Category Archives: In The News

Birthright “Jus soli” Citizenship Only Applied to State Citizenship Prior to March 26, 1790

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, In The News, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material March 6, 2011

There has been much hubbub in and around the lame-stream media airwaves as well as bloggers of all political affiliations regarding birthright citizen aka anchor babies. Now while much of it is coming from hosts that I respect; they just happen to not quite be the true constitutional conservatives they claim to be.  None the less, we are all entitled to our own opinions, however as the old saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”. Especially when one can not substantiate one’s own facts with evidence that can be corroborated by independent researchers. 

One of the 1st pieces of evidence that was brought to my attention nearly 3 years ago and hundreds of hours of research since was the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins in which Justice Gray stated in the deciding opinion of the court.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Gray is merely reiterating the deciding opinion written by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons” born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction” are.

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

And the 14th Amendment is merely the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ratified as a constitutional amendment with the 1866 Act itself remaining in tact and acting as the chief language used to enforce the citizenship laws until 1940 when Congress finally consolidated the two laws into one. We’ll touch more on this in a bit,  but until then make a note that  Title 8 of the US Code defining persons who were born citizens read as follows in the highlighted opening of the 1866 Act until 1940.

“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.”

In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

Thus, the Slaughter-House dicta was adopted in the holding of the opinion in the Elk case.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

And this is where most of the pundits derail themselves in reference to children born to aliens on US soil. They claim that only children born to ambassadors or diplomats are not “subject to the jurisdiction”. It is very clear here that the Supreme Court justices, including those who held dissenting opinions, determined unanimously that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” did not pertain to children born on US soil to aliens regardless of thei parents political duty to their country of allegiance.

Yes, prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, citizenship & immigration was controlled wholly by the individual states and the laws were as vast as there were states. While some held fast to the old English custom of feudal doctrine, many did not and they adopted the natural law, “jus sanguinis” in accordance with the Declaration of Independence which was also the law adopted by the US Constitution & the US Naturalization laws.

“ When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”

Case in point, the 1779 citizenship laws of Virginia.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Already in 1779, even before the “Treaty of Paris” (1783) we see that the state of Virginia had cast off the feudal doctrine of birthright “jus soli” allegiance and children born in Virgina to aliens not yet naturalized were themselves aliens born. Thomas Jefferson was Governor of Virginia at the time and the drafting of this law is attributed to him. He also was the Secretary of State under Washington until he resigned in 1793. Jefferson was a stickler for detail in order that there would be absolutely no obfuscation of the intent of the laws and he carried it with him into the Presidency in 1801. In 1802 the US Congress revised the Naturalization laws, repealing the Alien & Sedition Acts put in place by Adams as well as clarifying important aspects of the Naturalization law.

In my most recent research of the Congressional Globe (H/T to bushpilot1 at Free Republic for directing me specifically to the 28th Congressional debates) I finally found specific reference to the much important Naturalization Act of 1802.

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

That last part intrigued me as I had read the 1802 Act several times but had never latched onto the pertinent part of the Act which states:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

Under the Article of Confederation, the states & their citizenship & naturalization laws were independent of each other; each acting separately & wholly for the benefit of the individual state as if it was an independent nation in & of itself under the Laws of Nations. Birthright “jus soli” citizenship only pertained to state citizenship proffered to children born to aliens within the states that kept the feudal law in place prior to the adoption of the US Constitution & prior to the passing of the 1790 Naturalization Act. Therefore, children born to aliens on US soil prior to AND after the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not become US citizens until their parents, themselves finalized their immigration process & became US citizens as US citizenship did not exist until the ratification of the US Constitution.

According to Black’s Law, laws are to be specific and not made to create “Repugnancy” (Black’s Law 1171 5th Ed) Rule of Civil Proc. 8 ) if they refer to similar subject matter as did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the 14th Amendment that remained in place at the same time for 72 years. When the 1866 Civil Rights Act was consolidated with the 14th Amendment in 1940, it was a matter of common sense jurisprudence that a formal change in the verbiage of Title 8, from “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction”, needed to be made to reflect the verbiage of the law still in place. Not because the Civil Rights Act was repugnant, but because Congress finally made the decision that since the 1866 Act was constitutionalized by the amendment process, the law no longer needed to remain in place as the other aspects of the Act had been formally transferred to different sections of the US Code pertaining specifically to other civil rights. Also, parts such as expatriation had also been transferred & reflected in Title 22 under foreign affairs while some parts of the expatriation act still remain under Title 8.

