This is the rifle that was used to kill Osama Bin Laden.
It’s a Heckler & Koch 416 with a 10″ barrel
AAC Suppressor
Geissele trigger
Remington RAHG
Surefire Scout light
S&S Precision light mount
EOTech optic with EOTech 2x magnifier
Advanced Target Pointer Illuminator Aiming Laser (ATPIAL).
As this year’s election nears, expect Russia! Russia! fantasies to heat up again to mask a failing administration and its indefensible record.
Victor Davis HansonFebruary 26, 2024
Collusion about Collusion
The more candidate Trump in 2016 trolled the Clinton campaign (e.g., “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”), the more the irate left bought into hysterical conspiracy theories.
Finally, the left became completely unhinged after the 2016 victory. An Obama-era Pentagon lawyer published an essay exploring the chance for a military coup. Retired lieutenant colonels called for a Pentagon intervention. Retired four-stars could not decide whether he was Hitler-like, Mussolini, or the architect of Auschwitz. Celebrities competed to find the most savage image of eliminating Trump—whether by combustion, incineration, decapitation, lethal shooting, or stabbing.
Since then, the press has run with lurid stories about Trump, from having syphilis sores on his hands to “proof” of him beating up Melania. But amid the unhinged hatred, nothing has quite reached the absurdity of the Russia! Russia! obsessions.
In 2016, the country went through crackpot leftist charges of Russian collusion that helped to destroy the lives of innocents like Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, Carter Page, and George Papadopoulos. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s lawyers (gushed over by pundits as the “dream team/all-stars/hunter-killer team”), despite all the pre-investigational hype and hagiography, spent 22 months and $40 million to find no evidence that the Russians swung the election to Trump.
But in that sordid process, we learned the following: that a felonious FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was convicted of doctoring a court document to mislead a FISA court in efforts to surveille an innocent man; that the FBI director James Comey recorded and leaked via a third party to the New York Times a private, confidential, and likely classified conversation with the President and lied to the president that he was not the subject of a federal investigation; and that he preposterously claimed amnesia or ignorance on 245 occasions under oath to a congressional committee about the various skullduggery of the FBI under his watch.
Comey was outdone by special counsel Robert Mueller. He claimed under oath that he knew almost nothing about Fusion GPS or the Steele dossier, the twin catalysts that had led to his very appointment.
We learned in addition that Christopher Steele was hired by Hillary Clinton (whose campaign was fined $113,000 for federal campaign finance violations), albeit behind three stealthy paywalls (the DNC, Perkins Coie law firm, and Fusion GPS) to disguise her role.
The British ex-spy Steele’s mission was to find dirt on her presidential opponent, Trump. He did so by compiling a “dossier” of fakery and smears. Ironically, many of the most scurrilous charges might have reached Steele through Russian sources.
Yet the left and cable anchors cited as gospel the dossier chapter and verse—until they didn’t, once the weight of its ridiculousness finally crushed their assertions. Steele, remember, was at one time a paid FBI informant, and as a foreign national, was supposed to be barred by statute from being hired by a presidential campaign.
In one of the notable political scandals in recent history, the present National Security Advisor and former Clintonite campaign operative, Jake Sullivan, used various surrogates to promote the lie that there was some sort of secret “backchannel” electronic “ping” communications between the Russian Alfa Bank and the Trump campaign and Trump Organization. The concocted myth was considered useful in advancing the “collusion” lie throughout the media, until even MSNBC and CNN quietly dropped the accusation.
Note “Russian collusion” destroyed the careers of three former FBI chiefs and a host of others. The amnesiac Mueller was discredited to the point of embarrassment in his congressional testimony. James Comey’s machinations finally entrapped him in a web of deceit and partisanship. Andrew McCabe committed career suicide by lying on at least three occasions to federal officials and allegedly co-dreaming up the ridiculous “wire” caper with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to secretly tape the President of the United States in efforts to prove him unhinged and thus to remove him via the 25th Amendment.
FBI counsel James Baker was instrumental in trying to seed the fake dossier with the media before resigning and being hired by Twitter for a multimillion-dollar salary as deputy general counsel. Twitter, remember, was contracted in 2020 by the FBI to help suppress news accounts deemed unfavorable to the Biden project. Adam Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee’s “minority report” on collusion is now regarded as one of utter fantasy, despite being treated at its release as the final word on collusion.
Disinformation about Disinformation
Given the sordid Russia! Russia! conduct of 2016, one would have thought the left would have dropped the “collusion” caper. But instead, like an addict, they resumed their fixation again in 2020—as “collusion” now transmogrified into “disinformation.” When Hunter Biden abandoned his Biden-incriminating laptop at a repair shop and its contents reached the media, despite the best efforts of the FBI to suppress it, the administrative state went into action with another Russia! Russia! hoax.
Another member of the current Biden national security team (is there a pattern here?), current Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, called up former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell to round up more than 50 former senior intelligence officials and “authorities” to sign and release on October 19—just three days before the final Biden-Trump debate and less than three weeks before Election Day—a collective letter. In it, the signed “experts” claimed that the released emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop (it was then currently in FBI possession and the agency knew it was genuine) had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
Only it had none.
