Bozell Goes Bozo on Schlafly, Carson, Palin, and Huckabee

L. Brent Bozell, of the Media Research Center, and a scion of the Buckley brand, has published an "open letter" to conservative leaders that have endorsed Trump. I say "published" because Bozell, like many leaders in the modern conservative movement, has a reputation of riding on the writing skills of a ghost writer. Nonetheless, let us suppose that Bozell wrote his open letter.

If you would like to read that letter in full, you can find it here.

The essence of Bozell's appeal to his conservative friends is that Trump has flipped and flopped, from quite progressive and liberal positions to conservative ones, and has only done so in the context of his campaign, and that, as to many issues, he still holds quite liberal views. So far nothing new there.

But Bozell fairly pleads for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Phyllis Schlafly to "Do the most courageous thing [they]’ve ever done, in a lifetime of bravery. Retract [their] endorsement."

I wonder how Bozell can claim to be the friend of these folk.

I am not calling him a liar ... and I assume we are not talking about "ghost-friending" through some convenient and socially skilled other. But how can retracting an endorsement that, based on Bozell's view of things is so ill, so wrong-headed, and so poor a judgment be difficult? Is there any thing more refreshing than turning over a new leaf, turning a corner, starting a new venture?

But more to the point, how can Bozell, knowing the personal stories of these four conservative leaders, suggest that flip-flopping on their endorsement of Trump would be a courageous act, let alone the most courageous acts of their lives?

Pompous buffoonery!

"Do the most courageous thing you've ever done in your life, retract your endorsement of Donald Trump."

Nah.

Palin gave birth to a child at high risk of profound medical problems when most women these days would murder such a child in the womb (some would after too).

Schlafly stood against the Equal Rights Amendment to the tune of being a "traitor to her gender."

Carson turned from the path so many black sons of single mothers take in America, made himself a student and a scholar and a surgeon and a leader.

Huckabee fought the battle most Americans surrendered on Big Mac hill, changed his life permanently, and for the better.

No. The most courageous decisions are behind these folks.

Moreover, their evident profiles in courage warrant Bozell's reconsideration, and his repentance of joining in the ugliness of the National Review's attack on Trump earlier this year.

Oregon Appeals Court: Sweet Cakes at Bat(ter)

First Liberty Institute has filed its appeal brief on behalf of Sweet Cakes in the case that imposed a $135,000.00 judgment against that small business when its owners declined to use their creative and expressive skills to prepare a cake celebrating a same sex civil commitment ceremony in Oregon. Oh, yeah, I know that there are issues that you think are important, and you may not think this is one. Having spent over a quarter century defending First Amendment rights, I disagree. If you disagree, it is likely either that you (a) hold special sympathies for those seeking recognition of same sex unions/marriages, (b) hold special antipathies toward claims in the Xian community about the "war on Christians," and/or (c) hold the view that baking a specially designed cake does not constitute a form of expression worthy of protection under the First Amendment. I would like to propose that you should welcome the bakers' appeal. First, without regard to your views on same sex marriage or civil unions, the Sweet Cakes decision not to provide their creative and expressive services here DOES NOT resolve the separate STATE LAW issues of whether same sex marriages or civil unions are legal and/or constitutionally required. The extreme examples are often toughest, but they do help to illuminate your logical fallacy. For example, the refusal of a Jewish bakery to design and make a cake celebrating Hitler's Birthday seems to attack the right of individuals to hold political views (neo Nazis, for example), but the bakery holds no sway over such political rights (those rights exist against GOVERNMENT suppression, not popular disapproval). Or the refusal of an African American owned bakery to create a cake celebrating the upcoming centenary of the birth of Klansman, Democrat, and Senator, Robert Byrd likewise seems to attack the right of individuals to hold a political opinion (klansman or other Democrats), but, again, that right is against government suppression, it is not a right to be free from the sensible disapprobation of the public. In fact, if you support the impressed labor and slavery of others against their consciences and agree that expressive and creative acts can be made the stuff of judicially imposed orders, you might check your tyranny privilege. Yes, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, you likely believe that WHAT YOU BELIEVE is so important that others can be made to suffer economically and in essential liberties in services of your beliefs ... while you never suffer for theirs. That is the essence of tyranny. Second, I too, from time to time, have found the automatic invocation of persecution and the annual cry "War on Christmas" wearying. But I have explained here and elsewhere before, much that is described in terms suggestive of "persecution," is just the product of the pluralism that this Nation has come to prize so highly. If Walmart holds a "Holiday" Sale rather than a "Christmas" one, no one forces me to shop at Walmart if I think that an odious attack on Christianity. Walmart's decision might be the overt outworkings of anti-religious bigotry by its board ... or it might be a kind of inclusivity that makes sense for a business that exists to, well, make a profit. Real persecution exists, including in America, although "persecution" in America is nothing like what is inflicted on Xians BY LAW in many ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, and what is inflicted outside of law, for example, by Hindu extremists in India (where, just a few years back, such extremists burnt an evangelist to death in his car). But the story of the Boy Crying Wolf exists for a reason, and I suppose the drumbeat strains of the wolf cry remain in your ears and serve to dismiss the significant difference between a judicial prosecution for failing to apply one's creative and expressive talents in service of a celebration that offends one's religious sensibilities and, for example, the harm of being told "Season's Greetings" rather than "Merry Christmas" at your local Walmart. Still, you should consider setting aside your tedium with the "Christian persecution" industry in America to consider the likely harm to something you DO CONSIDER IMPORTANT: your own rights of conscience, your own liberties. John Donne wrote that no man is an island separate and entire to himself. You may not find it possible to drum up concern for the bakers at Sweet Cakes, but can you drum up sympathy for the lesbian owned printing company that is forced to print gospel tracts stating that homosexuals are deviant sinners and will suffer eternal damnation? If you can do that, if you can fear for their liberties, their conscience, their freedom, then simply transfer your concern to this matter so that you can grasp the danger. Third, perhaps you doubt that baking a cake constitutes a form of expression entitled to consideration under the First Amendment and State Constitutions. If Sweet Cakes sold "stock" cakes, off the shelf, so to speak (the way one can go to the bakery section of their local grocer and find all occasion cakes packaged and ready to be carried away) but refused to sell their ready made cakes to the lesbian couple, that would, under Oregon law, likely evidence a denial of public accommodations on a ground not protected by law. Those aren't the facts here. Sweet Cakes conducts consultations with its clients before creating their custom wedding cakes. That provides the bakers necessary inspirational ideas from which to engage their creative, design, and expressive talents. The execution of those talents produces a unique cake, evocative (when successful) of hopes, aspirations, emotions, ideas. Even if not terribly successful (sort of the Lord Bulwer Lytton of confections), that would not detract from the obvious creative and expressive aspects of cake design. Now, while you might dispute that such designs -- whether complex such as the wedding cake created for the wedding of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip nearly 70 years ago or more simple ones -- involve expressive elements sufficient to give rise to First Amendment considerations. On the other hand, perhaps you wondered how luddite conservatives missed the obvious expressive value of performance artists sprinkling bean sprouts on their chocolate glazed, nude bodies? It would be a self-inflicted wound to mistake your discounting of the value of a particular message or form of expression with the absence of one. We all depend on the broadest, unfettered right of expression to keep government in check. Here, perhaps, your ox is not gored by doubting the expressivity of wedding cakes, but with foresight, you should consider how your ox CAN BE GORED if you tolerate the government's ability to disregard the expressive components of the arts and artisanal work of others. How the Oregon appellate courts will treat this appeal remains to be seen. Why you should care, I think, is obvious. If you value freedom of speech, if you value rights of conscience, then, like me, you wish Sweet Cakes success in their appeal