Title 8> Chapter 1> §§ 1-18. Repealed or Omitted

These sections, relating to citizenship, were affected by the Nationality Act of 1940, former section 501 et seq. of this title.

That act was passed on Oct. 14, 1940, to consolidate and restate the laws of the United States regarding citizenship, naturalization, and expatriation, and, in addition to certain specific repeals thereby, all acts or parts of acts in conflict with its provisions were repealed by former section 904 of this title. See the notes below for history of individual sections.

Section 1, relating to citizenship of persons born in the United States, was repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, § 504, 54 Stat. 1172. It was from R.S. § 1992, which was revised from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27. Similar provisions were contained in former section 601 (a) of this title. See section 1401 of this title. [emphasis mine]

And that is where I will close, with the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” approved by Congress on July 27, 1868 that denounces any claim, notion or concept that the United States does or ever did adopt & recognize any form of dual nationality & that the Law of Nations as adopted by the United States government is the common law of the national government as it is the only law that remains constant when dealing with independent & sovereign states under a Republican form of government.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Therefore, the 14th Amendment along with its sister act, “The Expatriation Act of 1868, any “claims” that there was anything such as dual citizenship was finally & formally declared to be inconsistent with the principles of our Republican form of government; and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” as ratified by the states has always meant “owing allegiance exclusively to the United States”. Birth on US soil & US citizenship are not naturally inclusive terms unless born to parent(S) (plural) who do not owe allegiance to any foreign nation. All others fall under the naturalization clauses of Title 8 and are citizens by statute, not by nature, thus they can never claim to be “natural born” US citizens. At most, they are naturalized citizens per old English feudal law as shown in Sec 214 of the law of nations. At the least, they are foreigners permitted to settle & stay in the country under Sec 213 of the law of nations. These persons may be citizens of their local community; but still owing direct allegiance to their home country, they & their children therefore are not US citizens for constitutional purposes.

Law of Nations Bk 1

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted at other blogs without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.

Jeremiah 5:5-6

So I will go to the leaders
and speak to them;
surely they know the way of the LORD,
the requirements of their God.”
But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
and torn off the bonds.
Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them,
a wolf from the desert will ravage them,
a leopard will lie in wait near their towns
to tear to pieces any who venture out,
for their rebellion is great
and their backslidings many.

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

In The News October 9, 2010

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

Oh how this rings true for today’s times.  We are not far from our founding in years, but oh so far from its founding principles that the chains of oppression are felt daily. Can we make it back? Only God knows. Say a prayer for His will to be done.

Kevin Woster Live chat with U.S. House candidate Chris Nelson…How Insulting Could it Get?

Corruption, Educational Material, Elections, In The News, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed May 11, 2010

Kevin Woster of the Rapid City Journal held a online live chat with SD SOS Chris Nelson today regarding his work during the 2008 elections and the repeated requests from constituents like myself who questioned “JUST WHO CONFIRMED OBAMA WAS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO BE ON OUR BALLOTS HERE IN SD”?  There were also questions regarding Nelson’s stance on certain current issues of the day including but not limited to:

“NELSONS’ HAIRCUT STYLE”:

[12:59] [Comment From Voter Voter : ] 

You would look younger if you changed your haircut. Why is your hair so conservative?

[1:00] Because I am conservative. Guess the hair matches the guy!

I guess the prescreened lib commenter doesn’t approve of conservative haircuts. Also obviously prescreened was the type of question to be asked & how it was to be asked.

Woster a few days ago asked a question of Nelson as well as the other candidates running for the US House seat for SD on Obama’s qualifications which was picked up by the Washington ComPost as well as my conservative patriots at WorldNetDaily(WND). Nelson’s response was:

[M]eeting the constitutional qualifications to be President is a very important issue. If President Obama isn’t constitutionally qualified, it would be the biggest scam ever perpetuated on the American people. MANY people contacted me as Secretary of State prior to and after the election asking how Obama could be on our ballot given this controversy. Absent a court finding that he isn’t a natural born citizen, we have to take the certification from the National Democratic Convention at face value.