That was a demonstrable lie and soon proved to be—but only conveniently after the election. Note that no one in the FBI challenged that accusation despite, again, being in possession of the contents of the laptop. The laptop farce enabled Joe Biden three days later to assert in the debate:
“There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plant. They have said that this has all the … five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend, Rudy Giuliani.”
Biden failed to remind Trump that his own campaign flack, Blinken, had helped to cook up the entire scheme to arm Biden in the debate.
Two years later, in August 2022, the Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics polled 1,335 adults and found that almost four out of five Americans who reported that they followed the elected felt that an honest reporting of the laptop scandal would have altered the result of the 2020 presidential election.
Seventy-four percent of those polled felt that the FBI had deliberately misled the public when it falsely claimed that the laptop was part of Russian “disinformation.” Note that the FBI went further still, enlisting Twitter and other social media platforms before the election to censor any news account that accurately stated the laptop was authentic.
Note also that Hunter and his lawyers, in surreal fashion, are currently suing the repairman for “invasion of privacy” violations—without admitting that Hunter’s laptop is Hunter’s laptop. Hunter, in interviews, has not denied it was his, only that he was unsure. Yet he would never deny his ownership under oath, since he knows it is demonstrably his laptop, along with the contents inside it. So exposing his own abandoned laptop is an “invasion of privacy,” but Hunter does not claim the laptop is or is not his?
No “authority” who signed the letter—not John Brennan, not James Clapper, not Leon Panetta—has ever apologized for spreading disinformation on the eve of a debate and election to alter the results.
For a party that lectures ad nauseam about saving democracy and “election interference,” it is hard to imagine greater interference than a campaign rounding up sympathetic intelligence authorities to mislead the country to warp an election, even as the FBI and social media were doing the same work through censoring news accounts.
What was Russian Reset?
But who exactly did go soft on Putin’s dictatorship?
On March 6, 2009, in Geneva, to great fanfare, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov a red plastic button with the word “reset” in English and, sort of, in Russian, to mark a supposed new partnership. The Obama administration subtext was that the prior militarist, President George W. Bush, had reacted too strongly to the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia over territorial disputes in Ossetia. Indeed, for years after, Hillary Clinton characterized the appeasement of Putin that followed as a “brilliant stroke.”
Yet the story of reset for the next five years was serial U.S. concessions to Putin coupled with naïve expectations of Russian reform. Five years later, Vice President Joe Biden admitted that ‘reset’ was an utter failure, given the 2014 Russian invasions of the Donbass and the Crimea, serial Russian hacking of American institutions, and Russian buzzing of American planes and ships. Vladimir Putin had adjudicated the Obama/Biden naivete as frailty to be manipulated rather than an olive branch to be reciprocated.
Or, as Biden put it:
“All of us, we all invested in a type of Russia we hoped—and still hope—will emerge one day: a Russia integrated into the world economy; more prosperous, more invested in the international order.”
Recall the now-infamous Obama hot mic exchange in Seoul, South Korea, in March 2012, an election year, with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. The latter is now known mostly in the West as Putin’s obsequious megaphone, who routinely threatens Ukraine, Europe, and the United States with nuclear retaliation. Obama, in his message to Putin, seemed to assume reset still constituted quid pro quo understandings, as the transcript of the hoc mic exchange demonstrates:
Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”
Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”
Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”
Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”
Despite all the “fact checker” denials, what is often missed is that the proposed bargain was more than met: Obama continued to dismantle plans for Eastern European-American cooperation to protect from long- and short-range missiles, and so was more than “flexible” on killing a project that might well have given the Europeans some peace of mind after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
In exchange, Putin cooperated by giving Obama “space” during his “last election” by not humiliating his foreign policy failures by invading yet another one of Russia’s neighbors. But after Obama was reelected and after missile defense was cancelled, Putin felt unbound again and invaded both Crimea and the Donbass in 2014, correctly expecting no retaliation at all.
Obama-Biden versus Trump on Russia
Amid all the narratives of Trump’s “collusion” and collaboration with Putin, there remains one truth that not even the postmodern media can erase. Putin invaded his neighbors in 2008, 2014, and 2022, or in three out of the last four administrations, but, notably, not during the Trump years of 2017-21.
Trump had killed more Russian combatants—perhaps 300 of the Wagner group mercenaries in Syria—than at any time during the Cold War. In August 2019, Trump withdrew American participation from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty on grounds—supported by the Europeans—that Russians had repeatedly violated the agreements without serious American objections.
Trump sanctioned the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and warned the Germans that their dependency on Russian natural gas was self-defeating and undermined NATO solidarity. Such sanctions were overturned quickly once Biden entered office.
Trump sold offensive weapons—javelins included—to Ukraine, weapons systems previously tabled by Obama. In 2021, Biden froze $100 million in military aid to Ukraine, including offensive weaponry, after falling for Putin’s feints and lies that he was drawing down Russian troops from the Ukrainian border.
