TIMELINE: For those who are confused about the 14th Amendment (1868) and anchor babies

Clark Baker (former LAPD):

For those who are confused about the 14th Amendment (1868) and anchor babies, I hope that this timeline helps:

* In 1792, the Democrat Party was formed. They are, essentially, the party of slavery.

* In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

* In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo these anti-slavery decisions.

* In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

* For the next thirty years, Democrats passed multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law ended all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who was ACCUSED (proof was unnecessary) of being a slave.

* In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

* In 1854, the REPUBLICAN party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

* In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase “all men” in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

* In 1861, Democrat Party waged a war to protect and defend slavery, resulting in countless horrors and 650,000 deaths. White Christian men (like my great-grandfather and his brothers) were the first in human history to fight to free slaves and restore the Union.

* In 1865, REPUBLICANS pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery. 100% of Republicans vote for it. Even among northern Democrats, it only received the support of 23%. In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continued to deny blacks their citizenship rights. Democrats responded by forming the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) to enforce the Democrat Party platform, control elections, impose segregation and suppress the black vote.

* In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship for all in Federal law.

100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of their citizenship, especially the right to vote.

* In 1868, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

* From 1866–1875, the REPUBLICAN Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

During the 1960s, bureaucrats misinterpreted the 14th Amendment to include the babies of tourists and illegals. Few Americans questioned it - until now. . .

Birthright Not The Law, Never Has Been

It should not take a Constitutional Attorney to explain to us that babies born in the U.S. to foreign parents, under the Fourteenth Amendment, do not have ‘birthright,’ the right to U.S. natural-born citizenship. But so many judges and courts have been in this fight that the lines are terribly and dangerously blurred. Ken Klukowski, a practicing constitutional attorney, and the legal editor at Breitbart offers his answer.

READ MORE

ANCHORS AWAY

What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about “Birthright Citizenship”?

LIBRARY OF LAW AND LIBERTY - Excerpt:

Now, in fairness, other respected commentators take a contrary position, including the conservative attorney James Ho. But a considerable body of scholarship supports the view that the Citizenship Clause does not compel birthright citizenship, and that the current practice could be corrected by legislation, pursuant to Congress’ power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Contrary to the assertions of some (including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist), amending the 14th Amendment is not required. In fact, such legislation has been introduced in the past—for example, S.1351 (1993), H.R.1567 (2003), H.R.140 (2015)—and supported by Republicans and Democrats. That includes former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who stated in 1993 that “no sane country” would grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants solely because they were born on American soil. In Oforji, Judge Posner stated that “I hope [H.R.1567] passes.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The oft-cited United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) involved the offspring of a Chinese couple present in the United States legally. And the frequently cited language from Plyler v. Doe (1982)—a 5 to 4 decision written by the activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a strong authority—is dicta contained in a footnote! Automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants is an anomaly; the United States and Canada are the only developed countries in the world to recognize it. No European country does. American voters overwhelmingly oppose birthright citizenship, by almost 2 to 1 according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Regardless whether one supports Donald Trump for President, he has raised an important issue and provoked a long overdue discussion of the subject of birthright citizenship. For that, he deserves credit.

READ MORE

Jeffrey Toobin, alleged to be a “CNN Senior Legal Analyst”, gave a clearly false description of Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen”.

Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.

Well whaddya expect from someone who has an "anal fixation"! (Not that there's anything wrong with that...)

ANCHOR BABIES ARE NOT LEGAL CITIZENS!!!

Babies BORN to ILLEGAL ALIEN FEMALES are NOT citizens of the USA. Being American BORN is not the same as being an American BORN CITIZEN. It takes a citizen to MAKE A CITIZEN. These Illegal Alien FEMALES and their illegal alien infants are all ILLEGAL. Dispite the fact that the baby is BORN on American SOIL while the mother is illegally in the USA or drops her bundle of joy at the border!

Now we have these illegal anchor babies MARCHING down our streets in Arizona demanding rights for their parents and FIGHTING against the rule of law! Why you ask? Because THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY A US CITIZEN. If they were they would not have to FIGHT for their parents.