OK, so Nelson took the certification from the DNC at face value that Obama was qualified. Now I want the readers to see that certification for yourselves and tell me what in this document would lead you to take at its face value that the “WON” was qualified:

2008-SD DNC and RNC Party-Election Certifications

 “Nominated” a couple of guys, CHECK! But I just can’t seem to grasp where they were actually qualified as eligible under the qualifications set forth in the US Constitution.  Did you catch it? NO? Thus I must ask then, “Why for Hawaii but not for the other 49 states in the Union?”

With this continuing to be in the forefront of my mind and with all the newly acquired evidence that disputes Obama’s nativity story, my questions submitted to Nelson were as follows as in all reality, I really can’t see Obama getting removed other than by defeat in the 2012 election. What we have to work on is our citizenship & immigration laws and start holding our elected officials feet to the fire and make them enforce the laws already in place.

question #1 sent at the beginning of the chat(paraphrased as I forgot to copy it before hitting the send button): On March 25, 2010, the Kenyan Parliament recorded in its official record of the day that Obama was born in Kenya and NOT even a Native American. The US has been usurping the citizenship laws for decades. This is the main problem with illegal immigration and our border problem. What will you do to fix these two important issues?

question #2 rephrased & sent at 45 min into the chat: Chris, if elected, what will you do to enforce border control and put an end to the illegal practice of birthright citizenship for children born to aliens/foreigners who are legally & illegally here?

Link to the Official Kenyan Parliament records HERE. Page 31 paragraph 2: If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?

Instead of my 2nd question getting asked, Mr Jim Dittes was allowed a 3rd question which also just happened to be a few minutes after mine was sent in and on the same subject and quite watered down. Boy, sounds the white house press rules doesn’t it? Woster evidently has been taking lessons from Obama & Gibbles.

But I digress. Following up on his previous questioning of the candidates, the 1st questions asked of Nelson regarding Presidential qualifications & Obama’s qualifications during today’s chat were:

[11:59] Chris: Thanks very much for joining us, again. Let’s begin with a question I asked you and the other U.S. House candidates here on Mount Blogmore last week , which has gotten quite a bit of attention. As you know, some people suspect that President Obama might not have actually been born in the United States, in Hawaii, as he contends and his birth records seem to show. Do you doubt he was born in the USA? K.W.

[12:08] That question certainly has generated interest which doesn’t surprise me. Of all the issues I’ve dealt with as Secretary of State I have had more public comment on this question over the last year and a half than any other issue I’ve dealt with.

The most important point I can make is this, I strongly believe that constitutional requirements for any office must be met whether its President or Secretary of State or United States House of Representatives.

The President has met all the requirements to have his name placed on South Dakota’s ballot and be elected by the electoral college. That is my concern as Secretary of State.

Personally, I’ve looked at this from a number of angles and am satisfied that President Obama was born in the United States.

[12:08] Chris: Is that a change of position from what you said last week, or simply a clarification or expansion on it? K.W.

[12:11] No change of position. I said last week that the constitutional qualifications were important. I also said that absent a court ruling otherwise, all the requirements had been met to place the name on our ballot. Last week I did not affirmatively state my personal position which I have today.

[12:11] Chris: Fair enough. I think you’ve said that you heard doubts about the president’s actual birth place from a number of South Dakotans during the 2008 campaign. Do you think a significant number of South Dakotans, and Republicans in particular, have doubts about where the president was born? K.W.

[12:12] I’ve certainly heard from many who have that doubt but I don’t know what percentage of South Dakotans or Republicans would have that doubt.

Hmm, so Nelson admits that the Constitutional requirements for ALL offices must be met, yet he didn’t even bother to check, he just assumed because as we can CLEARLY SEE, the DNC certification did NOT state that he was qualified per the US Constitution as required by DNC bylaws to be on ALL their certification forms. Nice job Chris, Way to Go NOT protecting South Dakota’s ballots and actually doing your job to ensure that the candidates were actually constitutionally qualified.