Biden, remember, asked Putin not to hack American humanitarian institutions. He said his reaction to a Putin invasion would hinge on whether it was a major or minor one, and offered to fly Ukrainian President Zelensky out of Kyiv when the Russians attacked.
Trump’s ‘drill baby, drill’ policy of flooding markets with cheap petroleum crashed the world price and cut deeply into Russian export income. In 2018, Trump hit more Russian officials, oligarchs, and companies with new sanctions.
One might conclude that Putin enjoys trash-talking and sermonizing American presidents who are careful never to confront him, while he is more wary of unpredictable presidents who say occasional nice things about him, even while they make his agendas impossible to implement.
2024
As this year’s election nears, expect the Russia! Russia! fantasies to heat up again to mask a failing administration and its indefensible record of a lethally open border, inflation, crime waves, foreign policy implosions, crackpot energy agendas, the weaponization of our institutions, and deteriorating race relations.
Natural Born Citizen ~A DISSERTATION
on the MANNER OF ACQUIRING The Character & Privileges
of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES
by David Ramsay; Printed 1789
(a modernized and corrected version
with remarks by Adrien Nash Feb./ Aug. 2014)
A DISSERTATION on the MANNER OF ACQUIRING The Character & Privileges of a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES:
In defining an Article II Natural Born Citizen it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”
David Ramsay was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from that state in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789, The History of the American Revolution in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….”
In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”
In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the “original citizens” were and then defined the “natural born citizens” as the children born in the country to citizen parents.
Remember there was no 14th Amendment at this time. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….”
Id. at 6. He added that
“citizenship by inheritance
belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….”
Id. at 7. He continued that
citizenship “as a natural right,
belongs to NONE but those who have been
born of citizens
since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6.
Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have to know how the Founders and Framers defined a “Natural Born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in the country of citizen parents. He is giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English).
We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “Natural Born Citizen” the same way the Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time.
Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship.
The dissertation by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found which provides another piece of direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born in the country to citizen parents just as Vattel writes.
The time has come to stop the insanity and fix this problem given this time-honored definition, which has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens);
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel);
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said that the clause “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States;”
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“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”, are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States);
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel);
United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel);
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189 (quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett);
Then the defining speech that lays out the most important aspect of the requirement and that is allegiance:
Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is 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. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).
Today’s challenge, game show Jeopardy-style: “They have a particular status in common: Anwar al-Awlaki, Yaser Esam Hamdi, the twin daughters of El Chapo, Chinese children born to US surrogates, and children born in the US to illegal immigrants.”
After seeing the first two names, a contestant would probably be preparing to hit the button to answer something like “What is Islamic terrorism?” – until they finished reading the entire list. The last item would clinch it, and then the fastest button-pusher would confidently offer the politically-correct answer: “What is birthright citizenship?”
Justice Antonin Scalia, however, if he were a judge on the show, would have ruled that answer incorrect. And if he were alive today, he’d probably consider the challenge of dealing with the growing impact of the issue as crucial for our nation, for it puts our sovereignty and national security in very real jeopardy.
First, some background details for the sons and daughters in the question:
Al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971 to Yemeni parents who returned with him to Yemen seven years later. In 1991 Awlaki came back to the US to study, became an imam in a mosque in California with ties to the 9/11 hijackers, eventually landed on the terrorism suspect list, and was killed in 2011 in an Obama-ordered drone strike.
Hamdi was born in Louisiana in 1980 to Saudi parents, and the family moved back to Saudi Arabia when he was a child. In 2001 Hamdi was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and held as an enemy combatant.
The twin daughters’ father, Joaquín Guzmán, aka “El Chapo,” famous Mexican drug lord and Sinaloa Cartel leader, married Emma Coronel (born in California to a Mexican father also involved in the cartel) who came back to California in 2011 to birth them and then immediately returned to Mexico.
Chinese babies born to U.S. surrogates has become a popular trend for wealthy Chinese since the U.S. recently made it more difficult to travel here as “birth tourists.” As reported by the Heritage Foundation, they simply “send their reproductive material…to an IVF lab and implant it in a hired surrogate to produce a viable pregnancy.”
Even before the massive illegal migrant border surge under the Biden administration, babies born to illegals comprised a sizeable portion of U.S. births. In 2018, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated around 300,000 such births per year, “larger than the total number of births in any state other than California and Texas.” These children, according not to a federal law but rather, as Ann Coulter pointed out, a footnote in Plyler v. Doe, are citizens entitled to welfare assistance and a public education. They’re also “anchor babies” (now considered a slur, even though in 2010 Newsweek surprisingly included Obama in its list of “anchor babies” titled “What’s So Scary About an ‘Anchor Baby’?). Anchor babies give parents protection against deportation, and in later years, an advantage in the path to naturalization for the extended family.