Honest Letter from the Candidate?

Well, that's hardly to be expected. Honesty about the chances of winning the nomination through the primary and caucus process would have driven our Canadian contender, Ted Cruz, and our Buckeye battler, John Kasich, out of the race no later than the conclusion of the New York primary race (though the Buckeye wilted months ago).

Now our own slice of Canadian bacon and our favorite postal scion appear to be in the process of trying to deny to Donald Trump the necessary delegates to do what -- at this stage in the contest -- only he has any prospect of doing:  reaching the magical delegate count of 1237. 1237 delegates voting for Trump in the first round of the balloting at the Republican Convention this summer would result in his nomination.

So Cruz and Kasich have connived to frustrate that march to success. In States where Cruz is running far behind, he appears to have agreed to expend no additional resources in the primary campaign; Kasich has agreed to do likewise. [The nature of this agreement does appear to be tenuous; Kasich has already clarified that, while he will not make devote further resources in certain States, he is not asking his supporters in those States to give their vote to Cruz.]

So, there really is only one explanation for the continuation of active campaigning by Cruz or Kasich. If they were honest, here's the letter their campaigns would release:

My Fellow Americans, 

I come to you today to explain my decision to put my name in for consideration for nomination by the Republican Party for the 2016 Presidential Election.

Now, I am a practical man. 

As a practical man, I recognize that I have FAILED to convince the majority of you to support my candidacy. In fact, I have failed to convince a majority of the members of my own party to support my candidacy. That FAILURE is reflected in my accumulated delegate count and in the abysmal victory record I have thus far accumulated. 

As a practical man, I know that I cannot win the Republican nomination on the first ballot at the Convention this summer. 

At this point, some of you may wonder, "why does he remain in the race?" 

I can tell you this much. 

My continued presence in the race is not at all impractical. I am practical man. So, my practical reason for remaining in the race is to insure that the only candidate for the Republican nomination that has a mathematical possibility of gaining the nomination on the first round of convention balloting is denied that show of unity and support.  

As a practical man, I take this step because I believe the nation would be better off with either an outright communist, Bernie Sanders, or a lying socialist, Hillary Clinton, as our President, than a successful businessman.  

In the same vein, I have joined forces with my other primary opponent to attempt to prevent Donald Trump from winning such States as New Mexico and Indiana. We have agreed to withdraw our resources from States where the other has the best chance of denying delegates to Trump.  

Warm Regards,  

Ted Cruz/John Kasich"

Even the possibility of a Clinton presidency is obscene. 

Clinton is that kind of liar whose trustworthiness lead folks to know that she is lying because her lips are moving. On matters small -- how close incoming fire may have come to her and Chelsea during their Bosnia visit years ago -- and on matters large -- whether the Benghazi rampage was believed by her or the administration she represented to be a spontaneous demonstration gone awry -- Clinton's demonstrated dishonesty is pathological. 

Yet, the best possible explanation for the conduct of Cruz and Kasich is pride. That is, really, the best explanation. These are the losers that refuse to go home. 

Imagine the Jamaican bobsled team mounting the gold medal stand at the Winter Olympics in Calgary so many years ago. True, that team won its way into the hearts of millions ... but it never won its way on the four man winner's stand. Insisting on the right to be awarded what you have not won is not merely gauche, it is a defect of character. 

Here, that defect of character puts me in mind of the after-revealed fact that Mitt Romney sought the Republican nomination in 2012 because he believed himself to be the only qualified person to seek the office. Oh? Really? And now we realize that Cruz, whose high school boast was to one day rule the world, and Kasich honestly believe we cannot possibly understand that only they, and certainly not Trump, are qualified to be president.

Perhaps the coming further humiliations will tame their pridefulness. Perhaps repentance will come while a Republican general election victory is still possible. Perhaps, like the Ghost of Christmas Present, Ronald Reagan will appear to these two dim souls and take them walkabout in a Nation that is weary of insider dealing and insider trading.

I will not hold my breath.

UPDATED: The British Foreign Office Warns About Dangers From American Bathroom Privacy Laws

but not about the dangers of being shot or killed in lead- and red-riddled streets of America's bloody, Democrat-controlled cities, including Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, DC.

In England, a soldier returning to his base is murdered in a cold-blooded attack by a radical Islamic terrorist.

In England, for the first time, sex crimes reported in a single year have surpassed 100,000. The murder rate is skyrocketing.

In England, cybercrime is up.

