Showing posts with label patriotpost blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patriotpost blog. Show all posts
Friday, October 5, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Saturday, November 19, 2011
PATRIOT POST IS TOO GOOD NOT TO SCAN AND READ TONIGHT - SO YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CLICK A LINK - HERE IT IS!
 |
| November 19, 2011 |
|
| Unapologetically American T-Shirt Show YOUR True Colors...   Established 1776. Sizes: Small-XXXL • Color: Black • Gildan 100% Preshrunk CottonRETAIL |
NEW: Come & Take It T-Shirt Come and take it was a slogan used in the Texas Revolution in 1835. In March 1831, Juan Gomez, a Lieutenant in the Mexican Army, worked alongside Tadeo Ortiz, a consul at Bordeaux, France, and granted a small cannon to the colony of San Antonio. |
| BUY ONE, GET ONE FREE!!! This Chick is Packin' 2012 Calendar RETAIL  Ever wish you had a tasteful, classy calendar showing REAL women with their guns - one you could show off to anyone? No hiding it from the kids. No wives getting mad at this calendar - heck - they'll love displaying this beautiful tribute to the chicks that are packin'! This is for the women whose childhood hero was Annie Oakley. This is for the women who know that we don't all look like half-starved cityslicker models - and that's ok! This calendar is a tribute to the women who know what a gun is, how to use it, and how to look good doing it. This 12x12 calendar is beautifully designed and a clear demonstration of women embracing their 2nd Amendment rights.  Featuring historical quotes on the Constitutional right to bear arms and major US Holidays, this calendar promises to be the hottest gift of the 2011 holiday season! Not only will you have an awesome, one-of-a-kind calendar, you'll also get OVER $100 IN COUPONS! Each month includes a special coupon code such as "$3 off every item in your order during March" or "10% off all apparel in April." January gives you free shipping on any order and May gives you $5 off any order over $25! With over $100 in instant savings during 2012, not only will your walls be decorated in style and Patriotic fervor, but your wallet will be fatter! This is our way of saying Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
RETAIL |
 |
| Your chance to be heard... Be a part of history. Participate in developing a Tea Party Platform for the 2012 Election on The Patriot Cruise. When our founding fathers met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, it was hot, humid, and contentious. Even so, what they emerged with changed the world. A new opportunity for change will take place on January 8-15, 2012, but this time the weather and accommodations will be like a well-deserved vacation. In fact, it will be a vacation from the poisoned media world of politics! While we're changing the world in the development of a Tea Party Platform for next year's election, we'll also be sailing on the Mariner of the Seas, one of the World's largest cruise ships. We'll leave Galveston, Texas, on January 8th and visit Cozumel, Mexico, George Town, Grand Cayman, and Falmouth, Jamaica. While at sea, your input will build the Tea Party Platform to help build an electoral charge that will shape the way politics is done. You weren't present in Philadelphia when James Madison, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and 51 other constitutional founders drafted the Constitution, but you can make up for it by joining us in January to help draft a document that will put our nation's elected and soon-to-be elected political leaders on notice that we have had enough of their constitutional violations. This is your chance to make your voice heard. You've read, studied, and debated. Now it's time to put your hard work to paper. Register Today at http://www.PatriotCruise.com/pd! Sessions have been created for you to take an active part in making history once again. In addition to a written document that will be sent to every member of Congress, the President, and those who will be running in 2012, we will give you an opportunity to make a personal appeal to constitutional sanity through a video production put together by our talented video team. You have two months to think about what you want to say. Keep in short. Keep it respectful. Register Today at http://www.PatriotCruise.com/pd! |
| © 2011 The Patriot Update & The Patriot Depot - A Division of Liberty Alliance, LLC 3150-A Florence Rd . Suite #1 . Powder Springs, GA 30127 |
Get The Hat!
Thursday, October 27, 2011
PATRIOT POST'S 2012 GOP CANDIDATE RATINGS AND COMMENTS
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/10/27/the-patriots-2012-gop-candidate-ratings/#commentform
Read the comments for Ron Paul!
Ron Paul for President!
Read the comments for Ron Paul!
Ron Paul for President!
Monday, August 22, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Thursday, August 26, 2010
ALEXANDER'S ESSAY - BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP (FROM THE WONDERFUL PATRIOT POST)
Alexander's Essay – August 26, 2010
Birthright Citizenship?