Finally after the prescreened commenters got their questions asked & somewhat answered, Woster just couldn’t resist getting in another dig:

[1:09] Chris: Let’s end where we began, with the “birther” concerns. Do you believe John Thune was born in Jones County? Or do you think he might actually have been born in Lyman County, and spirited across the border in the middle of the night so he could claim to be a natural-born citizen of Murdo? K.W.

[1:11] Let’s end where I began. As long as Senator Thune is constitutionally qualified to be our United States Senator, it doesn’t matter.
Thanks for the visit!
Chris

[1:11] Chris: OK, but next time, we’re going to ask you to swear that you were born in Aurora County, not Brule County, as some have alleged…. K.W.

Well, lucky for us, Nelson will not be in charge of that task & I certainly hope the next SOS takes their job with a bit more due diligence and seriousness as to these qualifications and the ramifications to our national security & sovereignty if they are allowed to go unchecked. We also now have clear insight into  liberal Kevin Woster view of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

More importantly we know where Nelson stands and how far he will go to cover-up his indiscretion of NOT making sure the candidate was in fact constitutionally qualified by requesting a certified copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate. You know that same form that is required for every child entering school, every person getting a driver’s license, etc, etc. Nope, no checky there, Nelson seems to be very comfortable in passing the buck.

Is this the trait you want for your next US Congressman in DC? Haven’t we already had enough of this “I’m for the Constitution” but the as soon as they are out of sight, they turn their back to it and throw the Constitution as well as their ethics out the window for the sake of political expediency?

You can read the entire online chat here: Live chat with US congressional candidate Chris Nelson, currently the SD Sec of State

A Constitution Town Hall

In The News January 30, 2010

For those waiting for my next series of articles to start, the wait will be just another couple of days.

Today I am participating in “A Constitution Town Hall” hosted by Hillsdale College :

“Reviving the Constitution”
A Constitution Town Hall, brought to you by the
Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship

I am a subscriber to Hillsdale’s Imprmis  publication, which is free to the public, and the information in it is absolutely fascinating, informational & rewarding. Hillsdale is an entirely, privately funded college that does not accept government funding or government backed student loans, therefore they are not under obligation to shove government propaganda literature down their students throats. They also require all students to learn the Constitution & our conservative founding as a prerequisite for graduation.

The townhall runs from 9am – 3pm EST today and is sure to be jam packed with loads of American history & the background of our founding documents. We were given loads of prior information to read up on and I can’t wait to start taking notes and expanding on my knowledge so that I may pass it on to you. I am especially excited to hear the lecturers speak on citizenship as we know there are big plans for immigration & amnesty behind the closed doors of the statist in Washington. We also know that there are many areas where our government is turning a blind eye to the laws pertaining to aliens, immigration and how certain aliens obtain their US citizenship.

So, come back on Monday & begin a new journey with some fresh perspective.

Sen. Tim Johnson: “I Compromised” , NOT!

Health Care, In The News, US Congress Legislation December 29, 2009 1 Comment

In a much anticipated interview of Sen. Tim Johnson  by Ben Dunsmoor of Keloland news today, Johnson clearly cited where his priorities are:

Senator Johnson says it was a bit of a compromise to vote for the Senate bill because he would have liked to see health care reform that included that public option.

Instead, the Senate bill includes non-profit private plans that would be overseen by the government

Yes, they do not need a public option as long as the government still has control over the insurance companies and can mandate/regulate what they charge for those so called private plans, what they must pay our for and when payments can be made. This is just another backdoor, cleverly disguised way of passing the public option and I can’t believe he thinks so little of the intelligence of his constituents as to think we would fall for this disgusting piece of garbage.

And he obviously also doesn’t feel he needs to follow what he advertises on his Senate webpage. Nope, Nada,  it’s all about the fictional power he believes he has to rule over us.

Sen. Johnson then concludes by citing his requirements for ANY legislation thta he predicts will pass by February:

the final bill must make health care more affordable, decrease the deficit, and eliminate higher costs for patients with pre-existing medical conditions

If this is his true stance then why did he vote on Dec 24, 2009 to pass a bill that does none of the above. In fact, according to the CBO, the Senate bill is worse than the House bill that passed and in fact, the Senate bill will increase deficits, increase medical/health care costs, and it most certainly will increase the cost of health insurance for ALL whom are mandated to buy it.