In England, the problem of how to kill someone, complicated by the difficulty in obtaining a handgun, has been resolved by resort to the cutlery drawer, and you can actually research the areas of London bearing the highest risk of knifing attacks.

Yet, in England, dear old friend and long-time ally England, the Foreign Office has another danger on its mind. Not radical Islamic terrorist attacks at home, not rape or other sexual violence, not cybercrime, and not cutlery attacks. Rather, the Foreign Office wants English subjects traveling to the United States, particularly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered travelers to be aware of the dangers of traveling in North Carolina and Mississippi.

Here’s the travel advisory update on the Foreign Office’s USA travel advisory page:

 

“LGBT travellers may be affected by legislation passed recently in the states of North Carolina and Mississippi.”

“May be affected by legislation.” There’s a helpful bit of guidance. I wonder just how LGBT travelers may be affected?

Here in North Carolina, for example, we have not had a spate of attacks on visitors from the UK, or at least, if we have had such, it has been ignored in the news media. We certainly haven’t had a spate of attacks targeting gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered Brits, and I’m fairly confident that if we did, that too would be headline news.

So, I am, again, left wondering what dangerous condition might threaten British LGBT travelers in North Carolina?

Inexplicably absent from the travel warnings for the USA-bound Briton are some rather dangerous places, including Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, DC. Just whom must the powers that be in Chicago, Baltimore and Washington, DC know in Britain's Foreign Office to keep a justifiable and sensible travel advisory from being issued for UK residents headed to those dark and bloody grounds? Crimes, particularly murders, in those three cities alone, drove a spike in violent crime in the USA in 2015, and the murderous jungle of Chicago is on pace for another banner year of bloodletting. Here's a link on the role those three cities played in America's violent crime spike last year. As that article mentions:

About half of the increase in murders is attributed to Baltimore (up 63 percent), Chicago (13 percent), and Washington, DC (51 percent). Violent crime reports in general ticked up 3.1 percent in 2015, largely due to substantial increases in Los Angeles (up 25 percent), Baltimore (19 percent), and Charlotte (16 percent).

Far be it from me to suggest that Britain's Foreign Office does a disservice to Britons traveling to the USA by their warning ... a warning that is oblique and unhelpful in any event for its lack of specificity about the dangers presented to LGBT travelers ... yet, it does seem strange that the kind of "steering" of travel destinations that may result from such a warning just might land unsuspecting Britons in such shooting galleries as Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington, DC.

_______________________________________________________________

As of at least June 23, 2016, the British Foreign Office Travel Abroad Warnings no long advise Britons traveling to America of the dangers inherent in traveling to a nation that maintains sex segregated toileting and showering facilities in public places.

Apparently a cooler head prevailed.

In place of that warning, others that seem to make more sense, are now being fronted. Included are hurricane season warnings, the Pulse shooting advisory, and Zika virus exposure risks.

Oddly absent yet is any specific warnings about the dangers attendant to visiting cities with Democratic Party mayors and city councils. Nothing about the fact that Chicago is on track to hit 300 gun murders this year and perhaps 4000 nonfatal casualties. Oh, there is this caution:  "You should be alert to the dangers of car and street crime." That guidance would be greatly enhanced in its helpfulness if it distinguished between the risks of street crime in Mayberry versus street crime in Chicago, Baltimore, and, for example, Washington, DC.

Complete the Following: Here I Sit All Broken Hearted ...

If you're rhyme sense led you to complete that sentence with "tried to poop and only farted," then you might live in North Carolina.

On the other hand, if you finished that rhyme with, "a pretty girl walked in just as I farted," then you probably live in a more sophisticated State, perhaps one where urinating in public is now lawful, or in which an end is being brought to the provision of gender-separated toileting facilities.

Something to think about in this whole bathroom imbroglio:

The fellow that was waiting, surreptitiously, and then peeping at the little girl.

He was a guy. He didn't think he was a girl trapped in a guy's body (thus, he didn't think he was "transgendered" or, as the DSM might call it suffering from "gender dysphoria"). He was, no doubt, perverted (no offense to my radical Islamic friends who take no issue with 7-, 8-, and 9-yo girls being married off), but his sexual orientation appears to be straight or heterosexual.

Given the wide stance of a certain Alaskan Senator, I don't doubt that there is a certain amount of isogender peeping too. It's just that the early stories of apparently criminal activity following North Carolina's bathroom law involve "straight" men peeping and videotaping in women's bathrooms.

Why am I mentioning this fact?

Because, TBH, there is justifiable anger about Cities like Charlotte threatening businesses that address the risks of such crimes by providing gender specific facilities and unsurprising angst from the "transgendered" community over being targeted by the corrective law. As with all these kinds of disputes, at a certain level, they are a distraction. They generate mucho fuego. They divide in ways that i don't think most people would be proud to admit.

If we applied certain fairly sensible and enduring principles, there would be little anger or angst, and what there would be, I think most folks would recognize would be the product of folks that enjoy the triumph of their demands over the desires of others.

For example, what if Target had only one person facilities. Admittedly, when the kidneys are bursting, you hate seeing a line and to do its best job of serving its customers, Target might need to have multiple one person facilities. But that approach would guarantee everyone a modicum of privacy.

As an alternative, Target could have two kinds of multi-person restrooms, but not identified by the gender of use. One set of restrooms could just have urinals and sinks. Anyone that could relieve nature's call with a urinal would have the option of using such a facility, whether they identify as male or female, or whether someone else would identify them as male or female. The other set of restrooms could be equipped with commodes in stalls and sinks. If your "business" required the assumption of a more restful pose, then this would be the restroom for you. Now, I would not go with the stall-less commodes, but if Target chose to do so, it would be its privilege so to do (and a great way of reducing restroom use too!). I might agree with the idea of floor to ceiling stall walls.

