Joseph West commented on Greta Van Susteren Mildly Rebukes Trump For Attacking Carly Fiorina’s Looks
2015-09-11 13:08:13 -0400
· Flag
Well, in tRump’s defense, he equates a woman’s face with her persona. He doesn’t see women as people—only objects (and objects whose worth is based only on their physical appearances).
Joseph West commented on Huckabee Fear Mongers That Pastors Will Be Persecuted If KY Clerk Kim Davis Can’t Break The Law
2015-09-10 15:07:37 -0400
· Flag
Michael, please “give up this myth” that anyone IN THIS ARTICLE OR COMMENT SECTION said “all of fox news is on her side.”
Ellen’s article CLEARLY points out this happened on Hannity’s show (which is NOT “all of fox news”).
And, aside from YOUR comment, no one else even discusses “all of fox news” except in the broadest senses: bemused mentions “giving up FNC” and both Antoinette and scooter talk about Huckabee’s eventual return as a FoxNoise host). The other three comments mention absolutely NOTHING about Fox: Rob and Karen’s comments both refute Huckabee’s “concerns” and truman’s pointing out Huckabee’s self-aggrandizement.
But NO ONE is furthering the “myth” that you describe.
At any rate, you mentioned three. That’s out of HOW MANY on-air personalities?
Ellen’s article CLEARLY points out this happened on Hannity’s show (which is NOT “all of fox news”).
And, aside from YOUR comment, no one else even discusses “all of fox news” except in the broadest senses: bemused mentions “giving up FNC” and both Antoinette and scooter talk about Huckabee’s eventual return as a FoxNoise host). The other three comments mention absolutely NOTHING about Fox: Rob and Karen’s comments both refute Huckabee’s “concerns” and truman’s pointing out Huckabee’s self-aggrandizement.
But NO ONE is furthering the “myth” that you describe.
At any rate, you mentioned three. That’s out of HOW MANY on-air personalities?
Joseph West commented on Fr. Jonathan Morris Defends Kim Davis
2015-09-07 01:03:41 -0400
· Flag
So, Father Sparky, what makes Davis any different from the mullahs who run Iran?
From what was revealed, it appears as though Davis intimidated her subordinates and tried to foist her religious beliefs on others. So, again, how is she any different from the mullahs who run Iran, through similar programs of intimidation and forcing their particular views of Islam on a public which may or may not be as, um, dedicated.
If she wants to “preach” and “spread her faith,” she can always become a minister and get a congregation where THAT IS EXPECTED. However, this cow is a PUBLIC SERVANT. Why are HER “religious beliefs” being allowed to overrule other people’s rights? Her First Amendment religious rights stop at the point where they interfere with MINE.
From what was revealed, it appears as though Davis intimidated her subordinates and tried to foist her religious beliefs on others. So, again, how is she any different from the mullahs who run Iran, through similar programs of intimidation and forcing their particular views of Islam on a public which may or may not be as, um, dedicated.
If she wants to “preach” and “spread her faith,” she can always become a minister and get a congregation where THAT IS EXPECTED. However, this cow is a PUBLIC SERVANT. Why are HER “religious beliefs” being allowed to overrule other people’s rights? Her First Amendment religious rights stop at the point where they interfere with MINE.
Joseph West commented on Outnumbered Attacks Michelle Obama Over Healthy School Lunches
2015-09-02 15:31:09 -0400
· Flag
Someone should ask these idiots how they feel about schools in general. If they think the kids should be determining what they’re eating, why not let the kids decide whether they really want to study math and grammar and science and all the rest of the standard curriculum or just play their X-boxes and chat on their phones all day?
Of course, I really doubt a single one of these obnoxious assholes has any kids in public schools (which are subject to these rules). But, charter and private schools are probably serving healthier foods anyways without any whining from right-wing idiots.
Of course, I really doubt a single one of these obnoxious assholes has any kids in public schools (which are subject to these rules). But, charter and private schools are probably serving healthier foods anyways without any whining from right-wing idiots.
Joseph West commented on Trump Goes On A Twitter Tirade Against Fox News' Karl Rove
2015-09-02 15:20:32 -0400
· Flag
That second tweet was just the funniest thing I think I’ve ever read.
“Every Poll has me winning BIG.”
Well, sure they do—when you pay for the polls to deliver a specific result, they’re going to tend to say whatever the buyer wants them to say.
