Saturday, March 25, 2006

Holt Opposes "Special Session of Spending"

Senator Jim Holt of Springdale has come out against holding a special session April 3rd to spend at least $380,000,000 of the taxpayer's money. That amount is about equal to a 1 cent sales tax increase, and there is no assurance that even that amount would satisfy a runaway court.

Here is the excerpt from his newsletter.

"Hold onto your wallets. A prospective education special session to pour over three hundred million more of your tax dollars into the education machine has been proposed for April 3rd. The money is an attempt to placate the courts who have said that the schools are "grossly underfunded". It is doubtful if even that amount of money will satisfy the State Supreme Court, as the legislature's own study said there was an immediate need for $2.3 billion more dollars to meet the court's orders. We are grateful to Chief Justice Jim Hannah and Justice Jim Gunter for dissenting in this case. They correctly ruled that the courts were exceeding their authority. Let's pray for the other judges to come to understand their wisdom.

We must stop this special session in order to save our pocketbooks! A special session can only be put off if there is no "consensus" among legislators that your wallet should be emptied in an effort to please the judges. For the record, Jim is against spending the money, and is considering sponsoring a resolution taking this issue to the people. The case is good that the courts have exceeded their authority and everyone knows it is the legislature, not the courts, who are supposed to have the power of the purse strings in our American System of Separation of Powers. Jim is working to stop the spending frenzy, but he can't do it alone. Abraham Lincoln said, "with public opinion behind me I can do everything, without it I can do nothing." We need your help. Contact your legislators and tell them NO to the special session. Arkansans already have the 8th highest tax burden.

Fourth Issue: Great new audio of Senator Holt in this 13 minute radio interview."

for the Holt Campaign- this is Mark Moore reporting.

95 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Senator Holt wanted to get Lobby Reform on the agenda of the special session in order to stop special interests from buying your government out from under you. His requests were ignored and a historic opportunity was missed. Instead, all the effort was spent finding new ways to spend your money. Since that is all they want the special session to do, Holt is against having the special session.

Please contact your legislator and tell them to join with Sen. Holt and Rep. Jim Medley in saying NO to the special session of spending. Ask your friends to do the same. If you don't, your taxes will go up.

9:52 AM

9:53 AM, March 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

MARK MOORE IS HOLT'S CAMPAIGN MANAGER, THIS IS NOT AN UNBIASED BLOG.

10:25 AM, March 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh....I didn't see your last line. Forget the above comment.

Your a good man Charlie Brown.

10:27 AM, March 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

but is it inaccurate? I don't think so.

12:23 PM, March 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holt is one of the extremely few people in office that keeps me from giving up on the whole thievin' system.

Altes of Ft Smith is another. Who is Rep. Medley? Is he going to be another trustworthy conservative?

4:10 PM, March 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holt is grandstanding yet again. He's never met with the Gov. or fellow legislator's to try to solve the problem because he's not really interested in fixing it, yet the moment he can look for an opportunity to get his name in the paper he'll send out a press release to take credit for the whole issue. But alas, none of the papers ran it, so no one knows about his press release except the four people reading this blog.

5:55 PM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt is one of the few up there who have not lost their bearings. Anonymous slimers like you want to bad mouth him because he shows the phonies down there to be what they really are- not what they pretend to be.

He helped stopped that stupid bond issue and he will do the same with the "special sessoion of spending". The people are with him on both issues. If the liberal media in the state did not want to run the story, why am I not surprised? When do they want to give the real conservative a fair hearing? Instead they pump up the fake ones so the people can be let down again.

Can you read minds? How do you know Jim Holt is "not really interested in fixing it"? Maybe he knows there is no sense going to the table with these people until there is a little public awareness behind him.

It will be a said day for the people if slimers like you manage to smear Holt out of a victory.

6:18 PM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who are the fakes and phonies? Please list them. The only reason he doesn't want to have a session is because it will interfere with his campaigning. Let's be honest.

6:33 PM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So if Holt loses, it's because people smear him out of a victory. It couldn't possibly be because the people want someone else to win?

6:37 PM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

6:37
Ditto

8:08 PM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It can't be healthy to hate one person so much.

9:30 PM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one ever said anything about hate. You always jump to that wrong conclusion. He just isn't a good legislator.

6:32 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a group of people who breathe lies about his motivations every day. There is nothing he could do that they would admit was the right thing done for the right reason. They can't just build their guy up, because there guy isn't big enough to win like that- instead they must destroy Jim Holt, whether he is guilty or innocent.

May God cause their ways to fall on their own heads.

6:58 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holt has a 100% rating from the National Federation of Independent Businesses. He has straight "A's" from the NRA, and "a perfect record to speak for the unborn" from the President of Arkansas Right to Life.