It seems to me that, in virtually every circumstance, either of these approaches turns down the heat (turns down for what?), and facilitate movement (including of bowels and minds). There is, however, one small group that might object:

Some part of the transgendered community and their supporters are not just looking for a place to drop a deuce. They are looking to assert their right to poop amongst those who share the gender with which they identify. Seriously. If one-person facilities were to be the order of the day, that would not be the accommodation sought by the potty partisans. Rather, what they seek is that all objection cease to the presence of a person whose body screams out to others "man" but whose mind mews "woman" in a toileting facility designated for female users (and vice versa).

We have seen this ideological tyranny before.

The struggle over slavery produced such a clash: slave-holders, in Lincoln's view, would have never been satisfied until all objection was silenced to slavery and until those who had objected to the inhuman practice acknowledged slavery as "morally right and socially elevating."

The abortion issue has produced an identical ideological clash. It offends the ardent defenders of a woman's right to choose to show photographs of aborted babies, sometimes even tasteful Lennart Nilsson-style photographs of children in utero. Such photographs bear witness to barbarism and to humanity in indisputable ways, and so supporters of the right to homicidal eviction of babies will always demand two things: an admission that abortion is a moral good, and a denial that children before birth are human persons.

So, returning to the porcelain perturbations, we really just have to decide one key question:

Are we for, or against, liberty?

If we are for liberty, then we leave Target free to make itself inhospitable to families concerned about the safety of their children and to the survivors of rape and other sexual traumas. If we are for liberty, then we leave ourselves free to conduct business with persons of like thinking.

Liberty, then, is the guiding principle that resolves this dispute.

Charlotte struck hard against the liberty of private places of business when it stripped away a previous ordinance provision that allowed private businesses to provide sex-separated toileting and bathing facilities. The State of North Carolina swatted the Queen City on the hind side with the bathroom privacy law.

But if Charlotte had respected liberty to start with, this kerfuffle would never have gotten going.

The Boss Wants To Boss Carolinians About Restrooms ... But Demands Private Potty and Shower on Tour

North Carolina's recently enacted bathroom bill is causing quite a stench.

PayPal reacted by announcing that it would drop plans for a processing center in the States ... while providing no indication that it would discontinue doing business in Saudi Arabia, where homosexual acts are punishable by the death penalty.

San Francisco and Washington, DC, and New York announced bans on nonessential travel by government employees to the State ... taxpayers in those jurisdictions can send thank you notes for the savings to my attention.

But, and more disappointing to folks who don't really care whether they're listening to good rock and roll or great rock and roll, Bruce Springsteen announced the cancellation of his scheduled April 10th show in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Bruce announced his cancellation on the front page of his website, brucespringsteen.net. Here's a screen capture:

Springsteen objects to the State of North Carolina correcting a change in the law that the City of Charlotte attempted to foist on its citizens, including businesses that transact business with the City or that provide services inside the City. Charlotte opened fire with its sweeping ordinance changes, which included striking down this section of the existing Charlotte Ordinance:

Sec. 12-59. - Prohibited sex discrimination. 

(a) It shall be unlawful to deny a person, because of sex, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a restaurant, hotel, or motel. 

(b) This section shall not apply to the following: 

(1) Restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses and similar facilities which are in their nature distinctly private. 

(2) YMCA, YWCA and similar types of dormitory lodging facilities. 

(3) A private club or other establishment not, in fact, open to the public.

Yes, that's right. The Charlotte Ordinance used to permit sex-based discrimination on access to restrooms, shower rooms, bathhouses, similar facilities, YMCAs, YWCAs, similar lodging facilities, and private clubs. The change in the Charlotte ordinance stripped privately owned businesses of the power to maintain separate toileting and showering facilities, and lodging facilities, based on sex. You know those days, when there were "Men's Rooms" and "Women's Rooms" at restaurants, movie theaters, clubs, and the like. Charlotte stripped out from its laws the exemption allowing separate facilities.

That is what provoked the State to act.

I realize there are hard cases out there. I understand that there are individuals who suffer a kind of body dysmorphia, and do not feel themselves to be the gender that their plumbing suggests that they are. And, candidly, I have never been one to check other folks in the restroom I am using to make sure that we are all just guys here. (Of course, former House Speaker, Denny Hastert, with his recliner set where he could look into the shower stalls in the boys locker room at the high school where he was the wrestling coach proves that some folks will do just that.)

Some of what is at play here, it seems to me, is not so much whether someone who identifies as male is using the men's restroom, but that someone who identifies as male is demanding the right to be told it is okay to use the men's bathroom despite obvious, well, equipment issues. The same, of course, would hold for the transgendered born in a man's body but identifying as a female. There is a meme circulating on the web these days suggesting that we have all likely used the same public restroom facilities at the same time with a transgendered person. I happen to think that is likely true. So the controversy isn't really over the fact of such uses. It is, as I suggested, over a demand for recognition of the right to do so.

Now, about Bruce Springsteen.

Well folks who are from below the Mason-Dixon Line, we are often viewed as the backward stepchildren of the Nation. So we are privileged to be taught right from wrong by the likes of the Boss and his E Street Band.

Well, we would be taught right from wrong, if, of course, they demonstrated this new openness and gentleness they find shockingly absent in the potty law.

Evidence exists, however, to the contrary. Evidence that damns Bruce's teaching. Evidence that Bruce values privacy in the potty and the shower. Evidence that he values that same privacy for his wife, for his kids, for his band mates.

The Smoking Gun website has gathered special conditions riders from many famous performers over the years. For example, they have the rider showing that Luciano Pavarotti required venues to provide him with a golf cart for transportation within venues and they also have the rider showing that Van Halen required M&Ms as part of their "munchies" but warned venues "absolutely no brown ones."

As it happens, the Smoking Gun received the Bruce Springsteen rider for its 2002 tour. And it is in the rider that Springsteen's hypocrisy is revealed. There, Ts crossed and Is dotted, Bruce demands private potty and showering facilities for himself, and the same for his wife, and for the E Street Band. He also demands a private potty for his kids, who get their own backstage room. Here's that rider excerpt:

You can see that excerpt, and the riders for his wife, for the band, and for his kids, on the Smoking Gun's website here.

A wag once said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

Springsteen's hypocrisy is to demand of you what he does not demand for himself, that you surrender concern for those joining you in the bathroom and in the shower. I'm all for learning, but I think I'll wait for another teacher.