To summarize: all of these individuals were born on U.S. soil and had non-citizen parents at the time of their birth, with neither permanent U.S. domicile nor political allegiance to the U.S.
And so the correct answer is, Jeopardy-style: “What is ‘presumed’ U.S. citizenship?”
“Presumed” was the adjective used by Justice Scalia to describe Hamdi’s U.S. citizenship in the famous 2004 case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi’s father, upon his son’s capture, had filed the petition arguing that his son was a U.S. citizen and therefore entitled to the constitutional right of due process.
Dr. John Eastman, noted constitutional law expert, argued in his editorial, “Wrong Question in Hamdi” that the question before the Court should have been: “Why is Hamdi being treated as a citizen at all?”
The Center for American Unity (CAU) and the Eagle Forum submitted amicus briefs in Hamdi that outlined the reasons they considered Hamdi’s claim to “birthright citizenship” (the practice of granting U.S. citizenship to every baby born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship, domicile, or legal status of its parents) more than presumptuous.
Tom Tancredo, one of the signers of the CAU brief, asked the same question of Awlaki: Was he “ever really an American citizen?”
As both briefs in Hamdi explained at length, those who insist birth on U.S. soil mandates automatic citizenship justify their view on this provision in the 14th Amendment: “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.”
However, the CAU brief noted:
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was added during Senate debate [wherein] the authors discussed in great detail their purpose and intentions in adding the requirement that a person be born, not just in the United States, but “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Sen. Howard, sponsor and author of the Citizenship Clause, when questioned about the meaning of “jurisdiction,” responded that the phrase was intended to be read as meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Sen. Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, described persons who “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States.” Chairman Trumbull noted that even “partial allegiance if you please, to some other government” is sufficient to disqualify a person under the jurisdiction requirement.
Although Justice Scalia did not elaborate on his usage of “presumed” in the opening of his dissenting opinion in Hamdi, the government’s Respondent brief and both amicus briefs referenced above used the same terminology. It could be argued that the entire case rested on the questionable premise of Hamdi’s U.S. citizenship.
Popular opinion, however, would contend that all of the “presumed” citizens in the question – Awlaki, Hamdi, Guzman’s twin daughters, the Chinese surrogate children, and babies born to illegals – because of their made-in-the-USA birth certificates, are “natural born citizens.” So, presumably, besides enjoying all the benefits of that status, they could also all run for President of the United States. (And if one disagrees with any of that, they’re labeled “racist” or “birther.”)
In 1875, citizenship was defined by the Supreme Court in the famous women’s suffrage case of Minor v Happersett as membership in a political community, to which the citizen owes allegiance, and from which the citizen is owed protection. The Court further asserted that new citizens may be born or created by naturalization, and “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.”
But it was not until the 1960s, according to Dr. Eastman, that “popular perception” – not a constitutional mandate, sweeping court decision, or executive order – morphed into the “idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.” In the 1950s, children born in the U.S. to migrants in the Bracero work program were not considered U.S. citizens.
Now, citizenship is perceived to be purely derived by geographical location at the moment of birth, so well-timed travel planning is crucial. For the foreign relatives desiring admission to the U.S., an “anchor baby” birth in the right spot is cause for celebration.
Birth tourists plan ahead and arrive with legal travel visas. Some merely send their fertilized eggs to a surrogate. Other mothers illegally cross the southern border, hopefully before the due date. And none of the parents were likely eligible or went through the effort to make the U.S. their permanent domicile and to transfer their allegiance.
In his report on illegal immigration titled: “American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship,” Mark Cromer used the subheading: “Run, Squat and Drop.” Although “well documented in classic Chicano literature” it is perhaps an insensitive description, but such is the reality.
“Run, squat and drop” is now joined by “fertilize, freeze, ship and implant.” Shipping one’s fertilized eggs half way across the world to implant them into the uterus of a U.S. resident so that the newborn will be guaranteed U.S. citizenship reveals the absurdity of the notion that mere location of one’s first breath is the sole determinant.
Adding to the issue, all of these babies born on U.S. soil – to foreign citizens here legally but temporarily, illegally, or anonymously to U.S surrogates – are also granted citizenship by their parent’s home countries, making them dual citizens .at birth.
The Oath of Naturalization for U.S. citizenship requires a formal rejection of other citizenships for foreign-born applicants. However, children born here as dual citizens are never formally required to make such a renouncement. The State Department rarely enforces its policies discouraging dual citizenship, and has adopted, as described by Frances Stead Sellers in her essay, “When Conflict Focuses on Citizenship,” a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The very idea of double allegiance is considered “civic bigamy” by scholars such as Dr. John Fonte, who notes the “principle that an American citizen should be loyal to the United States and to no other country or political power is a moral and constitutional issue of the highest order.”
In the book The 50% American, author Stanley Renshon estimated that more than 40 million Americans are dual citizens. That was in 2005. With the huge explosion of illegal immigration in recent years, that number will have skyrocketed.