To get REAL results, you let independent pollsters create the questions and pick the people to be surveyed.
As far as I’m aware, the only person who wins “BIG” is Hillary when matched against you or any of the Republicon field.
The Donald might also want to remember that virtually all the polls had Romney winning (very narrowly) against Obama (which is a major reason why Rove made that little “prediction” that tRump derides in his first tweet. (As far as I can recall, none of the other FoxNoise election-watchers came out and said Rove was wrong that night.)
“Every Poll has me winning BIG.”
Well, sure they do—when you pay for the polls to deliver a specific result, they’re going to tend to say whatever the buyer wants them to say.
To get REAL results, you let independent pollsters create the questions and pick the people to be surveyed.
As far as I’m aware, the only person who wins “BIG” is Hillary when matched against you or any of the Republicon field.
The Donald might also want to remember that virtually all the polls had Romney winning (very narrowly) against Obama (which is a major reason why Rove made that little “prediction” that tRump derides in his first tweet. (As far as I can recall, none of the other FoxNoise election-watchers came out and said Rove was wrong that night.)
Joseph West commented on Shot To Death In America? George Will Says ‘Throw Up Your Hands’ And Accept It
2015-08-31 00:13:40 -0400
· Flag
Why do I get the feeling that Will wouldn’t be quite as agreeable to “throw up” his hands if HIS sorry worthless ass were on the line? On the other hand, I get a vibe from Will that, if he were walking on the street with ANY member of his family and a crazed gunman came at them (or even a mugger), he’d throw that family member into the line of fire and scurry his ass away without giving the “sacrifice” a second thought.
Joseph West commented on Fox Regular Reacts To Texas Deputy Shooting: #BlackLivesMatter Is “Black Slime” That “Needs To Be Eradicated From American Society”
2015-08-30 11:21:01 -0400
· Flag
I want this scumbag to be kidnapped, put in ratty street clothes, drugged to a point of incoherence and then dropped off in a stolen car and, just as the drugs are wearing off, make sure the local WHITE cops are called (reporting “A black man, looking intoxicated, is in a car on the side of the road”). Oh. And make sure he’s got some sort of weapon (a knife, a handgun, a shotgun) in his hands*).
Of course, make sure that someone’s there recording the action to intervene before things can get too “out of hand.” I mean, no one would want Clarke to actually be “accidentally” killed at the hands of his racist “brothers in arms” who “feared for their lives” because the scary-looking Black man was armed and threatening them.
*I was going to write “lit cigarette” but that might be stretching the scene just a little too far.
Of course, make sure that someone’s there recording the action to intervene before things can get too “out of hand.” I mean, no one would want Clarke to actually be “accidentally” killed at the hands of his racist “brothers in arms” who “feared for their lives” because the scary-looking Black man was armed and threatening them.
*I was going to write “lit cigarette” but that might be stretching the scene just a little too far.
Joseph West commented on Fox Gets The Vapors Over Hillary Clinton’s ‘Boxcar,’ But Trump’s Rhetoric Gets A Pass
2015-08-30 01:44:38 -0400
· Flag
I’m surprised none of these douches suggested that tRump planned on sending his luxury limousines to round up all the illegals.
As to the Elian Gonzalez situation, these douches obviously forgot that Gonzalez was brought to this country AGAINST HIS WILL (the fact that he was a Cuban also makes the whole scene work differently—Cubans who ILLEGALLY set foot on US soil before any government agents could intercept them were allowed, by an act of Congress back in the 1960s, to stay here; because, you know, they were “political” refugees) and his father, who was still in Cuba, wanted him returned. If Gonzalez had stayed in the US, he would’ve been placed with relatives HE DIDN’T KNOW. (You know how it feels when you go to a family reunion and the only people you know are your own parents and grandparents? Well, Elian didn’t even have THAT luxury.) The US also had a problem that if it deliberately interfered with returning Elian, then it threatened possibly millions of custody situations where one parent (especially non-custodial) had fled with their child to a foreign country and the US tried to press for the child to be returned. The thinking was “Why should we force this parent to return his/her child to the US when the US illegally kept a child apart from his living parent?”
US courts have consistently ruled that a LIVING parent should have custody if the custodial parent dies barring extraneous circumstances (such as the previous non-custodial parent had been abusive or had a serious criminal record).