A Quick Primer on Determining Citizenship

Here is a quick civics lesson on the topic of citizenship and how citizenship is determined by law.

To begin with, going back through the history of the development of the law, there have been two basic approaches to how the citizenship of a child is determined.

One approach asks the question: "What is the citizenship of the child's parents?"

Take, for example, a family consisting of a husband and wife who lived their whole lives, from birth, in Switzerland, and that are working at the Swiss Embassy in Washington, DC, when their child is born. Under Swiss law, the child has the citizenship of the parents, Swiss citizenship.

Now, as a complicating factor, the birth is in the USA, where our Fourteenth Amendment makes "all persons born" here and "subject to" our jurisdiction "citizens." The application of the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause might seem to mean that the child would also be an American citizen. But the seeming complication is resolved by understanding that persons in the USA serving as foreign delegates and emissaries are not, typically, subject to our legal jurisdiction (think "diplomatic immunity").

The rule the Swiss observe, and most European countries other than the UK, is the rule of citizenship through blood or heritage, called JUS SANGUINIS. Sanguinis is a latin term for the blood. The concept is that citizenship is decided by blood, or more correctly, by inheritance from one's parents.

So, despite the child's foreign birth, the child would be viewed by Switzerland as a Swiss citizen, and would not be viewed by the USA as a US citizen.

The other principal approach asks the question: "What is the place of birth of the child?"

Take our Swiss family above, however, bring them to the USA on student visas to study at one of our fine institutions of higher education. They give birth to a child here, but are not intending to remain in America after they complete their education.

What is the citizenship of that child?

Suppose that the family returns to Switzerland and builds a family home and a life there. When the child is a young adult, he presents himself to take advantage of some program, but is required to provide proof of his Swiss citizenship. He shows the American birth certificate, and his Swiss registration of birth abroad, which his parents filed at a Swiss consulate in the USA. He may still be denied access to programs limited to participation by Swiss citizenship.

Why?

Well, under Swiss law he could certainly claim Swiss citizenship. His birth abroad, properly registered at the time with a Swiss consulate in the country of his birth, would not be an obstacle.

Still, his birth in the USA at a time when he and his parents were "subject to" American "jurisdiction" (remember, in this example, his parents are just students studying here and not working as representatives of the Swiss government) would also mean that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, US law would treat the child as a US citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment adopted for the entire nation the legal principle of JUS SOLI, or "citizenship of the soil."

Now, despite claims by some, the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship at birth to persons born in the United States was NOT a change in the general principle of law for the United States so much as it was a guaranteed expansion of the existing principle to newly freed slaves, whose claim to citizenship and the protections of the Constitution had been roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. But the manner of deciding how citizenship was acquired -- by birth in the United States or by naturalization -- was the pre-existing principle and applied to such questions for persons other than African slaves.

In fact, from the time of the Revolution, when the thirteen English colonies became thirteen independent States, the principle of jus soli governed this question of citizenship. How do we know that this is so? It is, without dispute, the fact that, before the Revolution, the American colonies were governed by English law. The great body of English law consisted of two parts. There were the statute laws enacted by Parliament. There were the legal principles derived from judicial decisions of English courts. The first body of law would be English Statute Law. The second body of law would be English Common Law. When the colonies rebelled, threw of the colonial yoke, and set themselves up as independent NATIONS, they weren't rejecting their identity as Englishmen in toto. It was, in fact, their claim that the Crown and the Parliament were failing to accord to them treatment under law equal to that afforded to their English brethren at home.

When these Nation States stood up and claimed for themselves equal stations in the world, they ADOPTED English Common Law as the rule of law in each of their Nations. They accomplished this in two ways. In certain States, statutes were passed by the legislatures adopting English Common Law as the rule of law for the State, until repealed or replaced. These statutes were, and are still, called "Reception Statutes." Other States adopted English Common Law by judicial decision. (Ultimately, with the sole exception of Louisiana, all the States of the Union also adopted English Common Law as the rule of law until repealed or replaced.)

Why does the adoption of English Common Law matter to the question of citizenship?

English Common Law matters because, under it, the question of citizenship was always addressed and resolved using jus soli, or citizenship by place of birth. While Parliament did subsequently enact statutes to grant British citizenship to the children of Englishmen living abroad, the English Common Law always held that EVERY CHILD BORN WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF THE KINGDOM was an English citizen (the sole exception to Britain's claim of citizenship would be children born to foreign emissaries or delegates in England due to serving there as representatives of their home country).

So, as a young adult, the American-born Swiss man might think of himself as Swiss, or as American, or, though he would be wrong to do so, he might think himself as a holder of dual citizenship, of Switzerland and the USA.

He would be wrong, however, to think that because, while the USA allows dual citizenships, Switzerland does not do so. In fact, in Switzerland, the presumption legally strips a Swiss citizen in such circumstances of their Swiss citizenship unless the individually proactively shows that they have surrendered their claim to citizenship in the other country.

Because Switzerland does not recognize or allow dual citizenship, the young man would be Swiss if he renounced his US citizenship. But if he did not DO ANYTHING AT ALL, he would only be a US citizen.

These fact patterns can be more complex in many ways. Nations no longer simply follow either jus sanguinis or jus soli. There are hodgepodges of conditional citizenship grants and the like adopted by legislative bodies or constitutions around the world.

In addition, as travel is safer and more available to broad economic classes, the chances increase that a child will be born to parents with different citizenships.

So, for example, a man might be from Cuba, and living in Canada. He might marry a woman from the United States, also living in Canada.

They might take no action to seek Canadian citizenship. Or they might apply for Canadian citizenship. To do so, they might, or might not, be required to take action regarding the citizenship they acquired at the time of their births in the places of their births.

So, for example, the fact that a Cuban lived outside Cuba did not necessarily mean that Cuba abandoned its claim to his loyalty. The fact that an American lived in Canada did not mean we abandoned our claim of loyalty to her. And, in fact, under Cuban law, any child born to that man might be claimed as a Cuban national by Cuba, and any child born to that woman might be claimed as an American national by the United States.

