in the U.S., and many countries use theri dual citizens to promote their own interests by exerting pressure on American policy makers. Such foreign meddling in our internal political affairs has in fact become quite routine. Thus we have created a situation where a newly naturalized citizen can swear exclusive allegiance to the U.S. while retaining allegiance to a vicious despotism or a theocratic tyranny.
Elite liberal opinion has for many years considered the sovereign nation-state as an historical anachronism in an increasingly globalized world. WE ar assured that human dignity adheres to the individual and does not require the mediation of the nation-state. In this new universe of international norms, demands on the part of nation-state to exclusive allegiance or for assimilation violate "universal personhood". In such a universe, citizenship will become superfluous or even dangerous.
Please do come back tomorrow as I will complete section and it is a good one for you to read and the information or observations therein. I will appreciate your visit. Cheers CJ
Monday, February 7, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a CITIZEN??
Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.
********
Greetings to all on this glorious new monday and a new week. And for those who are not over the football game yesterday, well, there is always my archives. And there is a lot of blogs that you might enjoy if you happen to be here for the first time, asuuming you are interested in government and the spiritual side of life. Today we continue the subject of Illegals and Citizenship..
In sum, this legacy of feudalism -- which we today call birthright citizenship --- was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizendship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of the parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American Law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance -- or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
Their is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S.. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship. The majority opinion did not explain how 'subjects' were miraculously transformed into 'citizens' and within the common law. Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that "citizen' and 'subject' were convertible terms -- as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.
The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be over-turned. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of 'legal' aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with 'illegal aliens', who are here without permission. This repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.
We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not "subject to he jurisdiction" of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U. S. and acceptance on the part of the individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that childred born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are NOT subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more rquired now than it was in 1923.
So there you have it for this monday, with the final chapter to be blogged on Wednesday. Meantime, chin up, keep alert, and smile. Cheers CJ
********
Greetings to all on this glorious new monday and a new week. And for those who are not over the football game yesterday, well, there is always my archives. And there is a lot of blogs that you might enjoy if you happen to be here for the first time, asuuming you are interested in government and the spiritual side of life. Today we continue the subject of Illegals and Citizenship..
In sum, this legacy of feudalism -- which we today call birthright citizenship --- was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizendship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of the parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American Law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance -- or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
Their is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S.. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship. The majority opinion did not explain how 'subjects' were miraculously transformed into 'citizens' and within the common law. Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that "citizen' and 'subject' were convertible terms -- as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.
The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be over-turned. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of 'legal' aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with 'illegal aliens', who are here without permission. This repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional amendment.
We have seen that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment unanimously agreed that Indians were not "subject to he jurisdiction" of the U.S. Beginning in 1870, however, Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U. S. and acceptance on the part of the individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that childred born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are NOT subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more rquired now than it was in 1923.
So there you have it for this monday, with the final chapter to be blogged on Wednesday. Meantime, chin up, keep alert, and smile. Cheers CJ
Friday, February 4, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? Cont'd.......WHO is a Citizen????
Hello and a great friday to you, too, plus a greater weekend. Today we continue on the subject of ILLEGALS presented in the MOnthly Newsletter, IMPRIMIS, published by Hillsdale College and written by Edward J. Erler, professor of Political Science at California State University, San Bernadino, CA.
TODAY IS ENTITLED "WHO IS A CITIZEN".......
Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create. Indeed, this is true aof all citizens of a new nation -- they are not born into it, but rather become citizens by law.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside". Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S., and being subject fo the jurisdiction of the U.S.
We have somehow come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to the jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this has been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendent, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation's geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate judiciary Committee, rost to support his colleague, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction hereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States". Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, , excludes not only Indians but "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, {or} who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Thus "subject to the jurisdiction" does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Consider as well that in 1868 , the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legisation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fouteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as "a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatable with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: "The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England.....is not at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy." The common law established what was characterized as an "indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance," a feudal wholly at odds with republic government.
And there you have what so far is an explanation of you, you, and you received your right of citizenship, and I am not finished yet and y'all ought to be proud of this America, which is in imminent danger of disaster if the general public don't realize quicky that this real threat comes from the Muslim Brotherhod that is behind all this unrest in the middle east. Make no mistake their ultimate goal is America.
Anyway, enjoy your weekend and do come back next week and I will continue to feed this blog with worthwhile information for you digestion. Ta Ta Cheers CJ
TODAY IS ENTITLED "WHO IS A CITIZEN".......
Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create. Indeed, this is true aof all citizens of a new nation -- they are not born into it, but rather become citizens by law.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States wherein they reside". Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S., and being subject fo the jurisdiction of the U.S.
We have somehow come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to the jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this has been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendent, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation's geographical limits, but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate judiciary Committee, rost to support his colleague, arguing that "subject to the jurisdiction hereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States". Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, , excludes not only Indians but "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, {or} who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Thus "subject to the jurisdiction" does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Consider as well that in 1868 , the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legisation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fouteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as "a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatable with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: "The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England.....is not at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy." The common law established what was characterized as an "indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance," a feudal wholly at odds with republic government.
And there you have what so far is an explanation of you, you, and you received your right of citizenship, and I am not finished yet and y'all ought to be proud of this America, which is in imminent danger of disaster if the general public don't realize quicky that this real threat comes from the Muslim Brotherhod that is behind all this unrest in the middle east. Make no mistake their ultimate goal is America.
Anyway, enjoy your weekend and do come back next week and I will continue to feed this blog with worthwhile information for you digestion. Ta Ta Cheers CJ
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
RELIGION or POLITICS ??? How about children born of illegals????
Hello again, folks. For the next few blogs I am going to delve into the subject of Illegals and their children. Contents taken from the monthly Newsletter, Imprimis, published by Hillsdale College, Michigan. The article is entitled Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny., written by Edward Erler, Professor of Political science at California State University.
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP --- THE policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship -- is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. BUT this is simply NOT true.
The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from the feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude". According to BAlckstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies...are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved". According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason". So the common law -- the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance -- could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain.
James wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: "Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects". The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed -- not the accident of birth.
And there you have it for today, and I will continue on Friday with "WHO IS A CITIZEN"? Some interesting information is coming up you may not bve familiar with and if know gooding old US of A is important to you, and you should if you visit here at all, which I appreciate very much if you do, then stay with me, great stuff ahead. Cheers CJ
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP --- THE policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship -- is a great magnet for illegal immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. BUT this is simply NOT true.
The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of "birthright subjectship" or "birthright allegiance," never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from the feudal law. It is the relation of master and servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual allegiance as a "debt of gratitude". According to BAlckstone, this debt is "intrinsic" and "cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered." Birthright subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
America's Founders rejected this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that "the good People of these Colonies...are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved". According to Blackstone, the common law regards such an act as "high treason". So the common law -- the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance -- could not possibly serve as the ground of American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous to entertain.
James wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: "Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects". The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed -- not the accident of birth.
And there you have it for today, and I will continue on Friday with "WHO IS A CITIZEN"? Some interesting information is coming up you may not bve familiar with and if know gooding old US of A is important to you, and you should if you visit here at all, which I appreciate very much if you do, then stay with me, great stuff ahead. Cheers CJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)