Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

America

Whatever Else, He’s Either Ignorant or a Liar

I can’t stand this and now my friends in Zanzibar are going to be treated to a rant !!!

It’s that blasted Ted Cruz. He’s certainly my pick of the availables at this point. I was even willing to forgive his not understanding the “natural born citizen” Constitutional requirement for the privilege of serving as President of the U.S., since apparently most of the elite libertarian legal eagles don’t either, and I am bitterly, bitterly sorry to say that that includes Randy Barnett, who gave a sobworthy (in parts) presentation on the issue to the Washington Journal. You can see for yourselves — link’s below. (C-Span, not embeddable.) –(You probably won’t see why I’m so disgusted by his performance unless I tell you, though.)

However, I’m just now getting around to watching Debate #6, and Ted is in the hot seat. He’s just been asked if he’s a “natural born citizen.” Butter wouldn’t melt as he snidely skewers (as he thinks) those who would dare to raise — quote — “the Birther issue.” In a voice dripping with disdain.

Now, given the authoritative Constitutional weight of people like Barnett and others at The Volokh Conspiracy*, I can understand and forgive the average layman and even the average lawyer and maybe even the average Constitutional lawyer for going along with the idea that birthplace is immaterial– though Shrill, or her staff, thought it important enough to bring up the birthplace issue vis-á-vis the Gentleman from Wherever-the-hell-he’s-from, when they were running against each other back in 2008. However, Ted DOES stick on side about being a Constitutional attorney, or at least his fans and promoters do. (I’m trying to be fair, even though I am royally p.o.’ed.)

So now, back to his answer in the debate. First, and the least of the issues, he says it’s only the “extreme” fringe who think eligibility requires not just one but TWO citizen parents.

Not so. There is a valid argument for that understanding, which is that at the time of the Founding the wife’s citizenship automatically followed that of the husband. Therefore if the wife was not a citizen, it would mean the husband wasn’t either. Mind you, that’s the argument. I don’t say it’s correct; in fact it overlooks uncommon cases that were in fact discussed by the Founders, such as Pop as already passed on or the child is illegitimate. But it’s not “extreme.” And it’s what most non-Proggies who have an opinion seem to believe.

But here is the real problem. He says that the courts have said time after time that people having a parent who is a citizen are natural born citizens (regardless of birthplace).

This is flatly untrue. Yes, such people have been found to be American citizens, but not natural born citizens. In fact they aren’t even native citizens, which specifically means citizens born on American turf: natives-by-birth, so to speak. This is an obvious difference** and so fundamental that only an ignoramus or a liar could say such a thing. So Ted, which is it? Are you openly showing your flat ignorance or are you lying — you know this distinction perfectly well — and hoping nobody will notice?

Disgusting!

He has the nerve to back this remarkable position up by saying that “after all, if it were true then Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal wouldn’t be eligible either” — and so they aren’t, but not because of extra-American birth: Rubio born in Miami, Jindal in Baton Rouge. Birthplace not an issue with them. Their problem is parentage. But worse yet, he goes on to add that even THE DONALD wouldn’t be eligible, because although he was born here his mother wasn’t. (She’s from Ireland.)

You fool! As long as she (or she and her husband, or only her husband, depending on your theory about whether it takes one or two citizen parents) was a citizen — naturalized or statutory, makes no difference, which is why the “anchor baby” 14th Amendment comes into the controversy — as long as some non-zero number of parents were ALREADY citizens when the babe was born, the parent(s) citizenship is automatically inherited by the baby**. If Ma Trump was already naturalized when she popped Bonnie Donnie, he IS natural born. (Leaving aside the issue of one parent or two, of course.)

This really is baby stuff. And even Randy Barnett, If I Remember Correctly, does not make such an uninformed claim.

The reason I was going to vote for Ted was that he’s obviously the least worst of the bunch having any chance of the nomination. But if this is not flat-out lying, then he’s not only completely ignorant (or confused, as in deer-in-the-headlights confused, or having what we Computer Types call a Kernel Panic), he’s also unaware of how ignorant (or confused) he is — or else he’s perfectly aware and lying about THAT, claiming that his opinion is the one the courts have gone by all these years.