To further complicate matters, if we are using the example of any of the Nations that were once English colonies, as both Canada and the United States were, then the nation where the child of the Cuban father and the American mother was actually born might also claim that child as a citizen. So such a child might -- other considerations set aside temporarily -- be a citizen of Cuba, America, and Canada.

Now, oftentimes, discussions of this sort might strike a person as being kind of like discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of pin. And that would likely be true, except when it isn't.

Citizenship can matter.

Suppose, for example, that you were an American Jew, with US Citizenship as a result of your birth here, but entitled to Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. You might hold two passports. But if you were on board the Achille Lauro and your ship was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists, you might well hide or destroy your Israeli passport for fear that, if found, the Palestinians might roll your wheelchair to the side of the ship and throw you overboard.

Or perhaps you were an Englishman living in Switzerland after the start of World War II. Returning home on your English passport might present real complications for you. There are times when more is at stake than simply be thought of as "the ugly American."

There are other times that citizenship can matter, as well.

When England was seeking a legitimate occupant of the Throne after the Commonwealth, there were no generally acceptable and likely takers until Parliament adjusted the governing principle, found in English Common Law, that only persons born in the Kingdom were citizens and capable of inheriting lands or titles. In fact, it was that impetus, the search for a King, that led Parliament to enact the first statute under which it granted natural born citizenship status to anyone born outside England, which, in turn, allowed the Elector of Hanover to claim the throne of England as George I. George I was the grandfather of George III, whose reign witnessed the American Revolution.

So, for most of us, most of the time, there are not many great concerns that depend on our citizenship. We are not likely to be executed or elected King because of it. But it can be made to be a matter of significance and it is a set of principles about which we should be concerned and to which we should devote some understanding.

Now, if you think that you recognized, in one of my fact patterns, the life story of one candidate for the Republican nomination, you actually did. Ted Cruz is that man whose father was Cuban and whose mother was American and whose birth in Canada resulted in claims of patriation and fealty by three separate nations: Canada by reason of his birth there, Cuba by reason of his father's citizenship there, and the United States by reason of his mother's citizenship.

While some folks think that there is no reasonable objection or justification for doubting that Ted Cruz is not only a US citizen but also a "natural born citizen" of this nation, I am not going to answer that question here. I am, however, going to leave you with the suggestion that, giving the complexity of the facts related to his birth, it is unreasonable to treat those who entertain doubts about his status as ignorant buffoons, particularly if you have not previously given all these factors due consideration.

Hillary Clinton Sock Puppet Sends Whiney Letter to DOJ ... Cruz Supporters Confuse Letter for Something Significant

Here's an address you might want to have:

The United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

You can use that address to send letters to the Attorney General of the United States, Loretta Lynch. You could, for example, inquire why the investigation into criminal wrongdoing in the matter of the Clinton email server seems to be taking so long.

Or, if you are a sock puppet of Hillary Clinton, you can write up a nonsense laden accusatory jeremiad alleging criminal wrong-doing against Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

That's what American Democracy Legal Fund has done.

It seems that, when ADLF is not busy filing complaints against Republican members of the House and the Senate, or Bernie Sanders, or other Republican candidates for the Presidency, the organization takes the time to nose up some horrific tale of public corruption latent in Ben Carson's public statement that he would have an advisory role in the Trump administration, a role he connects with his decision to endorse Trump.

I realize that the allegation is suspiciously lacking in details. What position of government service was Carson offered, for example, seems to be fairly significant when an organization is going to accuse a candidate of having offered an appointment to Carson to obtain his endorsement of Trump.

Perhaps it would help to read the accusatory instrument.

Careless members of the lap dance media refer to this letter as a "criminal complaint." It is not a "criminal complaint," I caution you to remember, because that term, "criminal complaint" is legal jargon with a specific meaning, limited to a charging document prepared by and filed by a government agency.

Here's the letter.

The webpage for ADLF appears to provide an incomplete rendering of the letter. Perhaps when the ADLF staff is not busy nosing out publicity, they can repair their page and make its oh so important information available rather than illusory.

You get the essence, though, in this juicy tidbit of a paragraph:

Former presidential candidate Dr. Carson endorsed Mr. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination on March 11, 2016.  Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson met the day before to discuss and finalize the endorsement.  Three days later, on March 14, Dr. Carson gave an interview to Newsmax TV to discuss his recent endorsement of Mr. Trump.  During the interview, Dr. Carson stated that he believed Mr. Trump would “surround himself with very good people.”  When asked if he would be one of those people, Dr. Carson responded, “I will be doing things as well.”  When the interviewer asked whether that meant in a Trump administration, Dr. Carson replied, “Certainly in an advisory capacity.”  The interviewer then asked Dr. Carson if “that’s been determined” and followed by asking, “When you sat down with [Mr. Trump] that was discussed?”  Dr. Carson openly admitted, “Yes,” and said that while they “hadn’t hammered out all the details,” “it is very important that we work together.”  When asked if this meant a cabinet position, Dr. Carson declined to “reveal any details about it right now, because all of this is still very liquid.”

Now, there is no denying that there is a federal statute that makes it a crime for a candidate to pledge or promise an appointment to any public or private position in order to gain support for his candidacy. Here's Title 18 USC 599, the statute in question:

Whoever, being a candidate, directly or indirectly promises or pledges the appointment, or the use of his influence or support for the appointment of any person to any public or private position or employment, for the purpose of procuring support in his candidacy shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the violation was willful, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Carson, in an interview, says that he will be acting "certainly in an advisory capacity."

Scour that federal statute. Find the place where it is made a crime to agree to listen to guidance and advice from a person as a condition of accepting their political endorsement or support. Search all day. Take your time. It isn't there.

What is there is a prohibition on the promising of something remunerative, a position, appointed or otherwise, public or private. That, after all, is the essence of bribery, offering financial benefit for some act.

Now, let's wrap this up and see if we can't get the big picture.

