She hates Carly with the “hot hate of a 1,000 suns”
(The Blaze) Ann Coulter really doesn’t like Carly Fiorina. In fact, the conservative commentator said Tuesday that she “hates†the former Hewlett-Packard CEO-turned Republican presidential candidate.
Coulter, appearing on the “Mike Gallagher Show,†was taking a question from a caller who asked why America doesn’t join “the rest of the world†and end birthright citizenship.
“You’re absolutely right,†Coulter responded to the caller. “And this is why I’ve said I now hate Carly Fiorina with a hot hot hate of 1,000 suns.â€
Coulter held nothing back earlier in the radio program by going after Fiorina on gender, as Mediaite reported.
What Coulter is having a bit of apoplexy over is Carly! noting that Trump wanting to end birthright citizenship is idiotic. And, it is. Not because it doesn’t make sense to end the ability of people from around the world, most notably illegal aliens and Chinese (who fly into the West Coast and have babies, giving them dual citizenship), to have their babies here, making them citizens, which immediately means pro-illegal activists immediately want to all the parents to stay. It’s foolish because there is little, very little, chance that the 14th Amendment will ever be repealed.
But, hey, Coulter is a big big big Trump supporter. She has long been against illegal immigration, and has taken on this issue many times, especially in her books. Speaking of her books, in Godless she completely demolished the abortion on demand supporters. Say, does she know that Trump is a big abortion on demand supporter? Or that he has changed his opinion very recently on giving illegals amnesty?
But, then, remember, Coulter was also a massive Chris Christie supporter. When it comes to big GOP squishes, few are squishier than Christie. Trump certainly has a few problematic positions, but, he’d be better than Christie, Kasich, Graham, and Jeb Bush.
Looking through Ann’s Twitter feed, she’s slamming Rick Perry and Ted Cruz on immigration, especially on Visas. Interesting, since The Donald is all for work visas, too. But, Trump is avoiding his previous position of completely securing the border, then giving amnesty.
Personally, Coulter’s schtick has worn bare, at least to me. I used to love her books and listening to her positions, but, over the last few years, I just don’t get her and why she supports squishes.
Let’s note that Carly! was for the Dream Act, but is on record as stating that it should end there, no more legalization. Carly’s positions are actually pretty darned good. Even on “climate change”. I don’t care if one believes that mankind is mostly/solely responsible: I care if they plan to Do Something about it, and Carly! has said she won’t. There’s also a bit of unknown in terms of how much she thinks man is responsible for.
Meanwhile, Carly! slams the TSA with this tweet, via the Blaze
I reviewed the TSA on @Yelp. One star. Stories of inept fed. bureaucracies have become far too common. #Carly2016 pic.twitter.com/P2dB7IY2Dk
— Carly Fiorina (@CarlyFiorina) August 18, 2015
Yes, you can now review the TSA and other federal agencies on Yelp (insert evil laugh here).
Crossed at Right Wing News.
You don’t need to repeal the 14th amendment to end birthright citizenship. Properly understood, the 14th amendment does not confer birthright citizenship.
The 14th is settled law
The 14th is badly written and is often used to justify Federal interference in our lives. We need to get rid of it and other laws that give the Feds power.
Babies abandoned at birth? Foundlings?
Would citizenship be withheld/revoked until absolute proof?
Amendment XIV
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. 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.
(Sections 2-5 deleted)
According to Cornell Law Library:
The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.7 Congress’ intent in including the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,†was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common–law rule of acquired citizenship by birth,8 …
7 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
8 Id. at 682.
Compare the language of our 2nd Amendment:
to that of the 14th:
Our Supreme Court has ruled on both amendments, siding with “the people” bearing arms (II)(with a few exceptions) and also citizenship for those born inside the shores (XIV)(with a few exceptions).
Senator Jacob Howard (Author of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause) wrote the following…
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of national law a citizen of the united states. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…”
So incredibly enough, John is correct. It’s settled law but not the way he and Jeffery believe it is.