It should also be remembered that CONservatives WANTED to keep the “illegal” child then which is quite the exact opposite of what tRump has been publicly saying. The Donald wants to deport kids who were born IN this country (with no say in the matter) as well as their parents.
But the one consistency you can depend on when it comes to CONservatives is their complete inconsistency on virtually every issue. And these douches just keep on proving the truth of that axiom.
As to the Elian Gonzalez situation, these douches obviously forgot that Gonzalez was brought to this country AGAINST HIS WILL (the fact that he was a Cuban also makes the whole scene work differently—Cubans who ILLEGALLY set foot on US soil before any government agents could intercept them were allowed, by an act of Congress back in the 1960s, to stay here; because, you know, they were “political” refugees) and his father, who was still in Cuba, wanted him returned. If Gonzalez had stayed in the US, he would’ve been placed with relatives HE DIDN’T KNOW. (You know how it feels when you go to a family reunion and the only people you know are your own parents and grandparents? Well, Elian didn’t even have THAT luxury.) The US also had a problem that if it deliberately interfered with returning Elian, then it threatened possibly millions of custody situations where one parent (especially non-custodial) had fled with their child to a foreign country and the US tried to press for the child to be returned. The thinking was “Why should we force this parent to return his/her child to the US when the US illegally kept a child apart from his living parent?”
US courts have consistently ruled that a LIVING parent should have custody if the custodial parent dies barring extraneous circumstances (such as the previous non-custodial parent had been abusive or had a serious criminal record).
It should also be remembered that CONservatives WANTED to keep the “illegal” child then which is quite the exact opposite of what tRump has been publicly saying. The Donald wants to deport kids who were born IN this country (with no say in the matter) as well as their parents.
But the one consistency you can depend on when it comes to CONservatives is their complete inconsistency on virtually every issue. And these douches just keep on proving the truth of that axiom.
Joseph West commented on Greg Gutfeld Says Center For Medical Progress Deserves Pulitzer For Exposing "Baby" "Butchering"
2015-08-29 12:23:12 -0400
· Flag
Unfortunately for Gutfeld, the Pulitzer committees have a tendency to avoid awarding their esteemed prizes to agencies which have been clearly exposed as frauds. (The Pulitzer Prize has gone, at various times, to reporters and other writers who’ve later been discovered to have used faked evidence or made up stuff—but I can’t recall of a single situation where doctored material has been exposed quite as quickly.)
There’s probably a reason why no one with FoxNoise has won a Pulitzer since beginning their employment with the network.
There’s probably a reason why no one with FoxNoise has won a Pulitzer since beginning their employment with the network.
Joseph West commented on Alison Parker’s Father Tells Megyn Kelly He’ll Do ‘Whatever It Takes To Get Gun Legislation’
2015-08-27 16:08:31 -0400
· Flag
@ Anita: I’d be very interested to know what Mr Parker’s views on gun rights were BEFORE his daughter was killed.
And, it should be noted that, even when WHITE gunman have killed WHITE people, it rarely changes the overall thinking. I’m guessing it would take something on the level of the families of Wayne LaPierre and the other NRA top brass to be gunned down by one or two “law-abiding” white men (and those men would’ve had to have purchased their guns legally and passed background checks) before the NRA would even begin to think about supporting stronger gun laws. And even then, I’m not really sure the NRA would change their policies on opposing any sort of gun control. (Reagan was actually injured after being shot at, and it still took years before any sort of sensible laws were passed—and even those were watered down.)
And, it should be noted that, even when WHITE gunman have killed WHITE people, it rarely changes the overall thinking. I’m guessing it would take something on the level of the families of Wayne LaPierre and the other NRA top brass to be gunned down by one or two “law-abiding” white men (and those men would’ve had to have purchased their guns legally and passed background checks) before the NRA would even begin to think about supporting stronger gun laws. And even then, I’m not really sure the NRA would change their policies on opposing any sort of gun control. (Reagan was actually injured after being shot at, and it still took years before any sort of sensible laws were passed—and even those were watered down.)
Joseph West commented on Fox’s Jesse Watters: Jorge Ramos Acted Like An Illegal Alien And Got Treated Like One
2015-08-27 15:49:50 -0400
· Flag
Well, Watters is disgusting enough but Gutfeld may have taken the cake in displays of open stupidity.