Horsefeathers!

So now what. I have to vote against whatever fool and/or criminal the Dims put up, which means I have to vote for the Heffalump candidate.

At this point, those are the only grounds on which I can urge people to vote for Ted in the general election — if he’s the candidate.

–J.

Ted Cruz in Debate #6, 1/14/16, Fox, Bartiromo and Cavuto, around 22 minutes in, maybe a bit more:

Randy Barnett’s discussion is actually pretty good in the first half. He presents the opposition’s (that would be me) argument honestly and reasonably thoroughly. It’s in the second half of his remarks that he comes up with an ingenious but, to me, not entirely convincing argument, and then ends on a most undignified note (and remember, I’m a longstanding fan of Prof. Barnett; much more than any of the other Volokhites, except in some respects David Bernstein). Now I feel jilted by both of my Libertarian Legal Loves. It’s not FAIR !!! :>((

40 minutes.

Randy Barnett: “Natural Born Citizen” Presidential Requirement

*Not Prof. Laurence Tribe, interestingly enough — per Barnett, Prof. Tribe’s understanding of “natural born” IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT OF ELIGIBILTY is the same as mine: A citizen parent at the time of the candidate’s birth, AND must be born on American soil. But, says Randy, this poses no problem for Tribe because Tribe is not an Originalist of any stripe but rather a Living Constitutionalist, so is not hampered by this little departure from the Rules.

**Not true that there are only two classes of American citizens: For purposes of Constitutional eligibility at least, there are three: Naturalized, statutory (for children born abroad of citizen parents), and natural born. Only those in the last category are eligible.

–No, that does not make anyone a “second-class citizen.” There is theoretically no such thing in the U.S. To serve as President is a privilege, not a right. There is no other post in the entire Federal government that is restricted to natural born citizens.

Time for home truths at the Oscars

NPH Oscars Joke

Charlotte Rampling is the latest star to wade into the row brewing over the lack of diversity in this year’s Oscar nominations.

The 69-year-old, who has been nominated in the Best Actress category for her performance in 45 Years, said the move by some of Hollywood’s elite to boycott the awards “is racist to whites”.

She told French radio network Europe 1 on Friday morning, “Perhaps the black actors didn’t merit being on the finishing line”.

“One can never really know, but perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list,” added Rampling.

Charlotte Rampling: Oscars row is ‘racist to white people’

Good for Charlotte Rampling, giving a few home truths to younger Oscar hopefuls about life in the real world…well, as far as that applies to Hollywood anyway.

Not that the Oscars represents anything like the real world, but you don’t tend to get a global television audience for the National Window Cleaners Awards do you? Then again window cleaning isn’t a multi-billion dollar industry where the top earners are treated like 19th Century royalty.

What she’s saying is true about earning acting accolades on merit rather than just because of the colour of your skin, but it does rather go against the whole black oppression narrative of the not-very-liberal-left.

Just because AMPAS aren’t prepared to give Will Smith a nomination for doing a comedy Nigerian accent with a straight-face in his latest movie “Concussion” doesn’t mean that all the members of the Academy are card carrying members of the KKK and some of those making a fuss may have cause to regret their actions in future years.

Unlike the population of Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr, AMPAS is largely made up of those who have won awards previously and by definition, this makes it pretty much white and pretty much male, or as our SJW screecher’s would have it “a bastion of racist, elitist privilege”.

If Hollywood insiders start throwing those sort of remarks (even highly diluted) about the membership of the Academy to which they aspire, then don’t expect an invitation to join their ranks any time soon.

Hollywood can usually afford a few worthy set pieces like “Selma” here-and-there as long as they are backed up by receipts from the latest blockbuster Superhero’s movie, but if Hollywood executives start paying attention to the hyperbole of lefty Celebrities rather than audiences then Hollywood studios will end up being severely out of pocket.

