Trump Elected: The True MAGA Era Begins, Now What?
- Thread starter JGeropoulas
- Start date
Watchful62
A Disturbance in the Force
Ah, now this is a solid comparison to admire.Reminds me of Lee Van Cleef in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"...
Attachments
Last edited:
Watchful62
A Disturbance in the Force
Great information. I stumbled onto this PDF which I will attach also. It is on the way back machine and is a page from the congressional record back in 1866 (apparently) with discussions about this topic and the original meaning or intent. Seems to me they assumed it was understood, that aliens are not citizens and therefore the notion of so called anchor babies does not provide valid natural citizenship. I do suppose it is time to argue this in court and settle it. I vote to stop allowing this born here while your parents are aliens to make the child a citizen.Boom!
Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,Birthright Citizenship Isn't Real | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zerowww.zerohedge.com
Donald Trump yesterday issued a new executive order declaring that so-called “birthright citizenship” does not apply to the children of foreign nationals residing illegally within the United States.
The order reads, in part:
There is a common misconception in the United States that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution mandates that the US government grant citizenship to anyone and everyone born within the borders of the United States.
This misconception is largely due to the fact that, for several decades, US courts and technocrats have conspired to redefine the original meaning of the amendment, and thus apply it to every child of every tourist and foreign national who happens to be born on this side of the US border.
Some have even attempted to define access to birthright citizenship as some sort of natural right. This is a common tactic among some libertarians who have twisted the idea of property rights to extend the idea of a “right” to the governmental administrative act known as “naturalization.”
Even when looking at the issue strictly in terms of procedural legal rights, however, it is clear that the current definition of birthright citizenship is in conflict with the law as originally intended and interpreted.
To understand the central point of contention, let’s note the text of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which states that citizenship shall be extended to: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
Note that there are two qualifying phrases here.
The persons in question must be both born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
It is this second qualification that remains a matter of debate.
What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States
The courts themselves have historically recognized this distinction, noting that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves who obviously were not connected to any other country or sovereign. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the court ruled:
This was further confirmed by the Court in 1884 (in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) when the Court stated that the idea of birthright citizenship did not apply to Native American tribes which were nonetheless within the borders of the United States:
In short, the court recognized that the tribal lands were within the legal jurisdiction of the United States, but this did not mean that everyone born within those borders was automatically granted citizenship. Those tribal members believed to be subjects of “foreign” tribal governments were therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a way that conferred automatic citizenship.
Congress further reinforced the court’s interpretation by adopting new legislation granting citizenship to all tribal members in 1924. Had the Fourteenth Amendment really granted automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States, no such legislation would have been necessary.
In the year 2024, however, advocates of the new and novel interpretation of “birthright citizenship” insist that the child of foreign nationals automatically becomes a citizen of the United States based entirely on the location of birth.
This is a rather odd way of doing things. In historical practice nearly everywhere, citizenship depends largely on the citizenship of parents, or on the parents’ place of birth, and not on the place where parents happen to temporarily reside when the child is born. Thus, historically and globally, the child of foreign nationals is himself a foreign national. This is true, for instance, of children born to American nationals overseas.
Only in the United States does there appear to be widespread confusion about this.
Of course, some libertarian or “classical liberal” readers might argue that such legal precedents are meaningless, and that everyone “deserves” the legal “right” of citizenship. How citizenship is any sort of natural right or property right, however, remains a mystery. Has the child somehow “homesteaded” his citizenship? Obviously not. Has the child entered into a contract with a legitimate property owner to acquire the “property” of citizenship? To ask these questions is to see the absurdity of them.
On the other hand, it is important to note that a lack of citizenship in any particular place does not negate anyone’s property rights. Real property rights—what Rothbard called “universal rights”—exist regardless of one’s citizenship, where he lives, or where he happens to have been born.
I found this from this tweet!
Here is another link with the zorro image which also seems to fit with Melania's outfit. Two swords cutting the cake and Trump did a little sword dance.
I find this a bit spooky all of a sudden as I recall Trumps last campaign rallies where he was dressed in black and the Undertakers song was played.
A few more images to add to the theme.
Other
I find this a bit spooky all of a sudden as I recall Trumps last campaign rallies where he was dressed in black and the Undertakers song was played.
A few more images to add to the theme.
Other
Last edited:
caballero reyes
The Living Force
This about the strange decoration at the ‘Capitol I Arena’ event where Trump was clearly more relaxed and more comfortable.
It's that big red crown hanging from the ceiling with stars. That doesn't look like any symbol, it's clearly a Chinese symbol, it's the stylized flag of China.
That seems like a coincidence, but it's an idea that many people have had for years. China is involved in many U.S.A. political issues, much more than we are led to believe that it is only for commercial reasons.
Most politicians around the world play double game: Above and below the table.
