Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Natural Born

Posted by Bob on February 15th, 2008 under History


Trager Smith asks, in a nice short piece — you had me worried because your last one was so long it would have embarrassed AFKAN at his worst — whether anyone would bring up McCain’s place of birth if he is elected.

I think of McCain as the new Bob Dole so it’s unlikely to come up. But the fact is that if Schwarzenegger were elected president the Court would simply declare that, according to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, anyone who believes in the proposition that all men are created equal is a natural born citizen.

No, I am not overstating this. Since Virginia vs. Loving, which abolished all anti-miscegenation laws, the Court can declare absolutely anything it chooses, and it will. There is no possibility whatsoever that in McCain’s case this matter will be taken seriously.

If it were Schwarzenegger I would recommend a phrase in a treaty with Austria allowing someone born in Austria to be classed as a “natural born citizen” in terms of qualifying for the presidency. Treaties are above the Constitution, hence the old Bricker Amendment.

The point is that this is just an excuse for whatever the powers that be want the Constitution to say.

What is the first amendment had said, “A well informed public being essential to the national welfare, there shall be no abridgement of the right of free speech or freedom of the press.” as the second Amendment refers to well regulated militia before the right to bear arms?

The court could have said that racism does not contribute to a well-informed public, just as the second amendment has been effectively repealed subject to the “well-regulated” part.

In the real world, the wording would not have made a practical difference. The bottom line here is that the media matters while three million paid-up NRA members do not represent “we the People of the United States. The Court represents “We the people.” One of the main functions of that “We the people” is to kick the people into line when they vote wrong.

Only a Mantra thinker would bring this up.

Like assimilation and immigration into EVERY white coutnry and ONLY white countries, this is so basic that no respectable cosnervative would ever think of it much less question it. Man-
tra thinking can have a huge and UNIQUE impact by stating reality inplain English and stiucking with it.

You ain’t going to do any of that by being the 100,000th rooter for Ron Paul. It’s not as much fun doing the real job alone. But no one else can do it.

Back to constitutionality: Even a respectable conservative once had balls enough to correct an ACLU spokesman who said that that organization protests the Bill of Right. This one conservative said, once, “except the Second Amendment.”

Decades ago when Bob Jones defended its right to keep its tax deductible status while banning interracial dating, all the mainline churches were on its side in court. By the same token it is the American media, not the first amendment alone that makes the first amendment effective here.

While people talk about the power of the Bill of Rights, it makes little practical difference if thereis no power behind it.

While the courts can screw around with Hung Chu Pow or somebody on the details, when
it comes to the presidency there is no power in favor of the natural born citizen provision

That is all that matters.

Once the power was there, the antimiscegenation laws no state ever even considered it had the right to enforce for two centuries were simply nullified.

Article III says that congress “shall” limit the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts. It is the only “shall” in the document that is not considered an imperative according to those same courts. In fact, most people consider any restriction on the courts to be unconstitutional.

Trager notes that I “have been around the block” on these issues. I have taught what is called Constitutional Law and I have helped restrict the courts in congress. So the above is the situation as I see it.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  1. #1 by shari on 02/15/2008 - 2:22 pm

    I’ve been trying to stick with the mantra at Chronicles. I think I must have hit a sore spot, as it sounds like I am being called a dimwit, childish, and a whiner. That’s ok, because I know that without the mantra, I’m not so competent.

  2. #2 by Dave on 02/15/2008 - 5:16 pm

    The fact of the matter is there really is no “government”, just bazillions of separate governments that operate with very little oversight, restrained mostly only by fear of public relations snafus.

    Representative government, to the extent it ever existed, was definitively overthrown when the voting franchise was universalized. It is no accident that soon thereafter civil service systems and public employee unions became the foundational element of (our bazillions of) governments.

    You have your communist party card when you belong to the civil service and a public employee union. I don’t say that advisedly, because communists are what they truly are. This is the real reason America has become so tight and similar, systemically speaking, with mainland China.

    Elections in these systems are just “legitimacy procurement” exercises like they are in any tyranny. And communism is particularly productive of bottom of the barrel vermin, which is why all these communist societies are so damn vulgar. There is no limit whatsoever to their vulgarity. Accordingly, America doesn’t have a monopoly on vulgarity. If you think that, you don’t know the world.

    The 100,000th rooter for Ron Paul is under the delusion that the system can be reformed. The system has to be utterly destroyed.

    There is no resurrecting the Constitution. It was definitively overthrown in the Civil War. It is unrealistic and not doable. I wouldn’t say that if I had evidence it was ever successful. The Constitution was a failure from day one.

    Because of our Civil War, I find it rich irony that the foundational consensus of the Korean people, for example, is “unification must not be attempted through war”. This is Korean political correctness in its mandatory denial that the failure of the communist enterprise in the south at least gave the Korean people a glimmer of hope for the possibility of freedom.

    Political correctness must always deny freedom exists.

    In contrast, in America, unification through war is celebrated. In our case, the possibility of freedom was simply redefined to mean that freedom is anything the whims of (our bazillions of) governments mandate it to be. If you don’t believe that, there is always a prison cell or onerous fines awaiting you to educate you on your error, the real role of the courts. Accordingly, there is the same result. Political correctness must always deny freedom exists and it makes darn sure it enforces its aims.

    Even Ron Paul, he works very hard not to let the notion of real freedom to slip through. That is why he relies on a Wordist ideology instead of the plain truth.

    That is why we have a much harder row to hoe to get to freedom than anyone pretends. It must be done through our own personal power and belief in the power of our race. That is the only way to get there.

  3. #3 by Simmons on 02/16/2008 - 11:57 am

    You’re doing fine Shari, the snobs and nabobs of wordism are pathetic in their responses. They never have outgrown their college education, pathetic really. But I’m not too tough on them they are mostly “eggheads” more comfortable with books than humans so its no suprise they retreat when confronted with their “respectability” hoisted on its own petard.

  4. #4 by shari on 02/16/2008 - 1:11 pm

    Thank you Simmons. I don’t care to try and duke it out with a bunch of men, but I did want to hold my ground and not be intimidated. I think I did that.

  5. #5 by AFKAN on 02/17/2008 - 4:30 pm

    in reply to Dave:

    You keep returning to one theme, and I would like to briefly address it.

    You wrote:

    The 100,000th rooter for Ron Paul is under the delusion that the system can be reformed. The system has to be utterly destroyed.

    you wrote:

    There is no resurrecting the Constitution. It was definitively overthrown in the Civil War. It is unrealistic and not doable. I wouldn’t say that if I had evidence it was ever successful. The Constitution was a failure from day one.

    in reply:
    I have argued the Ron Paul vote resembles the Goldwater vote in terms of ideological purity, and has about the same chances of accomplishing much of anything.

    Simply put, nobody will fight under the banner of “100% Gold Convertibility, and Your Right To Smoke Dope.”

    Paul’s website for his Congressional campaign states his opponent is “well funded by the neoconservatives.”

    No surprise there!

    I argued Paul should recognize that Jews simply believe that anything other than a Jew is anti-Semitic, a term they deliberately avoid defining.

    I argued Paul had nothing to lose, and a great deal to gain, by running with a straight Race-based platform, using “Family” as the synonym for Race.

    As for the Constitution, the Revolution of 1933 began its slow, inevitable destruction.

    I see so many key indicators of our social well-being imploding, and believe it is time for a New Social Reality to come forth.

    THAT is the issue for us, and it all stems from a Positive Theory of Race.

    If that is right, and in place, everything else will have a chance to fall into place.

    If that is absent…

You must be logged in to post a comment.