Of course it cannot be implied that dual citizenship equates with terrorism, drug-smuggling or Communist aggression, but imagine the nightmare if America became involved in a global conflict while having a significant percentage of residents claiming not just heritage, but actual citizenship in the very countries with which we might be at war.
As Ms. Sellers wrote of dual citizenship, “War is all about taking sides. Unless of course, you can’t, because you belong on both sides.”
Our nation’s sovereignty relies on citizens that belong on its side, with sole allegiance to the political community of the United States of America, which in turn, provides its citizens the guaranteed protection of the rule of law.
Our enemies – not just countries but also terrorist groups and cartels – are well aware of the gaping hole in our fence, both physically and metaphorically. They see an easy way to not only invade, but to recruit soldiers and operatives who could use their “presumed citizenship” for access and protection.
Current U.S. law provides for the loss of citizenship for various reasons including “accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof[.]” “Expatriate Terrorist Act” bills, first proposed by Sen. Joseph Leiberman in 2010 and others several times in later years including three times by Sen. Ted Cruz, recommended amendment of the law to include specific activities in support of designated terrorist organizations.
Awlaki and Hamdi were dual citizens by virtue of the birthright citizenship practice. So are El Chapo’s daughters, the Chinese surrogate babies and the illegals’ children. Stripping them of their U.S. citizenship would not render them stateless.
Years of an uncontrolled, massive border surge consisting of millions of mostly military-aged males not eligible for asylum – and the certain probability that terrorists, cartels, and foreign adversaries are among them – have created an untenable security risk.
As Steve Bannon noted in his recent interview on immigration with Tucker Carlson, none of this is a problem easily or quickly solved. “The issue is who has the courage to step forward and say, okay, we have to have a program to stop this immediately, and we also have to have another program to basically get these people out of the country, [or] we don’t have a sovereign country.”
In the slate of GOP 2024 presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy have courageously promised to end the birthright citizenship practice. Trump also dared mention deportations. And the media is howling. A new piece in The Atlantic described the immigration policy agenda of Trump and advisor Stephen Miller as “draconian zero-tolerance.” The New York Times warns it is “radical” and “extremist.” However no one from either party or the media has addressed the fact that legitimate asylum-seekers (those fleeing persecution) suffer further from the growing and now years-long backlog of hearing dates, full of millions of others clearly ineligible for asylum under present immigration law.
Eventually, doing nothing to end this insanity will mean that the whole system will become so overloaded and unmanageable that Democrats will undoubtedly propose mass amnesty as the only humanitarian and affordable solution. If Republicans instead attempt to do something now to end this unaffordable situation—which would include ending the magnet of birthright citizenship and tolerance of dual citizenship—they will surely be labeled, just as Michael Anton was in 2018 when he dared address the subject: “Nativist.” “Xenophobe.” “Bigot.” “Racist.” “White nationalist.” “White supremacist.”
But hurtful name-calling is nothing compared to the ongoing damage to the sovereignty, security, and finances of our nation. Time to mute the calming Jeopardy think music playing in the background of scenes created by uncontrolled immigration and to take action. Because avoiding the challenge places all of us in jeopardy.
Cindy Simpson is a CPA, business owner, and citizen journalist living mostly in Louisville, Kentucky. Her articles have also appeared at American Thinker, The American Spectator, and RedState. Follow Cindy on Twitter @simpsonreport.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton explains how Democrats stole the election in 2020 when they stopped counting votes on election night.
These are the interviews Tucker would have never been able to have with Fox News 🔥
Paxton explained that vote counting stopped in toss up states so Democrats knew how many mail in ballots the needed to win.
“They needed to figure out was how many real votes there were so they could figure out how many mail-in ballots to apply to the election. That's what they would've done in Texas. I'm convinced.”
This would explain how Trump won 80% of bellwether counties yet lost the election.
Demolishes in toss ups where counting ends on election night (FL, OH), loses in toss up states where counting goes on for days.
From a statistical perspective, there is a much higher chance that the election was widely fraudulent than Americans all waking up one day and making a seismic shift in voting trends.
If one were to listen during the last few years to NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, MSNBC, or CNN, or read the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, or the Los Angeles Times, then one would have believed the following:
1. A) Donald Trump worked with the Russians to throw and win the 2016 election. As part of that skullduggery, frolicking amid prostitutes he urinated on a Moscow hotel bed to spite Barack Obama. B) He was mentally incapacitated as president and should have been removed under the 25th C) In 2020, his campaign once more worked with the Russians to create an exact replica of Hunter Biden’s laptop, replete with dozens of lurid fake photos and hundreds of cleverly doctored emails to smear the Biden family and aid his own reelection effort. D) Trump as chief conspirator preplanned a violent and armed insurrection that sought to storm and permanently occupy the government, violently hijacking the balloting and seizing the presidency—resulting in the murder of a Capitol police officer and the subsequent deaths of other traumatized officers.