A perfect example of this mentality is the new Ghostbusters film, due for release in July 2016, which has a massive $154 million budget and is already expected to be the biggest flop of the year. It takes a bit more to make a successful blockbuster than putting a bunch of fat female comediennes on screen and hoping the SJW crowd will support you. I suspect that by the end of the Summer there will be quite a few studio executives at Village Roadshow Pictures who will be looking for new employment.

Ghostbusters Remake - Biggest flop everGhostbusters – We ain’t afraid of no flop!

Ultimately, I suspect that Charlotte’s comments (in French on Europe 1), may get a bit more coverage than she was hoping for and not for the reasons that she wants, but then again AMPAS are a funny bunch and may just award her the Oscar she’s up for as a nice “Fuck you!” to all the delicate little flowers calling them a bunch of racists.

Ah Well. Whatever happens. C’est La Vie!

Dear Troll: “America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem”

A few weeks back, some Ignorant Person saw fit to put up on Samizdata a short comment implying, snarkily, that the U.S. is the worst of all possible worlds when it comes to the gun-murder rate.

A few of us took issue with that; I rather think the rest thought the remark not worth dignifying with a response.

However, “Sultan Knish,” a.k.a. Daniel Greenfield, who writes columns for various anti-Left online mags and has his own website at sultanknish.com, put up a doozy on the subject today; although I wish he’d found some other adjective than “Democrat,” because not all Dems are Dim on the issue. In fact some of the “gun-rights” activist-scholars are, or were, themselves Democrats*; and the excerpt below makes the point that not all cities of Obama-voters have these appalling murder rates.

But the fact remains that the worst cities certainly are run by lefty and/or race-baiting Democrats. So here is a mere excerpt (but note: YrsTrly has not verified the stats for herself). Suggest reading the whole thing….

[SNIP ...]
Any serious conversation about gun violence and gun culture has to begin at home; in Chicago, in Baltimore, in New York City, in Los Angeles and in Washington, D.C.

Voting for Obama does not make people innately homicidal. Just look at Seattle. So what is happening in Chicago to drive it to the gates of hell?

A breakdown of the Chicago killing fields shows that 83% of those murdered in Chicago in one year had criminal records. In Philly, it’s 75%. In Milwaukee it’s 77% percent. In New Orleans, it’s 64%. In Baltimore, it’s 91%. Many were felons who had served time. And as many as 80% of the homicides were gang related.

Chicago’s problem isn’t guns; it’s gangs. Gun control efforts in Chicago or any other major city are doomed because gangs represent organized crime networks which stretch down to Mexico. And Democrats pander to those gangs because it helps them get elected. That’s why Federal gun prosecutions in Chicago dropped sharply under Obama. It’s why he has set free drug dealers and gang members to deal and kill while convening town halls on gun violence.

America’s murder rate isn’t the work of the suburban and rural homeowners who shop for guns at sporting goods stores and at gun shows, and whom the media profiles after every shooting, but by the gangs embedded in urban areas controlled by Democrats. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate look nothing like the occasional mentally ill suburban white kid who goes off his medication and decides to shoot up a school. Lanza, like most serial killers, is a media aberration, not the norm.

[SNIP]

*For instance, Eric Raymond has an interesting page, Eric’s Gun Nut Page, that describes criminologist Gary Kleck’s work and political stance. More good stuff for those who think guns might be part of the solution, with links, too.

Hillary

Is just being Hilary.

“They threatened me,” Masada told Judicial Watch. “I have received complains before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

 

The Clinton staffer, who Masada did not want to identify, also demanded to know the names and phone numbers of the comedians that appear in the video.

Do you think Hill’s even heard of the first amendment? Well, apparently she’s never heard of The Streisand effect. Let’s show her how it works.

 

H/T Instapundit

Starter Kit

Starter Kit

Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

My preference?

Scott Walker or Ted Cruz. For VP? Carly Fiorina or Allen West, although West is probably running for the Senate.

Amnesty

Jobs Americans Won't Do.DocA,8:8:15

In Obamas America

It is an offence to be an honest man

and save for your old age.