So, it is all about redistribution in Johnson’s eyes and controlling the lowly little constituents at home while making himself exempt from the mandates.

Have no fear though, it wasn’t all for naught. I hear there is some disguised relief/exemption for SD in the bill for the increases in medicaid that state would have to pick up. A  ‘yes’ vote for Obama nominating his son to a US Attorney’s position with a just announced new chairmanship position in a brand new division  of the US Attorney’s Office?

I’ll let you judge that one for yourself.

 

Could It Be? Charitable Contributions for “HealthScare’?

Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, In The News, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation December 28, 2009

Want a peek at what is in our future if the disastrous & unconstitutional healthscare legislation is passes?

Look no further. Reporting from the Uk  today: Ministers to ‘take control’ of hospital charity cash

Hundreds of millions of pounds of charity donations to hospitals are to be “nationalised” under an NHS accounting change, which critics say will make it easier to slash health budgets.

Ministers are imposing new rules on NHS charities requiring all donations — including those to specialist children and cancer units, local fundraising campaigns, teaching hospitals and local community trusts — to be listed on a hospital’s balance sheet.

The Charities Commission says that this is “wholly inappropriate” because combining the trust and charity accounts will jeopardise the charity’s autonomy and discourage donations.

I guess this is the UK governments way to pay for their ‘care for government coggers’, because I know personally that it is not the hard working people of the UK that enjoy the so called ‘British cadillac health care plan’. I have a friend over there who’s husband was nearly on his death bed and it wasn’t until he could no longer walk across a room without being out of breath, that he finally got the corrective stint he so desperately needed for nearly a year.

This is absolutely disgusting and we must keep fighting against it with every breath we have. The state legislature will be back in session soon and its high time we get them on board in passing some state sovereignty laws, election reform laws, education/indoctrination reform laws, etc, etc to protect us from all the madmen & women in DC who wish to control every last detail of our personal lives.

Will South Dakota State Reps Join The Movement Now Sweeping Across The Nation

Educational Material, In The News December 11, 2009

Via CFP:

by Michael Boldin

In response to what some opponents see as a Congress that doesn’t represent their interests, State Legislators are looking to the nearly forgotten American political tradition of nullification  as a way to reject any potential national health  care program that may be coming from Washington.

In 2010, residents of Arizona will be voting on a State Constitutional Amendment  that would let them effectively opt out of any proposed national health care plan.  Legislatures in Florida, Michigan, Ohio  and Pennsylvania  are also considering similar State Constitutional Amendments.

And now, Missouri is joining them. According to a report in The Missourian, “Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, pre-filed a bill Dec. 1 that, if approved by voters, would effectively put a halt on any national health care legislation. Davis said her intent was to give voters a way to protect themselves.”

(snip)

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

Early nullification movements began with the Virginia  and Kentucky  Resolutions of 1798. These resolutions, secretly authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, asserted that the people of the states, as sovereign entities, could judge for themselves whether the federal government had overstepped its constitutional bounds – to the point of ignoring federal laws.

Virginia and Kentucky passed the resolutions in response to the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided, in part, for the prosecution of anyone who criticized Congress or the President of the United States.

Nullification was regularly called upon by states all over the country in response to everything from higher taxes  to the fugitive slave law of 1850.

Continue here  to read the entire article

The Obama Administration & The ‘Fuller’ Court

Corruption, Educational Material, In The News December 10, 2009

If you have not heard it in mainstream media as of yet, you soon should.

On behalf of the Chrysler dealers, who were illegally forced to close their businesses by the Obama administration’s legal hacks, Leo Donofrio & Stephen Pidgeon have been retained  to represent the dealers in 2 upcoming legal actions and the blogosphere is abuzz over the pending litigation. Especially by those who are still loyal to their messiah.

A lot of discussions are being had as to whether or not these new cases will gain traction. I believe they will and this is why.