It's that big red crown hanging from the ceiling with stars. That doesn't look like any symbol, it's clearly a Chinese symbol, it's the stylized flag of China.
That seems like a coincidence, but it's an idea that many people have had for years. China is involved in many U.S.A. political issues, much more than we are led to believe that it is only for commercial reasons.
Most politicians around the world play double game: Above and below the table.
It might also be a good idea to keep an eye on what Kennedy, Tulsi and others are doing. I suspect that the recent announcement of Trump for that AI stuff that also includes, quote “research in MRNA vaccines against cancer“ is probably something Kennedy would at least have some reservations about. Trump might not even have talked to Kennedy about it. I’m pretty sure that is another thing that Trump is pretty naive about: When he sees that people, business, ventures and/or others promise big money investments within America he tends to like it no matter what negative consequences might come with it. He seems to be quick to naively label big money investments into America, no matter from which sources or what purposes, as “good“. Of course that is true in a certain sense but it can also create rather nasty things.
Other
In social networks I have read several comments from Christians inside and outside the United States who are "furious" about this action of Trump not swearing by touching the Bible, they say it is a "satanic" thing to do. I think it was an honest action, if there is any point in touching the bible, because we have seen several former presidents swear on the supposed "holy book" and lead massacres or cause chaos around the world. Those are hypocrites.
Like "Big Mike" holding the Bible for his husband to swear on. Later, Obama would become one of the most bellicose presidents in the world.
Like "Big Mike" holding the Bible for his husband to swear on. Later, Obama would become one of the most bellicose presidents in the world.
Or, like Biden, not only ignoring his son's misdeeds, but also bringing the world to the brink of total chaos.
On the other hand, we know that the Bible was written as a political means of indoctrination, it has nothing sacred, more than a book dictated by God it is the control tool of the Antichrist system.
Well, we have to remember that the Oreshnik System made the use of nuclear weapons obsolete. Putin said:
So for Uncle Putin and possibly Xi this can be accomplished in the short term. There are already more efficient and less polluting ways of mass destruction.
What Trump mentions is pure demagoguery
Evan
The Living Force
What’s he gonna do, stop shipments of ice cubes?
At Davos:
Trump said much, but what is ringing in my ears is: USA to become the world capital of AI and Crypto.
I'll be interested to hearing C.A. Fitts and Whitney Webbs commentary on this.
(And just as an aside, I'm still chuckling about Trump saying were going use "clean" coal, clean-clean coal
Trump said much, but what is ringing in my ears is: USA to become the world capital of AI and Crypto.
I'll be interested to hearing C.A. Fitts and Whitney Webbs commentary on this.
(And just as an aside, I'm still chuckling about Trump saying were going use "clean" coal, clean-clean coal
Yea, a lot of hoopla about this no hand on the bible and people are trying to understand. Once again people sift through the bread crumbs to find answers. Here is another take although vague and incomplete. In a podcast I listened to last night it was being discussed how many similarities there where between Trumps administrations and RFK's. And here is an interesting note, RFK didn't have his hand on the Bible either. What does it mean?
A controversial take is that The Republic is being restored and no swearing on the bible for the USA corporation. That public ceremony will be held later, maybe in March. There is a movement in the country to restore the Republic which has its own history going back to RFK.
Another theory is Trump instigated COG, continuation of government, in 2021 to safe guard the country against extreme acts by the incoming fraudulent bunch. He has been sworn in already so no need for the Bible, seems odd but who knows. He executed several EO's that some believe have been in place this entire time. These EO's where partially revoked on the eve of Trumps inauguration which some think shows a signal that COG has been in place and now is being removed. It's thought provoking for sure. This short clip explains this as well as Biden was never given the nuclear codes.
A video from the link above where a soldier speaks of military rule in 2021.
It makes me think of the very bizarre inauguration of Biden in 2021 presented as a funeral.
So, people scramble looking for clues as it has been for several years. My position is to keep an open mind and not jump to firm conclusions. It makes things more interesting and I don't defend certain positions I can't say for sure are true or not, hope that makes sense.
All of it is very interesting.
Last edited:
trump is absolutely right: coal - and petrol - are ABSOLUTELY CLEAN because the co2 resulting from their combustion IS NOT a driver for possible global warming.At Davos:
Trump said much, but what is ringing in my ears is: USA to become the world capital of AI and Crypto.
I'll be interested to hearing C.A. Fitts and Whitney Webbs commentary on this.
(And just as an aside, I'm still chuckling about Trump saying were going use "clean" coal, clean-clean coal
with chemical rockets you go nowhere. ufos do not use these. they must use non officially known displacing methods. these might be known due to possible back engineering of retrieved ufos, or by secret dealings with et. this requires new physics not officially disclosed.
Trending content
-
Thread 'Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?'
- wanderingthomas
Replies: 30K -
-
-
