First we have to do our part of the swamp draining by not electing and re-electing swamp monsters like Amnesty Senators Rubio and Hoeven.
“Brought to heel”
Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?
Oh yeah, Hillary said that about certain black people.
Trump needs an unvaxxed conservative VP like himself who can take over if the “white coats” do him in…
Move the capital to a medium-size town in Kansas. Watch Washington howl.
talking isnt going to solve the problem... Voting isnt going to solve the problem... ...we are too far gone...
there is only one way to solve the problem now.
I’m in.
“We will pass critical reforms,” Trump said, “making every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States. The deep state must and will be brought to heel.”
Behind this idea 100%
It can oly be done by repealing Civil Service and/or eliminating all Departments, Commissions, Bureaus etc back to the origina four without “folding in” responsibilities of the deposed departments to the remaining four.
A good compromise would be that every year the President can fire anyone in the executive branch for any reason up to 25% of the total existing federal workforce. That would protect the continuity of the government bureaucracy while also putting the fear of God into them.
Fed.gov spent $6.8 Trillion in 2021, has 2.8 million employees (4.3 million if you count all military)
The permanent bureaucracy of course its going to have a life of its own - beyond any elected politician’s control.
If Fed.gov stays this size, nothing will change
For all the faults of the spoils system it was at least democratic. The deep state is anti democratic. Rather than serving the president, the executive branch bureaucracy has a mind of its own and exercises considerable power. Power, that is not constrained by anyone who has to actually face the voters. That is much worse than the spoils system.
This article should be very interesting to you since you believe POTUS Trump is not outlining plans for combatting America’s deep seated problems with Government but is only looking backwards.
Let all be uncovered. This is a sad story.
Do like the Dems and change the definition of them and reassign them out of the US ,LOL
Aaahh, yes. Chet Arthur.
We all finally learned something important about Chet almost 15 years ago.
In fact, it was almost instantaneously posted on FR.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2144292/posts
See comment #32: A clever Freeper mentioning Chester Arthur’s having done away with the Spoils System:
__________
PROOF: CHESTER ARTHUR CONCEALED HE WAS A BRITISH SUBJECT AT BIRTH (interesting read)
Natural Born Citizen ^ | December 6, 2008 | Leo Donofrio
Posted on 12/6/2008, 10:12:59 PM by Deepest End
[I have collaborated on this with my sister and historian Greg Dehler, author of “Chester Allan Arthur”, Published by Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated, 2006 ISBN 1600210791, 9781600210792 192 pages. ]
I’ve been forwarded the actual naturalization record for William Arthur on microfiche, obtained from the Library of Congress. He was naturalized in New York State and became a United States citizen in August 1843.
Chester Arthur perpetrated a fraud as to his eligibility to be Vice President by spreading various lies about his parents’ heritage. President Arthur’s father, William Arthur, became a United States citizen in August 1843. But Chester Arthur was born in 1829. Therefore, he was a British Citizen by descent, and a dual citizen at birth, if not his whole life.
He wasn’t a “natural born citizen” and he knew it.
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; History; Click to Add Topic
KEYWORDS: bc; birthcertificate; britishsubject; certifigate; chesterarthur; donofrio; fraud; obamatruthfile; preschesterarthur; presidents; uk; Click to Add Keyword
[ Report Abuse | Bookmark ]
Interesting historical read.
1 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:13:00 PM by Deepest End
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Sounds like he was an anchor baby . Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
2 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:17:51 PM by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it freedom has a flavor the protected will never know F/8 Cav)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: SE Mom; Bahbah; penelopesire; Miss Didi; rodguy911; gpapa; RonDog; RaginApache; FlingWingFlyer; ...
~~Historical fraud PING!
~~~~
“Because Chester Arthur covered up his British citizenship, any precedent he might have set that the country has had a President born of an alien father is nullified completely as Chester Arthur was a usurper to the Presidency.
He wouldn’t have been on the ticket if it was public knowledge. Nobody knew Arthur was a British subject because nobody looked in the right place for the truth.
And it’s no precedent to follow.”
3 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:22:12 PM by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush’s war, not America’s war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Born in US, US mother.
4 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:23:25 PM by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: kbennkc
Sounds like he was an anchor baby . Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
anchor babies are natural born citizens.
5 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:24:28 PM by Ancient Drive (will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: STARWISE
Does this mean that any and all legislation or laws enacted by President Authur is null and void? If so, what are the repercussions?
6 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:25:20 PM by FortWorthPatriot (No better friend, no worse enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: FortWorthPatriot
I know .. how will we ever know?