Show me where in the Constitution it states that an infant or a teenager can pass on citizenship to their adult parent? You won't find it!

A child cannot pass down citizenship! A parent, a legal US parent bestows those rights unto their children.

Wake up folks! Mothers Against Illegal Aliens/Mothers Against Illegal Amnesty has been warning you about these children. They are not American citizens and now they are reacting to violence and threats to stay with their parents in the USA.

The 14th Amendment is critical to protecting our border and our nation and our legal children's VOTE!

Remember every one of these illegal alien anchor babies gets a VOTE in the USA! Imagine that! They will out vote YOU!

MOTHERS AGAINST ILLEGAL AMNESTY

Re: Children born of illegal immigrants...

Exclusive: Are Children Born of Illegal Immigrants US Citizens?

SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS RACIST ORIGINS OF GUN CONTROL

By Frances Rice

How ironic that, on the day former exalted cyclop of the Ku Klux Klan Democrat Senator Robert Byrd died, the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the gun control laws that are embedded firmly in the Democratic Party's racist roots.

At the heart of the McDonald v. City of Chicago case that is posted on the US Supreme Count's Internet site is the Court's decision that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution - that was pushed through by Republicans after the Civil War, led by Republican Senator Charles Sumner - is the anchor that binds state and local governments to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Otis McDonald, one of the plaintiffs, is a black man who just wanted to have the right to protect himself from criminals who terrorized him in his home with frequent break-ins. The only current black US Supreme Court member, Justice Clarence Thomas who was appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush, courageously delved into the racist origins of gun control laws to demonstrate that such laws have no place in a nation of free people. The liberal justices on the Court, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor who was appointed last year by Democrat President Barack Obama, voted against the black plaintiff and his fellow Chicago residents.

The McDonald case provides a bird eye's view of the history of Democratic Party racism. Referenced in the Court's opinion is the 1856 Republican Party Platform that includes language about the "right of the people to keep and bear arms." A key source used by the Court is the book "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863-1877" by Dr. Eric Foner whose biography can be found on the Internet.

Forner's book reveals how, before the Civil War ended, Southern States enacted "Slave Codes" that prohibited slaves from owning firearms. After Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves in the rebelling States, and after Republicans pushed through the Thirteenth Amendment freeing all the remaining slaves, Democrats in the South persisted in keeping the newly freed slaves from owning the means to protect themselves - guns.

The Supreme Court in the McDonald decision wrote about how, after the Civil War, the Southern States started passing laws, called "Black Codes", to systematically disarm blacks, specifically the over 180,000 blacks who returned to the States of the old Confederacy after serving in the Union Army. In response to the "Black Codes," the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. But the Democrats would not be deterred. Very soon after the 1866 law was enacted, Alabama, followed by other Southern States, again passed "Black Codes" that made it illegal for blacks to own firearms.

Cited by the Court in the McDonald case, as an example of such a discriminatory code, is the Mississippi law that stated: "no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife." In one Southern town, according to the Supreme Court, the marshal confiscated the weapons of the returning black Union soldiers and, at every opportunity, promptly shot black people.

The Court's McDonald decision records that: "Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves". In his book about Reconstruction, Dr. Foner revealed that in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan was started as a Tennessee social club. The Klan then became a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party and spread into other Southern States, launching a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders, black and white. The Klan would "order the colored men to give up their arms; saying that everybody would be Kukluxed in whose house fire-arms were found".

In the McDonald decision, the Court pointed out how the Republican-controlled Congress, while debating the Fourteenth Amendment, referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Republican Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three "indispensable" "safeguards of liberty under our form of Government", one of which was the right to keep and bear arms. Pomeroy said: "Every man . . . should have the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretchedness will forever remain complete".

Pomeroy's words reflect exactly the sentiment expressed by Otis McDonald when he and his fellow Chicagoans filed a law suit against the Democrat-controlled City of Chicago that had confiscated their weapons, leaving them to the mercy of intruders who had broken open his door and entered his home for vile purposes.