The Executive Director of Eagle Forum of Arkansas says that "He has always been one of our top five legislators and his last session was his best yet."

The American Family Association of Arkansas rated him and only two more as having a %100 voting record. He supported $0 of wasteful new spending and all his legislative opponents supported at least three billion in wasteful new spending just since 03.

Up against all that is some anonyomous guy on a blog who says "He is just not a good legislator". I guess all those organizations listed above will now have to be slimed by the Holt-haters, and it is hate whether you call it that or not. Slime them all, anything to stop Holt.

He is one of the few in the way of you pretend conservatives leading us down the path to the nanny state big government. That is why you feel you have to destroy him with lies no matter what it takes.

7:07 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you are backing candidates like Matayo or Banks and you're challenging the frontrunner, you have little choice but to attack. Just like the America haters who see nothing but evil about their country, they never want to discuss what they'd like to replace it with.

Likewise, these Holt-haters will strain at gnats in Holt's as-good-as-it-gets legislative record, but they don't want to talk about Matayo's scholarships & tuition for illegal aliens and his astronomical spending votes (while he shamelessly brags about opposing new taxes), or Chuck Bank's shady past as a US Attorney or the fact he's never held any legislative office where the people would have the ability to examine a voting record.

Man, I'd be happy if Holt was the only candidate we had, but next to those two clowns, he shines even brighter!

7:41 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He also voted to increase taxes more than once, voted not to shrink government, voted to lessen sentencing for meth dealers from 70% to 50% time served, voted to fund pre-k, and didn't show up for A LOT of votes. Is it sliming to bring that up, or is it truth? Because I thought his campaign was supposed to be all about truth and honesty. It has nothing to do with hate. But there sure are a lot of hateful words on here for anyone who isn't for Holt.

9:07 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amazing that Holt has so many detractors and yet people think that all of them are petty, slimy, stupid people.

People don't like Holt for a reason, that is because he has regected a lot of the party before, before, before he attempted to work together with them. He has alientated people and it is described as being revolutionary or independant, when it really seems like being hard to work with and focused on his own personal agenda.

Holt does not represent Republicans, he represents the few people who are in the Constituion party. I want a Republican.

9:26 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're saying Holt is not a Republican because he voted for pre-K? Where have you been, man? Matayo and Banks are both FOR pre-K. Holt's lone pre-K friendly vote was in err, but is standard fare for his challengers. A bad day for Holt is a typical day for socialist RINO's who I agree are not represented by Jim!

The rest of your 'facts' are in conflict with every conservative organization that has weighed in on this race. You really are just a detractor attempting to slime a good man in a desperate attempt to help your sorry candidate in the upcoming primary, no matter what motives you try to convince us you have.

11:07 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, a tiny band of voiciferous trolls who are campaign workers for RINO candidates do not constitute "so many detractors," though we know you'd love to leave such an impression.

11:11 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Campaign workers? I'm afraid it isn't even that glorious.

11:17 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has any other Republican gone on record opposing this special session? Democrats?

I guess we'll be moving up from our position of 8th most taxed state in the Union.

11:31 AM, March 27, 2006  
Blogger jppaulgraham said...

Matayo has never said he was for Pre-K.

12:02 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is it true he wrote a bill to support scholarships for illegal aliens?

12:27 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous jppaulgraham said...

No he did not write a bill to support scholarship for illegal aliens

12:34 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No--Elliot (a Democrat) wrote the actual bill, but Matayo urged everyone to support it on the House floor before voting for it himself. Holt was one of the first few who opposed it in the senate, leading to the bill's ultimate defeat even though the House had passed it.

And Paul, is your earlier statement an official denial? Are you saying that your buddy Matayo is against pre-K, or is he going to ride the fence?

12:36 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matayo has never said he was for Pre-K.

No he did not write a bill to support scholarship for illegal aliens

What Clintonesque language! Notice that Graham doesn't say Matayo is against pre-K, only that he hasn't said that he is for it (and I question that, even). And he also fails to mention that Matayo was one of the most passionate supporters of the illegal alien scholarship bill. What, are you guys ashamed of that now, Paul?

12:45 PM, March 27, 2006  
Blogger jppaulgraham said...

I have no part in Matayo's Campaign, and yes I do support him.

People there is a difference between undocumented and illegal.

Undocumented could mean you where born here thus a US citezen. Remember these CHILDREN would have been in the Arkansas school system for more then three years. Then they could have COMPETED for a scholarship. It is not law.

Illegal means they crossed the border themselves and are over the age of 18 1/2. That is federal law. Jim Holt is in the wrong race if he wants to stop Illegal Immigration.