Ben Carson gives an interview and states that he will be "doing things as well ... [c]ertainly in an advisory capacity." No evidence of a crime there. But surely there must be more to the story. Or, at least, if you are a progressive statist, you want folks to think and believe there is more. You want them to confuse your fog of confusion with the smoke of a real fire of scandal.

Now, how do I go around accusing ADLF of being a progressivist, statist organization?

Well, I suppose I can start by pointing out that ADLF registered itself with the District of Columbia government. When it did so, it identified three "governors," with the top name on the list being David Brock.

Here's a screen capture of the ADLF registration page, followed by a screen capture of the listing of ADLF's governors:

Then, of course, there is the all important question, who is David Brock?

There is no "short answer" to the question, but if there is, it is this: David Brock was, at one time, a seemingly conservative journalist whose investigative writing exposed Bill Clinton as a lethario. Somewhere along the way, however, Brock changed his views and opinions. With the assistance of money from George Soros, the Darth Vader of American politics, he founded "Media Matters for America," the first in a string of progressive, leftist attack groups.

To get the skinny, the low down, I'd recommend this quick read brought to you by David Horowitz.

So, there you have it.

Hillary's henchman, David Brock, created the American Democracy Legal Fund. To fund the organization, which is set up as a IRS 527 organization, ADLF has received $100,000.00 in reported donations, half of that from the National Education Association, the other half from a David Brock PAC, the American Bridge 21st Century PAC.

Here are the screenshots showing the 2014 and 2016 donations to ADLF:

The American Bridge 21st Century PAC is led by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, former Maryland Lieutenant Governor and failed candidate for Governor there. The PAC is associated with the American Bridge 21st Century Fund; in electronic records for that organization, David Brock is shown as the sole governor. And here are screenshots showing Brock's connection to the American Bridge 21st Century Fund and its PAC:

Now, at the bottom of this pile of crusted crud, I found a question remaining:

Why are Republicans picking up this story and circulating it?

Seriously.

Why are folks who know that David Brock is a shrill shill for Hill-ary, who loathe the work and role of the National education Association in foisting the statism and progressivism of the liberal agenda, pretending that there is any "here" "here"? Yet they are doing so; the "criminal complaint" (read that as "whiney nonsense letter") came to my attention because of a reposting of the "news story" about the "criminal complaint" posted on his news feed by a man I know to be reliably Christian, conservative, pro-life, and Republican.

I also know from being connected to him on Facebook that he is rooting for a Republican candidate other than Donald Trump.

Could this be the reason to wade in the sewage of David Brock?

Is there no unjustifiably low low to which one should not go in the effort to destroy a Republican primary opponent who is saying so many things so correctly, and whose life evidences the qualities that normally appeal to Republicans: hard work, hard work, and hard work.

So, now you know why I had to get this information in front of you. Because I want you to think about whether you really want to be Hillary Clinton's stooge, David Brock's turd burglar? Is your preference for Ted Cruz so important that you would wallow in the filth of these smears, from a known and catastrophic smear agent?

Kamala Harris: The Camel Toe of Pro-Abortion Bias

No.

Seriously.

I realize that making fun of people because of their names is a low blow.

And, so, yes, this is a low blow.

Kamala Harris is the Attorney General of California. She wants to be the junior United States Senator from California. In fact, she's currently a candidate for that office. Here's her website.

If you explore her candidate website, you will discover that she uses the page to solicit support for Planned Parenthood. Here's a screen capture for the solicitation page:

I've left the web address bar in the screen capture so there can be no dispute over what Ms. Harris has done. 

Now, lots of people support Planned Parenthood. Why does it matter if Kamala does too?

Because Kamala is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer for the State of California. She is the Attorney General. And, as head of California's law enforcement mechanism, she has used her office to target the Center for Medical Progress and its director, David Daleiden. This week, on the strength of a search warrant obtained by the California Attorney General, police searched Daleiden's home and seized videotape recordings. Presumably, these are the recordings from which ten months of embarrassment and shame have been generated by the Center for Medical Progress to the great discomfort of Planned Parenthood.

Now, as to the Camel Toe of bias.

Some things are obvious. Way more obvious than is typically expected. One such form of obvious display has the charming moniker, "camel toe." If you don't know the phrase or its meaning, you can find it with ease on the interwebs. It suffices to say that, in a more genteel time, a more modest soul would not put on public display that which is made overly obvious in the "camel toe."

Then there is Kamala's "Camel Toe" of bias.

A government officer, the Chief Law Enforcement Officer, is expected to conduct themselves in a manner that puts out of any question the possibility of bias.

That isn't Jim's rule.

Here, for example, is what the California Courts have said on the topic:

"Held to a standard higher than that imposed on other attorneys . . . ." 

"[T]he prosecutor represents 'a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all . . . ."

The danger that flows from bias in the exercise of the prosecutorial function is that justice will always be doubted when it is delivered via biased officers.

For this reason, for a long time, the American Bar Association has set the bar for prosecutorial discretionary decision-making at a high level:

The ABA Standards for Criminal Justice counsel against prosecutorial discretion being exercised in service of impermissible, invidiously discriminatory biases.

In the case of Kamala's Camel Toe of Prosecutorial Bias, here is a candidate for elective office who is soliciting support on her candidate website for an organization, Planned Parenthood, whose practices of disposing of aborted human baby parts has caused much of the nation to recoil in horror and several States to discontinue funding of the organization for any purpose. Clearly, Kamala is biased for Planned Parenthood. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the use of her campaign website to solicit support for the organization.

There's more than just the solicitation of support for Planned Parenthood.

There's the cash.

Harris has received "received $15,000 from five Planned Parenthood-affiliated PACS in 2014, according to ElectionTrack.com[,]" according to a news report by LifeSiteNews. You can read that report and the linked supporting documentation here.

Thus the Camel Toe of Bias, no single lobed dingle berry to stain the prosecution of Daleiden. Here the first lobe, public solicitations of support for Planned Parenthood on the candidate website of the Attorney General, lies in close proximity to the second lobe, oodles of cash lining the candidate coffer for Kamala.