In all my research, I seem to have missed one very important legal thesis at the Federalsit Society by PA Madison. Not only does Madison dispute every legal theory the left uses to sanitize Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, Madison brings to light just how corrupt the ‘Fuller’ Court was by blatently disreagarding and bypassing US Laws & the US Constitution in many of their decisions:

By P.A. Madison on December 10, 2006

Updated 3/21/09

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is a notable court ruling for its dramatic departure over an earlier holding in the meaning “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk v. Wilkins. It is also notable for the majorities insistence that the debates in Congress would not be admissible for controlling the meaning of the words.

Reading the majorities opinion in Wong Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here?

Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull. They are also attempting to keep their holding to what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Elk v. Wilkins out of the discussion, or else Wong Kim Ark can’t be said to be a citizen of the United States.

It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:

The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”

Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language. Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes.

An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.”Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.

Sen. Trumbull, who was the author of this national law, said it was his intention “to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.” Additionally, he added if a “negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

However, Gray insists Trumbull really meant to grant citizenship to everyone born due only to the fact they were born on American soil. Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance.

Speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Trumbull goes on to declare: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Howard follows up by stating, “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

The Supreme Court had earlier discussed the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause In the Slaughterhouse cases and noted, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:

The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

In Wong Kim Ark the court reverses itself because the “decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.” But this isn’t the real reason.

The definition for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” handed down in Elk posed a real problem for Wong Kim Ark because Wong’s parents did not owe the United States direct and complete allegiance nor did they possess any political rights. To try and sidestep the judicial meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” found in Elk, Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” found in Elk:

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, “All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…

No longer is anyone required to be completely subject to the United States political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. Gray knew he could not come out and repeat what he had said in Elk because then Wong Kim Ark could not had been found to had been born a citizen of the United States because his parents were not “completely subject to their [United States] political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Instead, they were merely subjects of China residing in California unable to become U.S. citizens by treaty.

When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.

The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”

It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth’s first section (privileges and immunities).

Furthermore, these former slaves could be said to had no political attachment to any other country – meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.” To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.

The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.

It is worth mentioning that it was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Obviously, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.

For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”

There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. §14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship, “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.” The court thought it could get around that by saying Wong Kim Ark was born a citizen of the United States per the Constitution by sweeping the holding in Elk under the carpet.

The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, in the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions the question was who should get the money appropriated as indemnity for spoliations of William Gray’s (Justice Gray’s grandfather) ships? Codman was the administrator of William Gray’s estate and under a 1891 law payments could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”

What did the court do? They did just as they had done in Wong Kim Ark; they simply said forget what the law says because we say payments should go to the “next of kin,” i.e., Justice Horace Gray.

Conclusion

Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause – and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings – leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in order to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine while rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.

In the decision, the court again refers to foreign precedent instead of US Laws:

In the construction of wills and settlements, after considerable conflict of opinion, the established rule of interpretation in England is that the phrase ‘next of kin,’ when found in ulterior limitations, must be understood to mean ‘nearest of kin,’ without regard to the statutes of distribution…What little recent authority there is beyond that of the English courts supports the English view; and, on the whole, we are inclined to adopt it.

So, instead of going to law that was adopted by the US Congress, who is the body who has the authority to write and pass the law, the Fuller Court took it upon itself to overturn Congress and rewrite the law for the benefit of a sitting Supreme Court Justice.

You can read the entire Fuller Court decision here. It is lengthy & delves well beyond the scope of US laws adopted by Congress as well as the US Constitution just as the WKA decision does regarding the 14th Amendment & US Naturalization laws passed by Congress.

“Dirty” Harry Once Again Pulls Race Card On Senate Floor, Distorts History

Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, In The News, US Congress Legislation December 7, 2009

Taking a direct tactic out of the Marxist Alinsky ‘Rules for Radicals’ playbook to try and push support for his ‘StealthScare’ bill to nationalize and take over 1/6th of the US economy, Dirty Harry pulled out the race card this morning:

Let’s review the history Dirty Harry uses as support for his plan. He talks of filibusters in Congress that belated true civil rights reform, which included emancipating the slaves and then of course the Civil Rights Act of 1964; but he never comes out and tells the truth as to who did the fillibustering.

This is the Democratic Platform of 1864:

1864 Presidential Campaign

By 1864, the Country had grown weary of the long and bloody Civil War. Hundreds of thousands of the countries’ best and bravest young men had fallen on the fields of Bull Run, Antietam, Shiloh, and countless more. Many began to think that the war was not worth it, and the price of freedom too great. The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln (Republican) thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin. Unfortunately, after four long years of war, Lincoln’s support was dropping fast, and people were looking for a way out of the war.