“What a web we weave when first
we practice to deceive.”
Dang hornet’s nest... if true,
what a travesty .. a treason.
7 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:29:04 PM by STARWISE ((They (Dims) think of this WOT as Bush’s war, not America’s war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Authur was born in Vermont to an American mother who herself was a natural born American. That’s all it takes to be a natural born US citizen. This story is bunk.
8 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:29:15 PM by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kirkwood
Yeahbut yeahbut...did he have a COLB?
9 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:37:21 PM by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs...nothing more than Bald Haired Hippies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: kbennkc
Aren’t they deemed natural born citizens ?
Per Donofrio’s case before SCOTUS -
No, they are citizens, but not “natural born” and not qualified to be POTUS per Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.
10 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:42:18 PM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: kbennkc
No. They are citizens, but arguably not natural born citizens.
11 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:42:26 PM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ancient Drive
Sez who?
12 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:43:09 PM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kirkwood
Man, all the lawyers out there researching and reading precedents and the folks on this thread had all the answers from the start!
13 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:44:27 PM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kirkwood
The Child naturalization Act from the 1980’s states that citizenship is based in the father’s nationality. Obama asserts that he held dual citizenship at birth (British and U.S. if he was in fact physically born in Hawai’i), then he asserts that his British citizenship expired making him a naturalized citizen by his own assertion at his website. Do you know whether a naturalized citizen can become president under Constitutional restrictions? ... [HINT: the answer is they cannot.]
14 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:56:01 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Correction: the Naturalization act of 2000 states that a child born before 1983 has citizenship determined by the father’s nationality.
15 posted on 12/6/2008, 10:57:42 PM by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Born in the USA, right? Therefore, whatever else he may have been, he was ipso facto a natural-born citizen.
16 posted on 12/6/2008, 11:56:16 PM by TBP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
Sez who?
Sez the Constitution: 14th Amendment
Section 1. 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.
The C.A. Arthur article is moot.
17 posted on 12/6/2008, 11:57:32 PM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
It is amazing how few people actually understand Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution. Sad really.
18 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:03:10 AM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ophiucus
I noticed it did not say “are natural born citizens.”
19 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:05:50 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
Well IF Arthur wasn’t a “natural-born” citizen under the law is pretty ridiculous he wasn’t, being born in the USA with an American mom.
If this birth certificate deal could really sink Obama (doubt it very much) though that’s terrific.
20 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:14:43 AM by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Impy
At the time, citizenship was passed from one’s father. Just the way it was.
I just want to see the Constitution followed, let the chips lie.
21 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:16:34 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Yep.
This is a fascinating discussion in which all of us can learn or learn more about the Constitution. It’s sad to see people who approach it as if they can figure it all out with a quick glance over Article II.
I know I don’t have all the answers. But I am doing my best to learn more and use my mind to evaluate more than my preconceived notions.
22 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:19:52 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
I noticed it did not say “are natural born citizens.”
“All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States.”
That is a natural born citizen. Confirmed by United States v Won Kim Ark, 1898 and US Code, Title 8.
23 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:26:02 AM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: fightinJAG
Agreed. There are self proclaimed constitutional scholars with all of the answers (just ask them) coming out of the wood work on all of these threads.
I’m sure you’ve read:
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
and
http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html
Interesting articles
24 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:32:07 AM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ophiucus
Interesting article on the term of natural born citizen from the founders to today http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
25 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:35:56 AM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
lol beat me to it
26 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:36:51 AM by Ophiucus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
I was wondering why Obama’s site was so open about his father being a British subject since this would disqualify him (it should). Now, with this new revealing information from Leo about Chester Arthur, is it possible that Obama will use Arthur as a reason why he can be president? Perhaps this is what his legal team has been standing on?
27 posted on 12/7/2008, 12:45:30 AM by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: 1_Rain_Drop
Excellent question. I’ve wondered that myself.
I’m not sure, just my opinion, but I think they were banking on the ignorance of people to overlook the us citizen and natural born citizen, as evidenced by so many here at FR.
I know this quote was added long after the site was launched, but Im not sure when. A correlation to Donofrio’s case perhaps? Part of their planned legal defense?
It is bizarre. Thoughts anyone?