I know that Jim Holt voted to fund Pre-K yet when Chuck Banks calls him on it he cries foul.

12:55 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt is in the wrong race if he wants to stop Illegal Immigration.
We have all heard the argument: "Abortion/immigration/etc. doesn't matter at the state level." I strongly disagree. Look at how the RINOs have increased state funding for illegals over the years. They certainly can make a difference. Furthermore, illegal aliens and their children are in this country illegally no matter how many years they go undetected in public schools. If you want to pay for their college tuition, then go right ahead! But stop trying to make us pay for your and Matayo's "compassion".

1:15 PM, March 27, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Hey Paul, you were asked what your pal Matayo's opinion on pre-Kindergarten (state-funded daycare) was. Are you claiming that you don't know? Can you at least answer the question somewhere amidst your spewing venom about Holt?

1:16 PM, March 27, 2006  
Blogger jppaulgraham said...

Mr Toast

Do you speak for Jim Holt's campaign?

I do not speak for Doug's Campaign and will not answer that question on behalf of his campaign. I am sure he would tell you if you called him. The truth is not venom. Jim Holt did vote to fund Pre-K.

By the way Mr Toast, I hope your father wins his race and will send money once the race is on. He is a fine man and we need more people like him

1:29 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was watching Fox News over the weekend and they had an expert on dealing with immigration. He said that the people who are so passionate against illegal immigration are actually against ANY immigration. It has nothing to do with legal or illegal, they just don't want them here period. This was on the Beltway Boys. Everyone that was on during that segment agreed with this guy completely. I'm sure you can get the transcripts from that show since I'm sure you won't believe it. I immediately thought of the people on this site when I heard that. That has also been what I've seen from you every day. You refuse to read the fine print of this bill so that you can spin it to make it look the way you want it. That is what I call slimy.

11:07 "Holt's lone pre-K friendly vote was in err, but is standard fare for his challengers." Holt just publically denied this vote when asked about it by Banks at a Lincoln Day Dinner last week. He said he didn't vote for it, but you just admitted he did. More proof that Holt will lie about anything to make himself look better.

2:21 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous AmerCitizen45 said...

Paul Graham, why do you dislike Jim Holt so much? Why is it your mission in life to smear his name any chance you can get? What's he ever done to you?

2:54 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is a known fact that Jim Holt dislikes Paul Graham just as much or more. Jim Holt is the one that wronged Paul in the first place and then asked others to lie for him. Jim even asked a very good friend to lie for him to the police. His friend refused to do this.

Why don't you ask Holt the same question? He has a lot to answer for, but you keep defending him without really knowing anything about him. I'm beginning to think that Holt is a compulsive liar and doesn't know what is true and what is a lie anymore. You keep calling him "a good man" but a good man doesn't insist on lying all the time.

3:12 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, we're just a bunch of racists because we believe in secure borders and not rewarding the criminal acts of illegal aliens?

3:14 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Funny, I don't see Jim Holt whining in blogs about Paul Graham. I see a a JP in Washington county, making slanderous statements on any blog that dare say anything positive about Holt. I see a little man admiting that his purpose in life is to oppose Jim Holt. I see Paul Graham proven time after time to be an outright liar. And then I'm asked to take the credibility of some anonymous poster that it's really Holt's fault because he once drove over Graham's cat or some other ridiculous high school level spat.

3:28 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Saying that a child of an illegal is a criminal is like saying the child of a murderer is a criminal. In this country, we don't punish the children of criminals, just the criminals themselves. If you want to start punishing all of the children of criminals in this country, we better hurry up and build more prisions.

Can someone please tell me what anyone in Arkansas is going to do about securing the borders? And if you don't want straight A students, whose parents are in the process of becomming legal, to go to college, then why are you so willing to let them go through our public school system? You are willing to educate them for 13 years, making outstanding grades, and then you want them to work in a factory or on a chicken farm. Jim Holt has done nothing to keep them out of our public school system. He even voted for them to be able to go to Pre-K, because that is who the tax money is going to that he voted for.

3:29 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:28 If you haven't seen Holt whinning on blogs about Paul Graham, then you haven't been reading the blogs. And it was much bigger than Holt running over his cat. I don't think he'd want someone to lie to the police about that. Jim knows the truth and he's the only one that can verify it, but he's not man enough to admit he was wrong. I've never heard the man admitting wrong for anything. He wouldn't even admit that he voted for Pre-K. He voted for a tax that funds pre-k so that the children of illegals can go to pre-k for free. Did you not know that the majority of kids in pre-k are the children of illegals? That's a pretty well known fact.

3:41 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We don't want illegal aliens in our prisons. We want them deported, and we want companies who hire them penalized so that the illegals eventually leave on their own.