With this backdrop, the Democratic Party chose General George McClellan to be their Presidential Candidate at the Chicago National Convention in 1864. The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of “Compromise with the South”, which became known as “The Chicago Platform”. While on its surface the Chicago Platform was seductive in that it promised an immediate cessation of hostilities, and a restoration of the union. What was unsaid in the platform, but clearly implied, was that the “compromise” would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union.  In other words, the Democratic party was ready to “Sell Out” the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives.

The 1864 Democratic Platform began with the words:

Resolved, that in the future, as in the past, we will adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union under the Constitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the States, both Northern and Southern.

Nast wrapped these words around an image of their true meaning, showing men and dogs hunting down runaway slaves. The image to your left presents this portion of the illustration above.

Nast also points out in this drawing that the “people” referred to were clearly the white people. That returning to the Constitution of that day meant a return to a country where Blacks were property, and had no rights. The “Prosperity of the Southern States” clearly was a Democratic Promise to make slavery a permanent institution in the country, in exchange for an end to the Civil War.

Now via left-wing wikipedia, let’s take a glance at the ‘Civil Rights’ activity of the mid 20th century when the next substantial civil rights legislation came to the table via a Republican president after the Democrats had occupied the White House for 2 decades. Keep in mind that the Democrats had also retained control of Congress for most of this time:

In October 1952, the Eisenhower administration declared racial discrimination a national security issue. In How Free is Free? historian Leon Litwack writes:

The restructuring of race relations took on a new urgency, an importance reserved for matters of national security. White supremacy, at least its most blatant and embarrassing manifestations, had become too costly to defend to sustain. In October 1952, when the Justice Department filed an amicus brief in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, it explained the interest of the president and the executive branch in the eventual decision. Nothing less was at stake than the very credibility of the United States in the international anti-Communist struggle. “It is in the context of the present world struggle between freedom and tyranny that the problem of racial discrimination must be viewed… Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” The brief also cited a response from Secretary of State Dean Acheson affirming the importance of this case in the conduct of foreign relations. “The undeniable existence of racial discrimination, he declared, “gives unfriendly governments the most effective kind of ammunition for their propaganda warfare,… and jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.”

The day after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in which segregated (“separate but equal“) schools were ruled to be unconstitutional, Eisenhower told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children. He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. Although both Acts were weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the Civil Rights Act of 1875, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant (another Republican). The “Little Rock Nine” incident of 1957 involved the refusal by Arkansas to honor a Federal court order to integrate the schools. Under Executive Order 10730, Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into Little Rock Central High School, an all-white public school. The integration did not occur without violence. Eisenhower and Arkansas governor Orval Faubus engaged in tense arguments.

HMMMM…’Dirty’ Harry, it’s time you quit spending so much time in ‘O’ blamo’s office. It is not helping your cause and it cetainly is not boosting your intellect.

 

“God Doesn’t Drive Parked Cars”

In The News December 4, 2009

I finally received my copy of ‘Going Rogue” and have managed to begin reading it during breaks from my Christmas gift sewing. Then today my Limbaugh letter arrived and I have to say, it was one I couldn’t put down til the end because it was almost totally dedicated to Limbaugh’s interview of Sarah.

At the closing of the interview, Rush asks Sarah about her quote, “God doesn’t drive parked cars”. What a curious quote this was, so to the answer I immediately went. Here is my paraphrase of Sarah’s explanation of the meaning.

You’ve got to get out there if you want try try to effect change. Make the effort, work hard and throughout the day, do what you believe is the right thing to do. Then put it in His hands because in the end, it is He that is in charge. He has got the whole world in His hands and He doesn’t drive parked cars.

Sarah will be at the Sioux Falls Barnes & Nobles this Saturday Sunday. Best wishes to all those planning to attend and drop me a note of your experience if you wish.

Blogging will also continue to be light until after Christmas unless Congress goes overtly rogue during the next 2 weeks.

Merry Christmas & may God’s Grace & Peace be with you during this joyous season.