Frances Rice, a retired lawyer and Army Lieutenant Colonel, is chairman of the National Black Republican Association and may be contacted here.

KABA: What it really means

"KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

I received this today from Robert A. Gismondi--a very well-informed, experienced, ex-Army guy:

McDonald vs. Chicago has been decided in favor of McDonald. Now honest citizens can be armed in Chicago, instead of just criminals. (McDonald is an elderly black man living in Chicago, who has been menaced by criminals.)

I checked CNN when Fox went to commercial and who should appear but Jeffrey Toobin. He said that this decision reverses the opinions of legal scholars, apparently for the last 40 years. What Jeffrey, like Zerobama, does not seem to know, is that before then, when the socialist/collectivist/statist/fascists began to take control of public education, universities, law schools, and the media, it had been understood since the founding of our nation (actually it pre-dates the founding) that there is an individual right to KABA. In England, the right was recognized, as long as you were not Roman Catholic. Later, the right was extended to them as well. Of course, that was then.

The extent of "liberal" lies never fails to impress me!

The usual suspects reporting indicate that the Supremes have "extended" the right to KABA. That is male bovine exrementum. They extended nothing; they merely explicitly recognized what was common understanding for hundreds of years.

Even the WSJ has its biases (on the news side.) I expect that the NRA, fast mover that it is, will have a report, oh, perhaps Friday or Saturday.

For Cah-lee-FWAR-nya, there will be many lawsuits, as a result of the decision. The fascists are like Islamist terrorists; they are fanatics, and never give up.

However, I think this ruling invalidates, generally, the requirement in Cah-lee-FWAR-nya to lock up firearms. If you cannot have access to your piece, it does no good.

As everyone knows, the Fourteenth Amendment extended all individual rights to freed slaves, including the right to KABA. And, it explicitly applied to the states. Associate Justice Alito's majority opinion made a point of that concept.

. . . The right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “’No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’”

Majority Decision, Justice Alito

The complete decision:

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/08-1521-1.pdf

A brief article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426.html

Real "Gun Control" means: A good stance, proper grip, the right sight picture, and smooth trigger technique.

After reading it, I happened upon this cool site:
www.keepandbeararms.com

Susan B. Anthony: 3/13/1906

Susan B. Anthony, whose face is on a U.S. dollar coin, died MARCH 13, 1906.

Raised a Quaker, her father owned a cotton mill and refused to buy cotton from farmers who owned slaves. Susan B. Anthony's religious upbringing instilled in her the concept that every one is equal before God and motivated her to crusade for freedom for slaves and a woman's right to vote. Opposing liquor, drunkenness and abortion, Susan encountered mobs, armed threats, objects thrown at her and was hung in effigy.

After the Civil War, Susan B. Anthony worked hard for the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. She succeeded in having women admitted to the University of Rochester and was arrested for voting in the 1872 Presidential Election.

Fourteen years after her death, women won the right to vote. Quoted in The Revolution, July 1869, Susan B. Anthony stated: "I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder...No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! Thrice guilty is he who...drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime."

American Minute with Bill Federer

When Obama was born, under 1948 British Nationality Act, both he and father were British subjects/citizens. In 1963 they both became Kenyan citizens.

When President Obama was born in 1961, under the British Nationality Act 1948, both his father and he were British subjects/citizens. In 1963, they both became Kenyan citizens. In fact, Mr. Obama’s father was never even a legal resident or immigrant of America. Hence, regardless of where Mr. Obama was born or that he may be a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment, he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President. This ineligibility has absolutely nothing to do with his race or class but all to do with his being born with multiple citizenships and allegiances and not satisfying the strict eligibility requirements of Article II. If someone believes that today the “natural born Citizen” clause no longer serves any useful purpose, then the proper way to change or abandon it is by way of constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, not by usurpation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.”

Read more about the lawsuit here:

Read the whole article at Citizen Wells