Gutfeld began lecturing Ramos: “He should be asking the question, why are his people fleeing his own country? He should be very, very passionate about the corruption and the infrastructure. How come you can’t drink the water?"
Well, for starters, the reason Ramos “fled” his country was for FREEDOM!!!!!! (He’d done a piece for a news program that was actually critical of the Mexican government and the piece was axed by the news program, so he quit and moved to the US on a LEGAL visa; incidentally, Ramos is a naturalized citizen of the US—so the US IS “his country.”)
As for the “corruption and infrastructure” and “can’t drink the water,” well that could be asked of many American “journalists” (especially at FoxNoise) about the good ol’ U S of A.
We’ve seen plenty of “corruption” fairly recently when police who’ve been caught—many ON TAPE—killing innocent people but avoiding indictment. We see tRump taking such a stand on “deporting illegals” yet his own properties—bearing his name—employ people without checking and verifying their immigration status. How about the corruption where people, even in “Heartland USA” can’t afford to buy a house (or rent an apartment) when the only jobs available pay minimum wage and offer no sort of benefits? (Meanwhile the corporations in question are spending millions of dollars to help elect politicians to office every single year and complaining about how burdensome their taxes are—that they can’t afford that fourth vacation home or that third SUV or having to settle for a two-year old corporate jet, rather than a brand-new one. But raising the peons’ pay by a dollar an hour is too much to ask.)
As to “can’t drink the water,” what about communities where fracking’s been taking place having reports of being able to take a match to the water coming out of their kitchen faucets and setting the water on fire? How about communities near pig farms where the, um, waste product runs off into the rivers and lakes these communities report higher than acceptable levels of e. Coli and nitrates in their water tables (not to mention occasional ammonia and methane escaping into the air). And I seem to recall an incident from a couple of years ago in West Virginia where residents near a mine where the local water was contaminated in an “accident,” that there wasn’t enough bottled water to supply the residents and communities from hundreds of miles around had to ship supplies of bottled water to keep the people supplied with fresh, drinkable water for nearly a month.
But, yeah. Mexico’s water is more problematic than many parts of the US. (For what it’s worth—the locals don’t seem to have the same problems drinking their local water. It’s largely because they’re used to the various little critters floating in the water. But, Americans can experience the same thing when they travel from one part of their own country to another on vacation.)
Gutfeld began lecturing Ramos: “He should be asking the question, why are his people fleeing his own country? He should be very, very passionate about the corruption and the infrastructure. How come you can’t drink the water?"
Well, for starters, the reason Ramos “fled” his country was for FREEDOM!!!!!! (He’d done a piece for a news program that was actually critical of the Mexican government and the piece was axed by the news program, so he quit and moved to the US on a LEGAL visa; incidentally, Ramos is a naturalized citizen of the US—so the US IS “his country.”)
As for the “corruption and infrastructure” and “can’t drink the water,” well that could be asked of many American “journalists” (especially at FoxNoise) about the good ol’ U S of A.
We’ve seen plenty of “corruption” fairly recently when police who’ve been caught—many ON TAPE—killing innocent people but avoiding indictment. We see tRump taking such a stand on “deporting illegals” yet his own properties—bearing his name—employ people without checking and verifying their immigration status. How about the corruption where people, even in “Heartland USA” can’t afford to buy a house (or rent an apartment) when the only jobs available pay minimum wage and offer no sort of benefits? (Meanwhile the corporations in question are spending millions of dollars to help elect politicians to office every single year and complaining about how burdensome their taxes are—that they can’t afford that fourth vacation home or that third SUV or having to settle for a two-year old corporate jet, rather than a brand-new one. But raising the peons’ pay by a dollar an hour is too much to ask.)
As to “can’t drink the water,” what about communities where fracking’s been taking place having reports of being able to take a match to the water coming out of their kitchen faucets and setting the water on fire? How about communities near pig farms where the, um, waste product runs off into the rivers and lakes these communities report higher than acceptable levels of e. Coli and nitrates in their water tables (not to mention occasional ammonia and methane escaping into the air). And I seem to recall an incident from a couple of years ago in West Virginia where residents near a mine where the local water was contaminated in an “accident,” that there wasn’t enough bottled water to supply the residents and communities from hundreds of miles around had to ship supplies of bottled water to keep the people supplied with fresh, drinkable water for nearly a month.