Deal

The secret to successful negotiation is for both sides to come away satisfied, feeling that they got what they wanted.

Take the Iran nuclear deal, Obama and Kerry wanted a deal, any deal, and the Iranians wanted to carry on developing nuclear weapons with minimum interference. If the Iranians could get away with making the American government look like sycophantic lickspittles, well, so much the better.

See, each side did get what they wanted. We have satisfaction all round and a thoroughly successful negotiation.

Dark green jackets and black buttons – liberty and voluntary service can defeat Collectivist tyranny.

This day of evil is finally drawing to a close. The leftists in Paris may well have (as they do every year) slaughtered a pig – as part of their celebration of the treacherous betrayal (“come out – we promise you and your men safe conduct”) and savage murder of the Governor of an old fortress in Paris – a fortress in which there were seven (7) prisoners, none of whom were there for their political opinions.

Thus the left celebrate the principles of the left. Treachery, robbery (for the real goal of the operation was to steal weapons and other goods) and murder.

Soon all of France was to be convulsed in mass robbery (of the Church – and of many ordinary people who were far from “aristocratic”) and the murder of hundreds of thousands of people (see the works of William Doyle and others). And Europe was to be convulsed by the designs of the French Revolutionaries to bring the collectivist doctrines of Rousseau to power everywhere. His idea that the Law Giver knows the “General Will”, better than the individual persons themselves, so (in Marxist fashion) people have to be “forced to be free” against their false consciousness. If need be robbed and slaughtered – for their own good. And with their own consent – as their cries of protest (and screams of pain) are but mental confusion, not what they “really” believe.

The French Revolution does not show the danger of taking liberty too far – because it was not about liberty, it was about power. The Revolutionaries talked of liberty – but they lied, as followers of Rousseau tend to do (using their words as a mist to blind the unwary).

Paper money (forced on people on the pain of death), theft of property, the murder of the innocent (of all levels of society) – these were and are the principles of the French Revolution. Its criminal lust for unlimited power (not just in France – but over the world) under the mask of “liberty”, which destroyed the rule-of-law and the security of persons and possessions.

People who cried for religious tolerance (in fact granted by Louis XVI years before), and practiced religious persecution – of the most savage kind.

People who cried for the end of serfdom (largely unknown in France for centuries), and an end to torture (“putting the question” had actually already been abolished in French Roman Law), but actually introduced serfdom to the state, and reintroduced torture (in all its forms).

These were the French Revolutionaries – if one judges them by their deeds, or even looks carefully at the meaning of their words (rather than the nice sound the words make).

But let us leave the Rousseau evil of the Revolutionaries aside – and turn to more hopeful things, dark green jackets and black buttons…….

Sir William Stewart (Colonel Stewart) in 1799 (some ten years after the Revolution started – and after its forces had overwhelmed most of Europe with vast slaughter) published his thoughts on “light infantry”.

People who fought as individuals and in small groups – but could (if worked with correctly) help defeat vast enemy forces.

Colonel Stewart studied the Croats who had resisted (for the Hapsburgs) the invasions of the Ottomans – for centuries. Helping hold back the forces of despotism (that recognised no rule-of-law, no protection of property rights from the state) that might otherwise have destroyed Europe.

He also studied the mountain people of the Tyrol – famous for both their individualism and their loyal service (there is no contradiction – the people of Eastern Tennessee are much the same in these aspects, Southerners who supported human freedom over tribalism in the 1860s and have supported the elephant over the donkey ever since ).

The great revolt of Andreas Hofer – the innkeeper turned leader of the “Reactionary” forces of the Tyrol was yet to come (but the spirit had been known for centuries).

Hofer opposed the takeover of the Tyrol by Bavaria – not the relatively conservative place we know today, but then an ally of Revolutionary France and ruled by the bureaucrat (and rumoured ally of the illuminated ones) M. Von Montegelas – a man who made a great show of “abolishing serfdom” (actually just a few old rituals by this time in Bavaria) whilst actually introducing serfdom – both for children (via his system of compulsory state brainwashing of the young) and adults (via mass conscription). Nothing (not Church property, or even other countries, if they were small and weak – he was not a man of great courage ) was safe from Montegelas, a sort of “mini me” Napoleon. And Bavaria was backed by the vast forces of France.