2. E) For the last eight years, none of Trump’s political opponents have ever destroyed subpoenaed evidence, conspired to hire foreign nationals to compile false and lurid files on him to subvert his political campaigns, or used their political offices to help solicit foreign money for family lobbyists. F) Trump is the first major candidate and politician who allegedly overvalued his real assets to obtain a loan that he repaid; the first to have concluded non-disclosure agreements with potential embarrassing liaisons; the first ex-president to remove sensitive files to his personal residence; and the first to phone a state official to whine about the integrity of the vote count. G) He is the first losing presidential candidate or major politician to question an election result or to seek redress through government agencies to rectify the purported corruption of the balloting.
In sum, for the first time in American history, nearly all the major communication and journalistic networks have been fused with a political party. They believe the new role of the media is to advance a shared progressive cause, oppose and even defame common opponents, and feed their audiences things that are not, and cannot possibly be, true.
The Destruction of Common Law.
By defunding the police in major cities, and by showering leftwing district attorney candidates with millions of dollars in campaign funding, the Left systematically eroded the law as we know it in our major cities.
As a result, downtowns are after-dark, no-go zones, as once great metropolises resemble veritable combat theaters. Cities are becoming depopulated as consumers and businesses no longer find it safe to conduct commerce. Criminals and homeless now routinely break the law with impunity. Public violence, defecation, urination, fornication, and injection do not even rate as misdemeanors.
The Left has redefined violent crime to such an extent that shoplifting is no longer actionable. Flash mobs that take over streets and swarm to loot stores are rarely if ever arrested. Security officers who apprehend thieves or intervene to stop violence are more likely to be prosecuted than criminals themselves. There is no longer any immigration law; it has been utterly destroyed by Joe Biden. Seven-million illegal entrants flood into the U.S. and, along with the Mexican government, make demands on their hosts to accommodate their illegality.
In sum, in blue states and at the federal level, leftwing prosecutors and justices decide to enforce or ignore statutes, pile up or reduce indictments, increase or decrease punishments not on what the law entails, or evidence directs, but on the race, class, or ideology of the perpetrator, usually in connection with the particular status of his victims. If asymmetry in race, class, or ideology is suggested, then the law must modulate in redistributive fashion to contextualize the crime and criminal as a victim rather than a victimizer. The result is the veritable destruction of law and order as we once knew it.
The Erosion of the Military.
Rarely has the American people polled so little confidence in the U.S. military. It perceives the Pentagon mission largely one to greenlight social change through the rapidity of the chain of command, not necessarily to maintain deterrence, much less to win all its wars.
The Left has ensured that our armed forces are underfunded, short on munitions and weapons, and military officers are used to promote progressive social agendas. Officers expect to be promoted or stalled on the basis of their views on race and gender.
Those who traditionally died at twice their numbers in the general population in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are ostracized and in near record numbers leaving, while their friends and relatives are no longer enlisting in the military.
Former Pentagon four-star officers violated the Code of Uniform Military Justice in attacking a sitting president with the harshest invective, invoking comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini, again predictably from a leftwing point of view.
The public expects the Joint Chiefs to be both appointed on ideological considerations, and from time to time even to free-lance to contact enemy counterparts should they feel a conservative president is dangerous to world peace.
There is no longer any social stigma or legal jeopardy for retired officers in working as defense contractor lobbyists or board members, after revolving from or soon back to the Pentagon.
Sexes.
The heterosexual male and female, marriage, and the nuclear family are all to be suspect. There are three sexes or perhaps still more. English language pronouns are inadequate to reflect sexual diversity.
So adherence to such ossified languages is career endangering. An epidemic of childlessness, singlehood, and collapsing fertility rates are either of no national importance or illustrate the preferred non-nuclear family model. Powerful hormonal drug regimens and permanent radical sex-change surgery should be the choices of minors alone who know best when they choose to transition to another sex. Graphic sex manuals and drag queen shows with simulated sex acts can perhaps acculturate preteens to the dangers of growing up in an oppressive “normative” binary society.
Sex, but not race, is constructed, and thus a matter not of biology but of individual choice.
Race, Not Class.
Racial inequality and lack of parity are due to “whiteness.” Racial quotas, segregated dorms, graduations, workshops, and safe spaces are exempt from civil rights statutes given they are necessary to achieve equity. Integration and assimilation are the opiates of the masses. Apartheid and segregation are misunderstood modalities, and thus, if enlightened, sometimes necessary corrective measures.
Reparations are to supersede ineffective affirmative action. Wokeness liberates us to see how race explains everything in America, past and present. At universities and in popular culture “proportional representation” of various ethnicities and races is no longer sufficient remedy.
Instead reparatory hiring and admissions are required to atone for prior generations of discrimination. It is taboo to suggest that cultural conditions not just race accounts for inequality. Everything from meritocracy to promptness to physical fitness is racist in nature, requiring DEI experts to expose and inform about the systemic nature of American racism.
Debt is a Construct.
Modern monetary theory proved that annual deficits and national debt are just a state accounting challenge. So printing more money is an act that properly diminishes the value of existing capital improperly horded by parasitic profiteers. Spreading the ensuing cash wealth to the more deserving and victimized is long overdue social justice.