But, yeah. Mexico’s water is more problematic than many parts of the US. (For what it’s worth—the locals don’t seem to have the same problems drinking their local water. It’s largely because they’re used to the various little critters floating in the water. But, Americans can experience the same thing when they travel from one part of their own country to another on vacation.)
Joseph West commented on Why Donald Trump’s Feud With Fox News Will Not Likely End Soon
2015-08-26 22:53:59 -0400
· Flag
“Ailes can’t turn Fox completely into the Trump Network while, at the same time, Trump has lots of other networks where he can get exposure when he is displeased with Fox.”
Ellen, did you fail to proof the above sentence or did you really intend to write it that way? “Trump has lots of other networks where he can get exposure.” Huh? What networks? Trump can’t appear on CNN since that network is usually lumped in with MSNBC as “far-left liberal” by the very people who, for so long, have been parroting the FoxNoise propaganda (and obviously, he’s not going to go on MSNBC). And, quite frankly, there’s no other real game in town that approaches FoxNoise, CNN, or MSNBC in terms of audiences—even as minuscule as those audiences really are compared to the major networks’ scripted and “reality” TV shows. (The major networks are pretty bound by restrictions on the kind of “free” airtime they can give candidates. If tRump tries to get a special interview with CBS, NBC or ABC, those networks will be obliged to give the same airtime for ALL the other candidates—unless, of course, tRump BUYS the airtime as a “commercial,” in much the same way that Lyndon LaRouche used to do during the last couple of weeks in Presidential election years to boost his “candidacy.”)
tRump really needs to watch his step. As a “businessman,” he should be aware that sometimes you have to deal with people you really hate but, at the same time, if you treat them with open contempt, they may stop doing business with you—and that’s NEVER good for business. Whatever problems he wants to pick at with Megyn Kelly, he really needs to (“Frozen” warning) “let it go.” If he were doing business with a female CEO of another company and he decided to start name-calling and badmouthing her and making sexist comments, he shouldn’t be surprised if she told him that it’d be a cold day in hell for her company to do business with him. And if he made some sexist comment about the daughter of a CEO he was doing business with (or trying to do business with), he’d probably be lucky to come away with nothing worse than a bloodied nose and a missingalien hairpiece—oh yeah, and no further business dealings.
But I really don’t think there really is anyone else that would give tRump the kind of softball treatment nor the audience he so desperately craves if he pisses off FoxNoise. He certainly can’t go to Univision (not without agreeing to do some major ass-kissing and groveling for forgiveness for his racist comments—which would then sink him for good with his supporters).
Ellen, did you fail to proof the above sentence or did you really intend to write it that way? “Trump has lots of other networks where he can get exposure.” Huh? What networks? Trump can’t appear on CNN since that network is usually lumped in with MSNBC as “far-left liberal” by the very people who, for so long, have been parroting the FoxNoise propaganda (and obviously, he’s not going to go on MSNBC). And, quite frankly, there’s no other real game in town that approaches FoxNoise, CNN, or MSNBC in terms of audiences—even as minuscule as those audiences really are compared to the major networks’ scripted and “reality” TV shows. (The major networks are pretty bound by restrictions on the kind of “free” airtime they can give candidates. If tRump tries to get a special interview with CBS, NBC or ABC, those networks will be obliged to give the same airtime for ALL the other candidates—unless, of course, tRump BUYS the airtime as a “commercial,” in much the same way that Lyndon LaRouche used to do during the last couple of weeks in Presidential election years to boost his “candidacy.”)
tRump really needs to watch his step. As a “businessman,” he should be aware that sometimes you have to deal with people you really hate but, at the same time, if you treat them with open contempt, they may stop doing business with you—and that’s NEVER good for business. Whatever problems he wants to pick at with Megyn Kelly, he really needs to (“Frozen” warning) “let it go.” If he were doing business with a female CEO of another company and he decided to start name-calling and badmouthing her and making sexist comments, he shouldn’t be surprised if she told him that it’d be a cold day in hell for her company to do business with him. And if he made some sexist comment about the daughter of a CEO he was doing business with (or trying to do business with), he’d probably be lucky to come away with nothing worse than a bloodied nose and a missing
But I really don’t think there really is anyone else that would give tRump the kind of softball treatment nor the audience he so desperately craves if he pisses off FoxNoise. He certainly can’t go to Univision (not without agreeing to do some major ass-kissing and groveling for forgiveness for his racist comments—which would then sink him for good with his supporters).