Only if your mother was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (Ciudadanía por Nacimiento -- sólo si su madre estaba sujeta a su jurisdicción)
"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed andpersecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington
Coming to America
Given the far-reaching implications of illegal immigration, and more recently the Left's objections to enforcing immigration law in border states like Arizona, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is receiving some long-overdue attention.
Like every contemporary political debate, the questions raised concerning the meaning of the 14th Amendment are, essentially, about whether we are a nation subject to Rule of Law codified in our Constitution, or we are subjects under the rule of men, subject to a "living constitution" amended primarily by judicial diktat and legislative mischief, rather than amended by the people, as prescribed in Article V.
Does the 14th Amendment mean what its framers intended and the states ratified, or does it mean whatever the courts and Congress have construed it to mean today?
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which pertains to immigration and naturalization, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
To discern the authentic meaning of this amendment as originally intended by its framers, we must first start with its plain language, and then further examine the context under which it was proposed and passed. Any debate about the authority of our Constitution must begin with First Principles, original intent.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
This language is plain and easily understood.
"[A]nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This language, too, is plain and easily understood, unless there is a contemporary Leftist political agenda, which does not comport with that understanding, in which case benefactors and beneficiaries of that agenda will interpret (read: misconstrue) it to fit their purposes.
So, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually mean? Beyond the apparent plain language definition, a factual interpretation is supported by the context in which this amendment was framed and ratified.
After the War Between the States, freedmen (former slaves) may have been liberated by Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, but they didn't enjoy the same rights as those who freed them. Though slaves were in the United States legally, and thus, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," they had no assurance of equal rights.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to rectify this injustice by noting in part, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
The first definition of "citizenship" in legal references is "nationality or legal status of citizenship."
The 1866 act defined "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" as all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring.
However, concern that the Act might be overturned by a future Congress motivated its sponsors to make it more resistant to the arbitrary rule of men, so they proposed the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which upon ratification, would protect the provision of the 1866 Act from legislatures and the courts.
Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
According to University of Texas legal scholar Lino Graglia, the second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
Thus, in the plain language of its author, those who are not born to American citizens have no birthright to citizenship.
Despite the confidence of the 14th Amendment's authors that it wouldn't be subject to legislative and judicial mischief, subsequent generations of legislatures and judges have so twisted its plain language as to all but alienate it from its original intent -- as they have likewise done with the rest of our Constitution.
For that reason, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is now proposing a measure to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause by way of another amendment.
The problem is that Boehner and likeminded conservatives still erroneously rely on the Rule of Law, an assumption that our Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the land. Unfortunately, it has been thoroughly subordinated to the rule of men.
Where does that leave the birthright citizenship debate?
Today, more than 20 percent of all children born in the United States are born to those who have entered the United States unlawfully, and who are, by any authentic definition of the 14th Amendment, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are not citizens. Yet Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie assert that the "anchor babies" of illegal immigrants are owed all the entitlements of an American citizen.
The near-term consequences of this fallacious assertion have dire implications for the future of Liberty, for the Rule of Law, and for the very survival of our nation. But this is consistent with Obama's "fundamental transformation" agenda to break the back of free enterprise, which is essential to liberty.
In 1776, Benjamin Franklin,John Adams and Thomas Jefferson proposed the national motto, "E pluribus unum" ("Out of many, one"), but that unity will not last much longer if we do not take dramatic action to restore the Rule of Law.
In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: "We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Indeed.
Now, writes Graglia, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry," making a child born to that immigrant "an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state."
For the record, according to both the Justice Department and Homeland Security, "A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."
So, according to current laws and regulations, consistent with the original intent of both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment as duly ratified on 9 July 1868, the child of a diplomat born in the United States, though that diplomat is legally on U.S. soil, has no birthright entitlement to citizenship.
However, according to Obama and his Leftist cadres, inconsistent with both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, a child born to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally has a birthright entitlement to citizenship.
Which will it be, then: Rule of Law or the rule of Obama?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Click Here
New! Border Patrol hat
Add some fun to your hat collection with our new Border Patrol hat in olive green. Made from 100% cotton twill with gold raised embroidery and a velcro closure in back featuring "Border Patrol" in gold lettering.
(To submit reader comments click here.)
Opinion
* Jeff Jacoby: Lift Embargo on Cuba? Not So Fast
* Michael Reagan: Obama Making Everybody Angry
* Ann Coulter: MSNBC Swears to Allah That Obama's Not a Muslim
* Ben Shapiro: Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
* Victor Davis Hanson: The Dangerous Dog Days of Summer
* R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Future for a Radical
* Matt Towery: Come November, Will There Be a Democratic Tree Left in the Forest?