At any time, the national “debt” can be deconstructed by renouncing usurious bond obligations, appropriating private retirement accounts, or further inflating the currency—if governments are committed enough to social justice.
Universities.
It is now heresy that universities should be places of disinterested inquiry and inductive investigation. They can properly instead become a valuable tool in ridding society of racist and sexist forces, platitudes about free speech and equality under the law, and the tyranny of private property, capitalist profiteering, and white, male heterosexual Christian oppression.
So the role of a university is to create a brief safe space in which graduates can leave with proper training about the terrible history of the United States and the ways in which it must be dismantled and then be rebuilt by the properly trained experts from the ground up. Counterrevolutionaries or deluded liberals and their quaint adherence to a racist and archaic Bill of Rights have no place on these islands of progressive resistance.
None of the above was true at the millennium; all are now—with more still to come.
The Remaking of America
August 7, 2023
Victor Davis Hanson American Greatness
We are in the midst of one of the most radical revolutions in American history. It is as far-reaching and dangerous as the turbulent years of the 1850s and 1860s or the 1930s. Every aspect of American life and culture is under assault, including the very processes by which we govern ourselves, and the manner in which we live.
The Revolution began under the Obama administration that sought to divide Americans into oppressed and oppressors, and then substitute race for class victimization. It was empowered by the bicoastal wealth accrued from globalization, and honed during the COVID lockdown, quarantine-fed economic downturn, and the George Floyd riots and their aftermath. The Revolution was boosted by fanatic opposition to the presidency of Donald Trump. And the result is an America that is unrecognizable from what it was a mere decade ago.
Here are 10 upheavals that the Left has successfully wrought.
Free expression.
In large swatches of American society—particularly the corporation, the media, the government, the public schools, and the university—it is suddenly dangerous to speak freely. At a DEI workshop, politely object that “whiteness” does not account for all the challenges of “marginalized peoples,” and you will become either ostracized, reprimanded, or perhaps fired.
Suggest to a class that man-made climate change and the state remedies for it, are still under debate—and your career and livelihood are endangered. In 2020, state that Covid lockdowns would do more eventual damage than the virus—and your career was through. Express doubt that there are more than two biological sexes, and if an athlete or high school principal you will be shunned or rendered professionally inert.
The government, in league with social media, censors the news. “Liberal” universities often first require McCarthy-era type “diversity” statements for one to be hired. Commissars review syllabi to spot incorrect or improper speech or insufficient DEI zeal.
The Left now seeks to modify the First Amendment, and its empowerment of “hate speech,” defined as most anything impeding the progressive project. The state and the universities properly issue word lists of approved vocabularies.
The old ACLU or Sen. Church Committee would now probably be deemed rightwing. The methodologies of Joseph McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover are the preferred models, once they were rebooted to the right cause.
The Weaponization of Justice.
Administrations and their efforts to stock the justice department with supporters come and go. But in the last decade the Left has viewed the Department of Justice as a political extension of the party—whose unchecked power must properly be directed to hurt enemies and help friends. Nomili wonder Eric Holder described himself as Obama’s “wingman” and became the first Attorney General to be held in contempt for ignoring a congressional subpoena.
Never in U.S. history have the Department of Justice and sympathetic state and local prosecutors indicted a leading opposition candidate and likely nominee of one of the two major parties, and at the beginning of a presidential campaign. Donald Trump is currently charged with nearly 100 felonies by at least two prosecutors. He likely eventually will be hit with more than- 500 indictments, from four prosecutors, every one of the latter with a long record of either leftwing associations or Democratic service.
The mass murderer Charles Manson faced less legal exposure. No one believes Trump would have been indicted on such counts—most of them involving allegations from years past—were he not running for President.
One count that Donald Trump is not charged with is bribery, or taking money while in office, a crime cited as impeachable in the Constitution and germane to the accusations that Joe Biden and his family raked in millions from foreign governments due to the improper use of his prior Vice Presidency. For what reason did Joe Biden lie that he never discussed his son’s business? Why did Hunter complain to his daughter that Joe demanded half of his own grifting income? Why would a Vice President serially call disreputable Ame1rican grifters and foreign corrupt oligarchs? Can Joe’s lifestyle ever be reconciled with his reported income?
Given such asymmetry in the application of the laws, conservative or even apolitical Americans are apprehensive that any political prominence will draw the attention of government in effort to either indict or bankrupt them with legal expenses.
The last four FBI Directors have either admitted they lied under oath, or preposterously under oath claimed ignorance or amnesia about events directly under their control. Or they simply stonewalled subpoenas and testimonies about alleged FBI crimes.
The former CIA Director admitted to lying twice under oath. The FBI hired social media corporations to suppress election-cycle news deemed unhelpful to the Left. The agency, along with Democratic operatives, helped hatch the election-cycle conspiracy of the 2015-2016 Russian-Collusion hoax, and the 2020 Russian disinformation laptop hoax. The FBI played a central role in many of the 2024 indictments. In other words, the FBI along with the DOJ, has sought to warp three presidential elections in a row.