Joseph West commented on O’Reilly Threatens To Stop Investing If Hillary Clinton Is Elected
2015-08-25 12:01:35 -0400
· Flag
Um, does Bill know how a capital gains tax even works? The tax (at least, as I’ve always understood it and how most financial websites seem to agree) is only applied after you make an actual financial gain from selling the stock.
In other words, you hold onto a stock (or other investment) for a period of time and you sell it, you pay a tax on the difference between the amount of the stock’s value when bought and when sold. As an example, BillO buys 10 shares of LoofahsRUs stock for $1000 and he holds on to the stock for 8 months and it’s gone up to $2500 when he decides to sell off to take the profit. He’s made a profit of $1500 and he only held the stock for 8 months, so he’s subject to a “short-term” tax rate and the rate will also vary based on his regular tax bracket. If he’s in the top tax bracket of 39.6%, he’s going to be subject to a $594 tax but if he’s in the 28% tax bracket, he’ll only pay $420. (Now, if he’d held on to the stock for 13 months, he could have saved a lot on taxes. The top bracket would only be subject to a mere 20% so his tax would only be $300 for a savings of almost $300; in the 28% tax bracket, his capital gains rate would only be 15%, so he’d pay just $225 for a savings of nearly $200.)
ANY investment analyst worth his salt will tell investors to HOLD onto your stocks/investments for as long as possible. Not only do you maximize your investment in terms of getting the highest rate possible but you also pay a lower tax rate. (Of course, if your stock is tanking, the sooner you divest the better—but you can always write off a sizable chunk of the loss.) So, I’m pretty sure that the folks at the investment firms aren’t really concerned about Hillary’s plan—except for the “day traders” (the folks who buy stocks today and sell them off the next day—or even that same day—if the stocks have gone up in value and whose actions played a big part in that last major financial crisis of 2008). So unless Bill’s been doing a lot of quick buy and sell action, Hillary’s plan isn’t really likely to affect his bottom line much, if at all.
In other words, you hold onto a stock (or other investment) for a period of time and you sell it, you pay a tax on the difference between the amount of the stock’s value when bought and when sold. As an example, BillO buys 10 shares of LoofahsRUs stock for $1000 and he holds on to the stock for 8 months and it’s gone up to $2500 when he decides to sell off to take the profit. He’s made a profit of $1500 and he only held the stock for 8 months, so he’s subject to a “short-term” tax rate and the rate will also vary based on his regular tax bracket. If he’s in the top tax bracket of 39.6%, he’s going to be subject to a $594 tax but if he’s in the 28% tax bracket, he’ll only pay $420. (Now, if he’d held on to the stock for 13 months, he could have saved a lot on taxes. The top bracket would only be subject to a mere 20% so his tax would only be $300 for a savings of almost $300; in the 28% tax bracket, his capital gains rate would only be 15%, so he’d pay just $225 for a savings of nearly $200.)
ANY investment analyst worth his salt will tell investors to HOLD onto your stocks/investments for as long as possible. Not only do you maximize your investment in terms of getting the highest rate possible but you also pay a lower tax rate. (Of course, if your stock is tanking, the sooner you divest the better—but you can always write off a sizable chunk of the loss.) So, I’m pretty sure that the folks at the investment firms aren’t really concerned about Hillary’s plan—except for the “day traders” (the folks who buy stocks today and sell them off the next day—or even that same day—if the stocks have gone up in value and whose actions played a big part in that last major financial crisis of 2008). So unless Bill’s been doing a lot of quick buy and sell action, Hillary’s plan isn’t really likely to affect his bottom line much, if at all.
Joseph West commented on Fox's Pemmaraju Throws Bill O'Reilly Under The Bus To Promote Trump's Attack On The 14th Amendment
2015-08-24 12:20:06 -0400
· Flag
Also, what Pemmaraju says about “the clause in the 14th Amendment that spells out, in Article 1, Section 9 that Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Which means there’s really no need to amend the 14th Amendment, right?” is actually wrong.
