Tag Archives: Radical Republicans

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

The Fourth of July—Drive Safely—a Private Corporate Entity May be Policing You—Under Color of Law….

In spite of the tragedies of our (CSA) defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that marred this day forever in the Southern Consciousness in 1863, I still support the celebration of the signing of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1787.  

In spite of all the tragedies that our country has suffered, and the many more that our country has inflicted on the innocent people of so many other countries, and in spite of 151 years of steady deterioration in the qualities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I do not want to believe that my natal country is dead or sick beyond remediation.

We, as nation, have willingly inflicted so many scars upon ourselves—rather like the horrible, hideous, reprehensible style among women who tattoo their bodies like the worst savage heathens these days (I saw an 11-13 year old girl at a Denny’s Restaurant today whose arms, shoulders, and legs were all tattooed).

A Facebook friend of mine, Matthew Heimbach, of Towson University’s White Students Union fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective), yesterday posted something to the general effect  of “Death to the Freemason Revolution of 1776! Hail Christian monarchy, long live the king.”  

I have to say, I love what Matthew did at Towson and I am not unsympathetic to his Traditionalist Youth group, but the reigns of England’s 4 Kings George, I-IV, 1714-1830, were a bunch of ponces whose tenure in office marked the steady decline of the monarchy and there was really nothing good at all about any of them.  George IV managed to earn his reputation as “the first gentleman of England” but this qualifies him for no little or no glory in the realm of “Christian Kings.”  “Mad King George” III who lost America—well, the best thing you can say about him was that he recognized George Washington as a truly great man for declining to accept the Crown of that same New Nation in North America.

As I have so often said, my maternal grandfather Alphonse Bernhard was an Albert Pike Southern Rite Mason of the 33rd Degree and in my mind he epitomized all that was good in the American dream, and nothing bad.  My father and his father were Mason’s also. The late great Creole Librarian of the University of Yucatan, the South African educated Rudolfo Ruz Menendez in Merida, Yucatan, used to point out to me the Masonic symbols carved on the Catholic Church across from the now defunct Cafe Express. The very conservative Ruz (first cousin to a one F. Castro Ruz who made a name for himself in leftwing politics in the Northwestern Caribbean’s largest island) expounded with great pride that it was Freemasons who had created and define the Hispanic Yucatec elite of the late 18th and 19th Centuries, and who had done so much to liberate the Spanish colonies from the late dark ages which had persisted since the conquest in all of Latin America.

I cannot say for certain where I would have stood, had I been alive in 1776.  I can relate to some of Heimbach’s statements about sympathy for the Loyalist Cause in North America.  I think I can fairly say that I would have strenuously argued for full and proportionately equal Parliamentary Representation for the North American English Population in the London Parliament.  That might have been the happiest solution—one great Transatlantic British Empire.  

But direct such representation was in fact proposed (and in fact became a rallying cry of the Revolution: “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny”), and this best of all possible worlds (direct representation in London) was rejected (irrationally but absolutely) both by the British Parliament and British (Mad) King George.  So, seeing this rejection, I might well have reluctantly cast my lot with the Revolutionaries.  

Now, I would HOPE I would have the sense to have known, even then, that it was a dangerous precedent to write any document that held it to be a self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.”  It is (to my mind) a self-evident truth that “no two men or women are ever created equal” in any sense, and that no myth is more dangerous to civilized society and individual freedom than that of equality.  The reason for this is simple: the myth of equality can only be enforced by the same kind of tyranny that imposes taxation without representation, only ten times fiercer.

The most grievous offenses to the Spirit of the ORIGINAL 4th of July, the ORIGINAL Spirit of ’76, are those that come from the vast growth of a Byzantine Bureaucracy in America that outsizes the wildest imaginations of anyone who ever lived in the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire….  That bureaucracy hardly existed before July 4, 1863, but its creation and growth were clearly goals of the Radical (essentially, whether overtly or covertly Marxist) Republicans under Abraham Lincoln and his followers.  

“Republicans are Moral Lepers = Republicans are Marxist Lepers.”

The year before Gettysburg and Vicksburg, in 1862, no development of his first full year in office is more astounding, to my mind, than the fact that Abraham Lincoln, whom you would have thought to be excessively preoccupied with other matters, laid the foundation for the national regulation of agriculture by planting the “seed” for what ultimately became the U.S. Department of Agriculture…. protector of Monsanto and GMO foods, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and eventually the “War on Drugs” (which has reduced more black and white people to chattel slavery “as punishment for a crime” (most of which are merely commercial crimes, not moral offenses or injuries to any person) in prisons than  private slavery every pretended to do prior to July 4, 1863).  

Another evil that began in the 1860s and has done nothing but grow ever since, are the confusion of private and public realms in government and industry.   Along with the regulation of commerce and industry (and agriculture), the Police State has grown and grown since 1861-1865.  We now live as a nation imprisoned by those who pretend to protect us.    

My great shocking discovery for this 4th of July was that each local sub-county office of the California Highway Patrol is registered as a privately owned and operated corporation.  I don’t know what to do with this fact, but each local office appears to be registered on manta.com…. what does this mean?  It is not what most people believe—and I myself have actually denied those who allege it, but today I saw proof, and I find it deeply disturbing.  I have previously described the “every part of government is a corporation” model as a “patriot myth” but today I saw it proved—at least for the California Highway Patrol, which if private, must surely constitute one of the largest “private” police forces in the world.  

How many other seemingly public entities are in fact just masquerading private corporations, extracting millions of dollars from people UNDER COLOR OF LAW?