On the prompt of a Joe Biden campaign official (and now Secretary of State) and a former interim CIA director, 50 former intelligence officials lied to the electorate that an authentic but incriminating Biden computer was a likely Russian plant—a fact known to be lie but not disclosed as such by the FBI.
The Attack on the Supreme Court.
Once the Court achieved a more or less predictable conservative majority, the Left sought to diminish it in a variety of ways. It has called for packing the Court with leftist jurists to create a new 15-justice bench. Leftist law professors in the Ivy League, in neo-Confederate nullification and insurrectionary style, call for the nation to ignore Court rulings on abortion and affirmative action.
The Senate minority leader led a throng to the doors of the court, threatening justices by name: “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Protestors now mob the homes of individual justices hoping to intimidate them and alter their upcoming opinions—confident that the Department of Justice will exempt them from any legal consequences of such felonious behavior.
The media routinely accuses conservative justices of improper or illegal behavior, without worry about the emptiness of the charges. A traditionalist justice now accepts that a controversial ruling can result in media charges that he is corrupt, in shrieking protestors mobbing his home, in a mob assembling at the doors of the Court, in disruptions during Court hearings, in politicians issuing threats to his person, in congressional calls to alter the century-and-a-half make-up of the Court, and in Ivy League law professors urging the country to ignore majority decisions.
In sum, conservative jurist must be careful where and when he goes out in public.
"Arguably the most flagrant example of possible fake ballot manufacturing on behalf of Joe Biden may have occurred at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia. The possible perpetrators were caught in flagrante delicto on surveillance video.
In one version of this story, poll watchers and observers as well as the media were asked to leave in the middle of the night after a suspicious water leak. Once the room was cleared, several election officials pulled out large boxes of ballots from underneath a drapedtable. They then proceeded to tabulate a quantity of fake manufactured ballots estimated to be in the range of tens of thousands.
17
Note that a large surge in Biden votes following the tabulation of these ballots can be clearly observed after these votes were processed.
18
Despite what appears to be damning evidence of a possible crime, a spate of stories appeared across the anti-Trump media diaspora dismissing any concerns. According to these whitewash stories, these were regular and authorized ballot boxes, observers in the media were not asked to leave but simply left on their own, and it is perfectly acceptable to count ballots in the absence of observers.
19
Or so the spin goes.Of course, this is precisely the kind of incident that should be fully investigated both by Georgia’s Attorney General as well as by the Federal Department of Justice. Yet it remains unclear as to whether such investigations are underway. Meanwhile,the videotape itself, absent an adequate explanation, has contributed to the current climate of skepticism surrounding the fairness and integrity of the election........"
DON'T BELIEVE A DAMN WORD YOU READ ON THIS WEBSITE!
The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for a one man team to manually review each and every one of the posts atomicbobs.com gets on a daily basis.
The content of posts on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or administration of Atomicbobs. This site may contain adult language, if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to
USE DISCERNMENT
and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Atomicbobs.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Atomicbobs.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This website implements certain security features in order to prevent spam and posting abuse. By making a post on this website you consent to any automated security checks required by our system to authenticate your IP address as belonging to an actual human. It is forbidden to make posts on this website from open proxy servers. By making a post on this website you consent to an automated one time limited port scan of your IP address which is required by our security system to validate the authenticity of your internet connection.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Atomicbobs.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
At some point freedom of speech and copyright law merge. The following interpretation of "Fair Use" and subsequent posting policy were developed with the assistance of qualified legal council however, we are not lawyers and cannot offer you legal advise as to the limits of "Fair Use"
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
Though legally each situation is evaluated independently according to guidelines that were intentionally left open to interpretation, we believe generally this policy represents "Fair Use" of any such copyrighted material for the purposes of education and discussion.
You are responsible for what you "publish" on the internet. You must be sure any copyrighted material you choose to post for discussion on this forum falls within the limits of "Fair Use" as defined by the law.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "Fair Use" and legitimately infringes on yours or your clients copyright
we may be contacted concerning copyright matters at:
If you require a courier address please send a fax or email and we will provide you with the required information.
For expedited human review & removal of potential copyright violations we encourage users & copyright holders to utilize the "Report Copyright Violation" button that accompanies each post published on this website.
In accordance with section 512 of the U.S. Copyright Act our contact information has been registered with the United States Copyright Office. "Safe Harbor" noticing procedures as outlined in the DMCA apply to this website concerning all 3rd party posts published herein.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question. It is our strict policy to disable access to accounts of repeat copyright violators. We will also ban the IP address of repeat offenders from future posting on this website with or without a registered account.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Atomicbobs.com makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
---
DON'T BREAK THE LAW!
---
Other than that you can do / say whatever you want on this forum.
We reserve the right to block access to this website by any individual or organization at any time for any reason whatsoever or no reason at all.
| 
(quoted from the same definition of “natural born Citizen” as did Minor v. Happersett);