For starters, “Article 1, Section 9” has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Article 1, Section 9 is about the LIMITS on Congressional power. The only aspect regarding “migration or importation” deals with the slave trade (which, per the Constitution, would not be allowed after 1808—and that the Federal government COULD levy a tax). The “naturalization” clause appears in Section 8 (interestingly enough, it’s in the same clause which gives Congress the power to establish laws regarding bankruptcies—amazing how the Founding Fathers seem to predict Donald Trump). And Congress had passed many laws from the adoption of the Constitution to the present on “naturalization”—but many of those laws were overturned by later laws and actually ignored certain groups (it’s interesting that the FIRST Congressionally passed Naturalization Act (in 1790) limited naturalization to “free, white persons of good character”—but was notable that white indentured servants were excluded (as were Asians, free Blacks, Native Americans, and, of course, slaves).
As to the idea that “Congress shall have power” does appear in the 14th Amendment (it actually appears in virtually all the Amendments dealing with civil rights. But that “power” is ONLY to ENFORCE the Amendment’s mandate. In other words, WITHOUT A FORMAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL, Congress cannot pass any law that conflicts with what the Amendment says. And Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment is very clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That seems to be pretty damned clear.
(As for King’s blather about “there are no redundant clauses in the United States Constitution,” I suggest he take a much closer look at the Second Amendment. As he and his NRA-enabled supporters—including certain anti-Constitutional members of SCOTUS—read it, there seems to be a very redundant clause. You might know it as the “Well-regulated militia” clause. However, with regards to his interpretation of its use in the 14th Amendment, well, I don’t see how he thinks it’s relevant to the current argument. The argument about “anchor babies” has NOTHING to do with “babies born to diplomats or their staff or their families”; after all, those people are in the US LEGALLY. It’s the people who migrated without “proper” authorization that are the crux of the current right-wing “concern.”)
For starters, “Article 1, Section 9” has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Article 1, Section 9 is about the LIMITS on Congressional power. The only aspect regarding “migration or importation” deals with the slave trade (which, per the Constitution, would not be allowed after 1808—and that the Federal government COULD levy a tax). The “naturalization” clause appears in Section 8 (interestingly enough, it’s in the same clause which gives Congress the power to establish laws regarding bankruptcies—amazing how the Founding Fathers seem to predict Donald Trump). And Congress had passed many laws from the adoption of the Constitution to the present on “naturalization”—but many of those laws were overturned by later laws and actually ignored certain groups (it’s interesting that the FIRST Congressionally passed Naturalization Act (in 1790) limited naturalization to “free, white persons of good character”—but was notable that white indentured servants were excluded (as were Asians, free Blacks, Native Americans, and, of course, slaves).
As to the idea that “Congress shall have power” does appear in the 14th Amendment (it actually appears in virtually all the Amendments dealing with civil rights. But that “power” is ONLY to ENFORCE the Amendment’s mandate. In other words, WITHOUT A FORMAL AMENDMENT TO REPEAL, Congress cannot pass any law that conflicts with what the Amendment says. And Clause 1 of the 14th Amendment is very clear: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That seems to be pretty damned clear.
(As for King’s blather about “there are no redundant clauses in the United States Constitution,” I suggest he take a much closer look at the Second Amendment. As he and his NRA-enabled supporters—including certain anti-Constitutional members of SCOTUS—read it, there seems to be a very redundant clause. You might know it as the “Well-regulated militia” clause. However, with regards to his interpretation of its use in the 14th Amendment, well, I don’t see how he thinks it’s relevant to the current argument. The argument about “anchor babies” has NOTHING to do with “babies born to diplomats or their staff or their families”; after all, those people are in the US LEGALLY. It’s the people who migrated without “proper” authorization that are the crux of the current right-wing “concern.”)
Joseph West commented on Fox Hosts Love How Donald Trump Dissed The Pope By Wanting To Scare Him
2015-08-22 01:27:03 -0400
· Flag
And if a Democrat had showed that level of disrespect to the Pope (whether the current holder or the office in general), you just know that FoxNoise would turn that into a 24/7 cycle for at least a week.
Of course, someone should remind The Donald that the Church has NEVER filed for bankruptcy. (Also, that the Church might be even better capitalists than The Donald. After all, between the two entities, who do you suppose has paid more in US taxes over the years?)
Of course, someone should remind The Donald that the Church has NEVER filed for bankruptcy. (Also, that the Church might be even better capitalists than The Donald. After all, between the two entities, who do you suppose has paid more in US taxes over the years?)