Andreas Hofer eventually lost and was killed – famously giving the order to fire at his own execution. But the idea of light infantry is sound – it just can not win major wars on its own.

Nor should the experience of the North American wars, against the French and some Indian tribes, and against the American colonists, be forgotten. The “King’s Rifles” had already been born – although still in red jackets….

Sir William Stewart was supported by Colonel Manningham (Equerry to the King) and in 1800 the Rifle Corps (the 95 regiment of foot) was born.

It was the first British infantry regiment since the Civil War to have green uniforms – I recently went to a Civil War re enactment, and whilst everybody raves over the red uniforms of the New Model Army (red because the dye was cheap), but there is something about dark green uniforms against the green fields and woods (and not just of England). Yes it is camouflage – but it is more than that, but I lack the gift of words to explain what I mean.

People will be familiar with the exploits of “the Rifles” from such things as the “Sharpe” novels – but the basic message is historically accurate and simple to state.

By out fighting French skirmishers (not so well trained, or so well TRUSTED, and armed with muskets not Baker rifles) British skirmishers – fighting as individuals and in small groups, were able to help change battles (and thereby help change wars). Negate some of the advantage of the enemy in numbers – and cause confusion and chaos among French (and other) armies that were organised as vast masses of conscripts.

The forces “equality and fraternity” could be defeated by the forces of liberty. Skill, creative thought, and voluntary service.

Those men in dark green jackets with black buttons have (under various names of regiment) fought in many wars since then – surprising people who assume that the British army is a force of robots who do not fight as individuals and in small groups, and who can not think without detailed orders.

Their story is little known – and the reader should look it up for themselves.

Sowell’s Columns Based on a Trick

Commenter TacitusX observes Sowell’s chicanery:

I’ve decided that Thomas Sowell’s columns are just based on a trick. If you use reason, logic, empirical evidence, and common sense, of course your arguments are going to sound stronger than your opponent’s.

What is going on?

What is it with this defence of the symbols of the Confederacy?

It is unquestionable, at least, I hope, to the people who visit this site and others similar, that we know and understand history, and reject the determination shown by so much of the progressive left to impose their views on all of us. However, contrary to Gerald Warner writing on Breitbart the Confederate flag does not proclaim a glorious heritage.

Many men and women sacrificed and died for that flag, and the country and constitution for which it stood, but not one of them sacrificed in a glorious cause. It is argued that the Civil War was fought for the protection of States Rights, and this is true at a superficial level, but The Confederacy was established for the purpose of protecting and promoting the right of one man to own, purchase and sell other men, treating with and disposing of them as livestock. As such it was an enterprise entirely without merit and no measure of valour on the part of its supporters is deserving of celebration.

Instead of defending this symbol of mans contempt for other men, libertarians and conservatives should be demanding the Democrats explain their one hundred and sixty years of association with not just this flag, but everything it represents. We should demand they disassociate themselves from their entire race obsessed history.

Why aren’t we holding them to their own standards, and going Alinsky on their asses?

Instead, so many of those who claim to speak on our side are, yet again, giving them a free pass.

Quote of the Day, June 26, 2015

Loyalty to bad commitments leads to moral incoherence.

–David Horowitz, “The Two Christophers”

Isn’t the internet WONDERFUL

<snigger>

First we have this:dixie

And this:clinton_gore

And this

sonsofthenewsouth

And finally, we have this:

(more…)

Ignorant Idiocy of the Day — July 15, 2004

No Jewish person is going to look–especially if their family is originally from Czarist Russia. They’re never going to look on anything of Russian Communism with the same pure horror and fear and revulsion that they are going to bring to a reaction to Nazism.

–Christopher Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens, “Uncommon Knowledge,” July 15, 2004

Au contraire. I give you Ayn Rand.

%d bloggers like this: