Rob's House

I read somewhere that he's a charlatan. He used to hold opinions fairly consistent with prevailing theories in economics, then he realized the opportunity for personal enrichment by acting as a propagandist for the left. I think that is most likely true. I don't believe a man with his background and intelligence would make some of the truly retarded comments he's made over the years otherwise.

I fully support this.

It's getting increasingly difficult to trust the process.

I like the innovative approach of continuing to feed the RB with the cold hand. Most teams don't do that, so we can catch them off guard.

If that number ever gets over 50% I predict white liberals will find a way to rationalize bringing the n-word back.

I agree with that theory. This guy actually is black, but I generally find white liberals far more insufferable than their black counterparts. This guy's just a huge kitty who's stuck in the same ***** job he had 10 years ago (where and when I met him), gets no p*ssy, and needs someone other than himself to blame for his personal failures. I only mention him because I thought his response was illustrative of the mindset of the left, and how impervious to reason their minds are. Overall though, white liberals are by far the worst IMO. It's just like the Redskins controversy. The Tim Grahams of the world were outraged by the racist exploitation of Indians until a WaPo survey showed that 90% of actual Indians had no problem with the name, and a lot of them actually liked it. It turned out that the whole controversy was a bunch of self-righteous white liberal pussies who got off on feeling vicariously outraged on behalf of people who never wanted or asked for their virtue-signalling "compassion."

I've generally been of the opinion that liberals and conservatives are the yin and the yang of our political universe; that we both serve a purpose and both are necessary to keep things in equilibrium. Perhaps that is the case, but I'm increasingly thinking that the world has evolved a lot faster than we have, and that the overall societal purposes that liberalism brings to humanity is outdated and no longer serves a purpose beneficial to the species. In primitive times, when people lived in small groups of not more than a few hundred people at most, tribalistic and collectivist tendencies likely contributed to the viability of the group. In modern times, so much of that is inapplicable, serves no beneficial purpose, and can be destructive, like an appendix. I have become firmly of the belief that most liberals cannot be reasoned with. They're not even necessarily stupid (although many are) so much as they are overwhelmingly governed.by emotion, cognitive bias, and deference to authority. A perfect example of this is the utter obsession with bigotry while living in one of, if not the, least bigoted societies in the history of the world. Half these people talk as if we're living in 1930s Germany. Since Descartes we've understood that perception is not reality, but the break here is so stark that I often feel as though I'm living among people who are living in an alternate reality. I try to question myself, lest I be the one living in a state of delusion, but whenever I step back and take an objective look at incontrovertible facts it doesn't convince me that I am necessarily right, but it does confirm that the left is completely out of touch with reality. I had an exchange with a leftist that perfectly illustrates the mindset I'm talking about. In response to his assertion that President Trump was encouraging and inspiring white supremacists I said the following: His response to that was that Trump thinks white supremacists are good people and that I do too, then went on to tell me I couldn't see it because of my white privilege. If this were an anomaly I wouldn't mention it, but this appears to be the prevalent mindset of the left. I just don't see how you can reason or compromise with people who think like this. They're nasty, hateful, evil people who believe they are righteous. It's a dangerous combination.

It's kind of like the question about what QBs have been ruined by starting to soon. It's kind of hard to tell with any degree of accuracy because we don't know what might have happened otherwise.

Notice how President Trump got the libs to defend the sanctity of the constitution.

Dude, I just said that. 2. There is enough ambiguity, given the context, to justify looking to the legislative history. 4. The legislative history strongly suggests that the intent was not to give birthright citizenship to foreigners who happened to give birth while in the US. See Rob's House, § 179-180

When scholars like Richard Posner disagree with you it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but it's a good indication that the issue may be a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that my interpretation is definitely the correct one. Legal scholars who are far more learned than I are split on the issue. But I think the argument for my position is stronger than the one against it. Allegiance, in this context, doesn't refer to an allegiance you voluntarily pledge. It meant something analogous to citizen of another entity. For example, if Elizabeth Warren's great grandmother wandered off the reservation and had a baby, the child would be a citizen of (have allegiance to) the tribe. If a pregnant Canadian was visiting Niagara Falls and came over to the American side and gave birth, the child would be a citizen of (have allegiance to) Canada. Former slaves were not citizens of any other entity, thus they had no allegiance to anyone else.

Here is the specific discussion by the author and sponsor of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) from the Congressional Record: "Mr. HOWARD. The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

That interpretation renders the jurisdiction clause meaningless. There is a canon of textual integrity that urges us to avoid interpreting a provision in a way that would render other provisions of the text superfluous or unnecessary. That should at the very least raise enough ambiguity to look to the intent behind the chosen word usage. It's not clear that the word "jurisdiction" was meant in the same context as you're using it here. The legislative history suggests it meant complete and full jurisdiction, as opposed to limited jurisdiction. Literally anyone anywhere in the world can be subject to the jurisdiction of the US in one form or another. As you mentioned, the purpose was to overrule Dred Scott and prevent states from denying citizenship to black Americans who had no allegiance to any foreign nations. Birthright citizenship did not apply to untaxed American Indians at the time, although they were still subject to criminal prosecution. Lyman Trumbell (Senator involved in passing it) said it referred to "complete" jurisdiction, which he defined as "not owing allegiance to anyone else." That would seem to exclude children who are born citizens of a foreign nation due to their parents' citizenship. It's also worth noting that non-citizens can't be prosecuted for treason against the U.S. The issue is a lot more complicated than determining if someone can be prosecuted or deported. It's not that simple.

I was speaking to the assertion that what President Trump proposed would violate the constitution, but the rationale you stated isn't the basis of my argument. It is however instructive. The crux of the issue comes down to the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That's not as simple as determining if someone can be prosecuted. I'll delve deeper on this later.

I don't think it does. I'm not familiar with the legislative history, but the relevant language mirrors that of the 14th amendment. It comes down to what is meant by jurisdiction. It appears to mean complete jurisdiction, like not having allegiance to any foreign country. The alternative interpretation violates canons of statutory interpretation. It reads a clause out of existence and renders an absurd outcome.

I don't believe the 14th amendment grants citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, or even legal aliens who are not permanent residents.

ARMED FATHER KILLS MASKED SHOOTER WHO OPENED FIRE AT ALABAMA MCDONALD’S https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/29/father-kills-shooter-mcdonalds/

This whole clip is good, but last minute or 2, Adam Carolla gives a great explanation of why it's important to stand up to the left.

It's kind of a running joke. Or more accurately, a failed attempt at a running joke.

I'm not going to pretend to know how good he is, and I know it's not fair to judge a guy on one play, but he was a tackling dummy on that play that ended in a sack fumble on Monday. That play might have turned the game.

Beta O'Rourke is a pretty uninspiring candidate. He's the exact opposite of Trump. Where Trump is a charismatic guy who talks off the cuff and says what he thinks even if it's unpopular, Beta is the traditional stereotypical politician who answers every question with a canned, focus group approved response that attempts to straddle the middle while never actually answering the question. Of course, if you look at the sorry state of the Democratic field it's not hard to see why they had high hopes for him. At first glance he has that Mark Warner kind of appeal. Seems like a nice guy and kind of looks the part, but it doesn't take long to see there's not much to him. That may be enough to keep him in the conversation, but.canned faux-moderate speak never stoked anyone's passions. That said, he's a lot easier to take seriously than Spartacus (who is a reasonable moderate that I would vote for).