We know this, of course, but it feel so good to read someone else saying it.
https://spectator.org/trump-punks-the-media-once-more/
Trump Punks the Media Once More
David Catron
Their 24/7 coverage of the ‘caravan’ plays right into his hand.
FTA:
Trump not only tweets this message to his 55 million followers, he consistently repeats it at the rallies he has been holding all across the country on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. And the media is, of course, broadcasting the rallies at which he nails the Democrats for the negligence of the broken immigration system. They denounce him, of course, for what they insist is racism, xenophobia, demagoguery, ad infinitum. But Trump couldn’t care less about their opinions. He knows the local and national media will cover his speeches. Thus, MoveOn.org began gathering signatures in August for a petition demanding that CNN stop doing so:
As the largest deliverer of “NEWS” in America, please, stop covering Donald Trump rallies.… CNN has been turned into a 24 hour “Trumpathon”! The war in the Middle East, Isis, Syrian refugees — all other World and National news stories have been forgotten. This Trump hysteria is seriously impeding the Democratic process and examination of real issues which concern all Americans and the World!
The folks at MoveOn.org are obviously a little fuzzy on the First Amendment, and even less sophisticated concerning how cable television networks remain financially viable. They routinely represent the President as a knuckle-dragger with little intelligence and less leadership capacity. But he obviously understands that without him, CNN would be battling it out with the Cooking Channel for viewers. And it is by no means a given that the latter would lose that contest. The Cooking Channel would have a competitive advantage in as much as it doesn’t deal in fake food. It isn’t likely that Trump is worried about CNN blacking out his rallies.
Thus he continues to punk CNN and the rest of the “news” media. He knows they will provide coverage, and show unnerving images of the caravan while they slander him. But, to paraphrase an observation once made by Reagan aide Michael Deaver to Lesley Stahl, “You guys in Televisionland haven’t figured it out.…When the pictures are powerful and emotional, they override if not completely drown out the sound.” In other words, when the voters watch an army of illegals marching toward our border, knocking down fences and policemen alike, they don’t even hear the talking heads. Trump knows this instinctively, and it is why he’s winning.
And with just a few seconds of interview still to be aired, our Best President Ever completely dominates the coverage just before the midterms.
https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/revoking-birthright-citizenship-would-enforce-the-constitution/
Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitution
John Eastman
FTA:
In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.
It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.
And it essentially destroys the notion of sovereignty itself, since a “people” are not able to define what constitutes them as a “people” entitled, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, to “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
That the 14th Amendment settled the question without ever explicitly addressing it is even more bizarre.
The actual language of the 14th Amendment actually contains two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” — that’s the birth-on-US- soil part — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is that second requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction,” that is the source of much confusion today, because to our modern ear, that just means subject to our laws.
That is one meaning, of course, but not the only one, and not the one that the drafters of the 14th Amendment had in mind. For them, being merely subject to our laws meant that one was subject to our “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction. It was a jurisdiction applicable to “temporary sojourners” — what we today call temporary visitors. It was not the kind of jurisdiction that was codified in the 14th Amendment. For that, a more complete, allegiance-owing jurisdiction was required.
We don’t need to speculate about this, as the authors of the 14th Amendment were asked directly what they meant (albeit not in the context of illegal immigration, since there were no restrictions on immigration at the time). When asked whether Native Americans would automatically be citizens under the clause, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Excellent points well made, yet again. Thanks.
Juicy sweet red meat article. Luv it.