Kamala ought to consider withdrawing from any prosecution of Daleiden. In fact, under typical rules of ethics, because Kamala's judgment is fairly criticized as biased, both Harris and her office should recuse themselves from further involvement in any investigation of Daleiden, or for that matter, of the actual wrong-doer, Planned Parenthood.

Instead, as is so often the case with the unwelcome and intruding Camel's nose, we are just going to be treated to the ongoing display of Kamala's Camel Toe of Bias.

How Hard Will Cruz Fight to Keep This Document Secret?

The image above is the top portion of page 1 of the official form required by the Canadian government for any person seeking to renounce their Canadian citizenship.

Did you ever think you might have an American President that actually had to file this form, in order to assuage the concerns of his fellow Americans about his lifelong dual citizenship?

Yet here we are, in 2016, facing the prospect, slim but real, that the Republican Party would put an expatriate Canadian on the top of their November ticket.

Given that circumstance, you would think there might be some curiosity about the contents of Ted Cruz's Application to Rounce Canadian Citizenship.  After all, there has been no end of curiosity about the contents of other candidates' personal files, as a principal example, the incessant cry for the tax returns of Donald Trump (returns that Ted Cruz insinuated might show Trump had dealing with "the mob"). Yet, here we are 3/5ths of the way through the primary process and there is yet NO HUE and CRY, "Give us the Application!"

It isn't as though it would be difficult to produce.

Ted's an attorney. He undoubtedly maintained a copy of the document he submitted.

And, it is something of a curiosity, sure, but it is more than just a curiosity. Remember, one must be a natural born citizen of the United States to be eligible to be president. Canada, on the other hand, requires one that renounces Canadian citizenship to prove that they have citizenship elsewhere (avoiding persons becoming stateless as a consequence of granting such an application).

Seeing Ted's form would provide us with important information and insights.




















Notice, for example, Question 5A requires affirmation of citizenship elsewhere than Canada, and that proof of such citizenship be attached to the application. Question 5B requires that the applicant state the reason for renunciation. Given that Ted Cruz's mom's name appears on a list of potential Canadian voters, there is some possibility that she actively surrendered her US citizenship before Ted was born, or that she chose not to register his birth with the US Consulate at the time.

Getting an eyeball on Ted's proof of citizenship here just might prove interesting.

Perhaps his mom did file a consular report of birth abroad, perhaps not. Just as interesting would be the discovery of Ted's proffered reasons for renouncing his "natural born" Canadian citizenship. What might Ted have said? Perhaps, "I want to run for President, and your confused American cousins might not understand that I can be a 'natural born' citizen of two nations at the same time"? Or, maybe, "Hey guys, this is embarrassing, I've already been elected to the US Senate and never even thought about my dual citizenship and how it might sit with the YAhoos down here in Texas"?

Page two of the renunciation application has some good questions on it. Question 6 inquires about current address inside or outside Canada. It requires PROOF of residence outside Canada too. Doesn't seem like terribly private and personal information, the kind that Ted would need to hide. In fact, Question 6 is the kind of question he's probably had to answer a bunch of times, for things like tax returns, job applications, driver's licenses, etc.

Of course, pesky Question 7, seeking details regarding his birth might fester a bit in Ted's mind. Why, you ask. Simply because Question 7, properly answered, would remind everyone that Ted calls Calgary home, and Canada is the country of his origin. It's a craw sticker, really. Every time he gets past the concern that we might be frying Canadian bacon in the White House, someone offers him a Molson or cracks a Calgary stampede joke.

Now page 4, this one is a puzzler for a guy like Ted. It ought to be straight forward. Just list your parents, their countries of origin, and a few minor marital details. But again, the completed Ted Cruz renunciation would serve as a reminder that Ted's dad was, in all likelihood, a citizen of Cuba at the time of Ted's birth. And that really stinks up the citizenship works. Because, as it turns out, Ted was claimed by THREE NATIONS at birth:

• Cuban law asserts that children born to Cubans abroad are citizens of Cuba, and of no other Nation
• Canadian law asserts that all children born in Canada are citizens of Canada
• US law grants naturalized citizenship at birth to children born abroad to Americans

So, Ted's assertion that he is a "natural born citizen" is certainly true. He's a natural born citizen of Canada, by Canadian law. And he is a natural born citizen of Cuba by Cuban law. The assertion that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, however, is unsupported by law or fact.

The last page of the renunciation application is a document checklist. It has to be filed with the application and it lists documents required to be filed with the application. So, in Ted's case, he would have had to provide a certified copy of his birth certificate.

Fortunately for Ted, that seems to have been an easy task. His birth certificate even showed up in the newspapers:

Still there are those other troublesome document requests:

• certified copy of proof of citizenship of a country other than canada
• certified copy of proof of residence outside canada
• certified copies of two additional pieces of personal ID, including at least one photo ID

Now, to prove up his citizenship elsewhere, what might Ted offer?

Well, if you ask the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, the answer would be:

The most common documents that establish U.S. citizenship are: 

• Birth Certificate, issued by a U.S. State (if the person was born in the United States), or by the U.S. Department of State (if the person was born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who registered the child’s birth and U.S. citizenship with the U.S. Embassy or consulate); 

• U.S. Passport, issued by the U.S. Department of State; 

• Certificate of Citizenship, issued to a person born outside the United States who derived or acquired U.S. citizenship through a U.S. citizen parent; or 

• Naturalization Certificate, issued to a person who became a U.S. citizen after 18 years of age through the naturalization process.

Of course, Ted admits his Canadian birth, so there won't be a birth certificate forthcoming from a US State. But perhaps Ted's parents registered his birth with a consulate in Canada? If so, producing a copy of that consular report and a certificate of citizenship should present no logistical problem, although the discomfort factor accompanying yet another reminder of his foreign birth may trouble him, and lead to a decision to decline to produce the Application for Renunciation of Citizenship.

Ted won't likely be president of the United States. But he has gotten near enough that it is time for the public to insist that he fully disclose the process by which he abandoned his natural born Canadian citizenship. Clear the air, Ted, produce your Application to Renounce Canadian Citizenship and the supporting documents you filed with the application.