28 posted on 12/7/2008, 1:03:53 AM by Deepest End (”It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
Found the following, which is a relief:
December 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, published a follow up posting to his original essay on Presidents who had parents born abroad. He suggests that Arthur’s presidency does not set precendent for Obama, as nobody knew, at the time, to look and confirm whether or not Arthur was actually a British subject.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1673
Leo also answered in his comment section:
December 6, 2008 at 11:34 pm
[Ed. Note - No such thing as precedent from fraud. It could only be a precedent if it had been part of the public story of Chester Arthur, meaning everybody knew about it and accepted it as being cool. Not the case. During his time, he lied to obfuscate his family history. And he was a lawyer. Not cool. Not precedent. If it comes down to this, and Obama has to rely on Chester’s Arthur to argue precedent, I think he’ll be in trouble.]
29 posted on 12/7/2008, 2:00:23 AM by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Deepest End
BUMP!
30 posted on 12/7/2008, 8:13:24 AM by joeu01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Ophiucus
Excuse me, but that is the precise question that the Supreme Court has never answered: whether “born in the U.S.” = “natural born citizen.”
The Ark case proves nothing.
See the discussion of that case on this thread and at the links.
31 posted on 12/7/2008, 9:22:26 AM by fightinJAG (I love the Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: FortWorthPatriot
The major legislative achievement of President Arthur’s administration was the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which replaced the “spoils system” with a merit-based system and established the U.S. Civil Service Commission. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to declare the Pendleton Act null and void on the basis that Arthur was not a natural born citizen, it would render every appointment under the act null and void as well as the actions of every federal bureaucrat since the date of the Pendleton Acts’ enactment. The obvious implications of this would be potentially enormous.
32 posted on 12/7/2008, 1:14:19 PM by Freedom Under Law (Legal Implications Of Chester A. Arthur Not Being A Natural Born Citizen)
Maybe Trump's not the best one to destroy the deep state. There is the issue that while in office he trusted too many to stay in the executive branch, and appointed too many to positions of power who at the time we all thought would be good at rooting out the deep state but didn't (Exhibit A: Jeff Sessions). Then there's the part about the vaxxes: will Trump stop the government from forcing onto us something he played a part in creating?
But then, an argument could be made that Trump is best for the job because he was spurned heavily by the bureaucracy and, therefore, he'd be more enthused than anybody else to flush the deep state down the toilet. He still has the asset of being too rich to be bought and he's already shown that the media talking bad about him doesn't deter him (like it does others) -- in fact it spurs him on.
The counter argument is that a Democrat president would use this against us.
But the counter counter argument is that government bureaucrats are mostly Democrats.
So what's the problem you ask?
1. Civil service protections have grown over the years to be a protective suit of impenetrable kelvar jacket of armor around the employee. Quadruple so if the employee is a “protected class”! Federal unions have pushed this as well as "civil rights activists". Granted there needs to be protection from arbitrary action and actual racism but over the years> However 'creative lawyering" and fear of bad PR (the Race Card!) due to a lawsuit has made it much more then that!
2. No, or indifferent enforcement of the Hatch Act. I've said this before - Rat administrations ignore it, GOP administrations issue a memo saying partisan activity is bad.
3. Loud obnoxious government unions - e.g., postal workers & NTEU. Incredibly loud when you consider at most they are roughly a third of the labor force.
4. Rat support both to screw Republicans and to further their own agenda. They know there will be no reprecussions to the government employee particularly if the employee is a protected minority.
5. The rise of the hiring of employees with government-oriented degrees. These days all liberal arts, social sciences & particularly MPAs. Their first thought is always a government solution & action. For example in the regulatry agnecies almost all have no background in what they are regulating. So they are easy and willing prey to activist consultants who dress up their biased findings in the appropriate technical and academic garmets.
6. And probably the most important - the Federal Courts. The minute any change or action is proposed regarding the federal bureauacracy the Rats, unions & activists have it in front of a sympathetic federal judges before the reform memo can even be distributed.
Now a modern state needs a professional bureauacracy. It's foolish to think we can go back to a "spoils system". You would spend the entire term staffing. Also corruption would be far far far worse then now. The only rational solution is decertify the federal unions and expand to cover employee's family (e.g., wife & children!) and actually enforce the Hatch Act.
I have a radical suggestion. If you go to work for FedGov you give up the right to vote in federal elections. Now that might require have two different election days one for fedeal offices and one for state, county and local. (Maybe still do it same day but a separate voting booth for feds!)
Excepted Service definition from wiki (and yes its wiki, but in this case its not that bad!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excepted_service#:~:text=From%20Wikipedia%2C%20the%20free%20encyclopedia%20The%20excepted%20service,hiring%20processes%20to%20be%20used%20under%20certain%20circumstances.?msclkid=89690608a6d811ec9c90a22a5e69038e