* Cal Thomas: Lower Expectations
* Larry Elder: What About the Stupid Lies Democrats Believe?
* Paul Greenberg: Rare Sighting: Common Sense from the Bench
* Michael Barone: Redistricting Could Prolong the Democrats' Pain
* George Will: The Peace Process Mirage
* John Stossel: Where Are the New Jobs?
* Tony Blankley: Prelude to Appeasement
* Jonah Goldberg: Islamophobia? Not really
More Opinion
Patriot Headlines
* Obama Education Grants Politicized, School Choice Advocates Say
* CBO Report: Hard to Say How Many Jobs Really Saved by Stimulus
* Permit Denied for Mosque in Former Hot Dog Grill in Chicago
* Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Mosque Could Accommodate 1,000 Worshippers
* Texas Fights Global-Warming Power Grab
* New Jobless Claims Drop for First Time in 4 Weeks
* Dem. Sen. Bennet: Trillions in Debt and 'We Have Nothing to Show for It'
* Migrants Turn to the Sea to Enter U.S. Illegally
* Feds Moving to Dismiss Some Deportation Cases
* GOP Seizes on Private-Public Pay Gap as a Midterm Election Issue
* Glenn Beck Rally Will Be a Measure of the Tea Party's Strength
* Democrats Privately Fear House Prospects Worsening
More Headlines
Policy
* The Heritage Foundation
* The Cato Institute
* Hoover Institution
* National Rifle Association
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* National Center for Policy Analysis
(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)
Birthright Citizenship?
Only if your mother was "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (Ciudadanía por Nacimiento -- sólo si su madre estaba sujeta a su jurisdicción)
"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed andpersecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington
Coming to America
Given the far-reaching implications of illegal immigration, and more recently the Left's objections to enforcing immigration law in border states like Arizona, the 14th Amendment of our Constitution is receiving some long-overdue attention.
Like every contemporary political debate, the questions raised concerning the meaning of the 14th Amendment are, essentially, about whether we are a nation subject to Rule of Law codified in our Constitution, or we are subjects under the rule of men, subject to a "living constitution" amended primarily by judicial diktat and legislative mischief, rather than amended by the people, as prescribed in Article V.
Does the 14th Amendment mean what its framers intended and the states ratified, or does it mean whatever the courts and Congress have construed it to mean today?
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which pertains to immigration and naturalization, reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
To discern the authentic meaning of this amendment as originally intended by its framers, we must first start with its plain language, and then further examine the context under which it was proposed and passed. Any debate about the authority of our Constitution must begin with First Principles, original intent.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
This language is plain and easily understood.
"[A]nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This language, too, is plain and easily understood, unless there is a contemporary Leftist political agenda, which does not comport with that understanding, in which case benefactors and beneficiaries of that agenda will interpret (read: misconstrue) it to fit their purposes.
So, what does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" actually mean? Beyond the apparent plain language definition, a factual interpretation is supported by the context in which this amendment was framed and ratified.
After the War Between the States, freedmen (former slaves) may have been liberated by Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, but they didn't enjoy the same rights as those who freed them. Though slaves were in the United States legally, and thus, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," they had no assurance of equal rights.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was designed to rectify this injustice by noting in part, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
The first definition of "citizenship" in legal references is "nationality or legal status of citizenship."
The 1866 act defined "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" as all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring.
However, concern that the Act might be overturned by a future Congress motivated its sponsors to make it more resistant to the arbitrary rule of men, so they proposed the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which upon ratification, would protect the provision of the 1866 Act from legislatures and the courts.
Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (the Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
According to University of Texas legal scholar Lino Graglia, the second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Sen. Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."
Thus, in the plain language of its author, those who are not born to American citizens have no birthright to citizenship.
Despite the confidence of the 14th Amendment's authors that it wouldn't be subject to legislative and judicial mischief, subsequent generations of legislatures and judges have so twisted its plain language as to all but alienate it from its original intent -- as they have likewise done with the rest of our Constitution.
For that reason, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is now proposing a measure to restore the original intent of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause by way of another amendment.
The problem is that Boehner and likeminded conservatives still erroneously rely on the Rule of Law, an assumption that our Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the land. Unfortunately, it has been thoroughly subordinated to the rule of men.
Where does that leave the birthright citizenship debate?
Today, more than 20 percent of all children born in the United States are born to those who have entered the United States unlawfully, and who are, by any authentic definition of the 14th Amendment, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are not citizens. Yet Barack Hussein Obama and his Socialist Bourgeoisie assert that the "anchor babies" of illegal immigrants are owed all the entitlements of an American citizen.
The near-term consequences of this fallacious assertion have dire implications for the future of Liberty, for the Rule of Law, and for the very survival of our nation. But this is consistent with Obama's "fundamental transformation" agenda to break the back of free enterprise, which is essential to liberty.
In 1776, Benjamin Franklin,
In 1919, Theodore Roosevelt penned these words: "We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Indeed.
Now, writes Graglia, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry," making a child born to that immigrant "an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state."
For the record, according to both the Justice Department and Homeland Security, "A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."
So, according to current laws and regulations, consistent with the original intent of both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment as duly ratified on 9 July 1868, the child of a diplomat born in the United States, though that diplomat is legally on U.S. soil, has no birthright entitlement to citizenship.
However, according to Obama and his Leftist cadres, inconsistent with both the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, a child born to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally has a birthright entitlement to citizenship.
Which will it be, then: Rule of Law or the rule of Obama?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Click Here
New! Border Patrol hat
Add some fun to your hat collection with our new Border Patrol hat in olive green. Made from 100% cotton twill with gold raised embroidery and a velcro closure in back featuring "Border Patrol" in gold lettering.
(To submit reader comments click here.)
Opinion
* Jeff Jacoby: Lift Embargo on Cuba? Not So Fast
* Michael Reagan: Obama Making Everybody Angry
* Ann Coulter: MSNBC Swears to Allah That Obama's Not a Muslim
* Ben Shapiro: Is Barack Obama a Muslim?
* Victor Davis Hanson: The Dangerous Dog Days of Summer
* R. Emmett Tyrrell: The Future for a Radical
* Matt Towery: Come November, Will There Be a Democratic Tree Left in the Forest?
* Cal Thomas: Lower Expectations
* Larry Elder: What About the Stupid Lies Democrats Believe?
* Paul Greenberg: Rare Sighting: Common Sense from the Bench
* Michael Barone: Redistricting Could Prolong the Democrats' Pain
* George Will: The Peace Process Mirage
* John Stossel: Where Are the New Jobs?
* Tony Blankley: Prelude to Appeasement
* Jonah Goldberg: Islamophobia? Not really
More Opinion
Patriot Headlines
* Obama Education Grants Politicized, School Choice Advocates Say
* CBO Report: Hard to Say How Many Jobs Really Saved by Stimulus
* Permit Denied for Mosque in Former Hot Dog Grill in Chicago
* Ground Zero Mosque Developer: Mosque Could Accommodate 1,000 Worshippers
* Texas Fights Global-Warming Power Grab
* New Jobless Claims Drop for First Time in 4 Weeks
* Dem. Sen. Bennet: Trillions in Debt and 'We Have Nothing to Show for It'
* Migrants Turn to the Sea to Enter U.S. Illegally
* Feds Moving to Dismiss Some Deportation Cases
* GOP Seizes on Private-Public Pay Gap as a Midterm Election Issue
* Glenn Beck Rally Will Be a Measure of the Tea Party's Strength
* Democrats Privately Fear House Prospects Worsening
More Headlines
Policy
* The Heritage Foundation
* The Cato Institute
* Hoover Institution
* National Rifle Association
* Ludwig von Mises Institute
* National Center for Policy Analysis
(Please pray for our Armed Forces standing in harm's way around the world, and for their families -- especially families of those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who granted their lives in defense of American liberty.)
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
PATRIOT POST TODAY - TOO GOOD NOT TO READ THE WHOLE THING
http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/06/09/chronicle/
From Helen Thomas apologists to a kick in Obama's "ass" remark - it's good reading today.
Check out the quotes.
From Helen Thomas apologists to a kick in Obama's "ass" remark - it's good reading today.
Check out the quotes.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
The Patriot Post is so full of info today, it's got to be read. You'll get lost in the sidebar!
http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/02/08/brief/
This link is to an article about the squandering of $2.5 million for an ad on the Super Bowl for the Census Bureau. Taxpayer money, y'all. (Remember, the census does not have the legal right to ask anything but how many people live at your residence.)
But check out the other material (while you can). This issue is great.
This link is to an article about the squandering of $2.5 million for an ad on the Super Bowl for the Census Bureau. Taxpayer money, y'all. (Remember, the census does not have the legal right to ask anything but how many people live at your residence.)
But check out the other material (while you can). This issue is great.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)