It is the parents of the illegal children who have punished their own children, not us. We did not ask, nor did we want, any of them to come here illegally and start a family. But they do it intentionally to play on the faulty logic of ignorant people who make specious arguments to let them stay.

You have no legal basis for making people pay anything for illegals. You make a lame attempt to justify it, but you have absolutely no legal basis. You're just a liberal who loves to spend, spend, spend other people's money to fund your own twisted definition of compassion.

3:46 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3:28 If you haven't seen Holt whinning on blogs about Paul Graham, then you haven't been reading the blogs.

Why don't you post us a link to such a blog, troll.

4:01 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, Matayo is not for Pre-k, and he darn well never voted to fund it. I love how, now that you realize how Holt screwed up in a major way, you try to make his opponents look equally bad. It's the same old lesson: people only tear you down to make themselves look better. Matayo is not for pre-k. Period.

4:12 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is our government's responsiblity to keep them from coming here. They aren't doing the job and Jim Holt isn't either. Just because he is against something doesn't mean he is doing something about it. He can't figure it out anymore than anyone else can. He will do nothing as Lt. Gov to help secure our borders.

I love that you are here in the best country in the world pointing fingers at people who live in the worst countries in the world. You would do the same thing in their shoes, but you don't know desperation the way they do. They see a chance at a better life and they go for it. As a parent, you cannot tell me that you wouldn't do whatever it takes to secure a better life for your children. Hopefully you will never have to find out, but I'm really sick of people complaining about others, when they have no idea what they are going through. Our poorest people in this country would probably be the wealthiest in theirs. Think about that for a little while. You refuse to even try and put yourself in their place. For some reason, all of you have decided that you are better than them, and probably are a little racist. I've heard KKK memebers that say they aren't racist. Most people won't admit it when they are. I'm sure you look at every immigrant and assume they are here illegally.

4:12 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm really sick of people complaining about others, when they have no idea what they are going through.

Fine! Then pay for it YOURSELF! It's a free country. If you want to be a bleeding heart globalist, break out YOUR OWN checkbook. Stop electing people who illegally raise my taxes to pay for every third-worlder who makes it across the border, or WE will be third world soon.

4:15 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

3 out of 4 new businesses in our country is started by an immigrant. They are putting more money into our economy than we are.

Jim Holt voted for a tax to pay for 3 and 4 year-olds to go to daycare for free, a large number of them being immigrants. If you elect Jim Holt, then YOU are voting for someone who will raise your taxes to pay for every third-worlder who makes it across the border.

4:22 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To 3:46
if parents come here illegally and then start a family, then those children are US citizens. Do you want them deported as well, when they have the same right to be here as you do? That's what is sounds like to me.

4:23 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Holt mischaracterization is boloney, and you know it, liar.

if parents come here illegally and then start a family, then those children are US citizens.

That is a myth. There is no law making the children of illegals majically citizens.

4:27 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

. For some reason, all of you have decided that you are better than them, and probably are a little racist.

It's always the same with you slimers. You can't make an argument, so you throw in some emotionally charged terms, however false and ridiculous.

4:29 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous AmerCitizen45 said...

I've got news for all of you...Jim Holt doesn't even read these blogs. I know this for a fact. I've tried to get him to read them and he refuses to do so. He can't believe people would say and do the things that are posted on here. He has better things to do with his time. Like running for LG.

4:31 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love your fourth-grade name calling. I thought Holt supporters were supposed to be Christians. So you're saying that you would want them deported as well? Where are you getting the idea that it is a myth, when even the president recognizes it as law? Is he wrong as well?

4:31 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how, now that you realize how Holt screwed up in a major way, you try to make his opponents look equally bad.

f you elect Jim Holt, then YOU are voting for someone who will raise your taxes to pay for every third-worlder who makes it across the border.

You are so hypocritical and full of nonsense.

4:31 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where are you getting the idea that it is a myth...

Why don't you try to prove otherwise, since I would be undertaking the near impossible task of proving a negative.

4:33 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:21 If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. If you don't know that then you need to go back to school.

4:15 The only thing that is going to turn our country into a third-world country is welfare. At least immigrants come here to work for a living and do a darn good job at putting money back into our economy, unlike my sister-in-law and her husband that sit at home ALL day and collect government checks each month. They are both perfectly capable of working for a living and they find it's easier to just get paid for watching TV. You should be more concerned with people like that, instead of the people that want to work. If you want to try and fix all the problems in this country, then go ahead, but please start with my sister-in-law and her family of 6.

4:37 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't need to prove it otherwise. Just like I don't need to prove that if you steal something you go to prison. The federal government recognizes both as law. I would just like to know how you have become so enlightened to know otherwise. Do you think they (the children) should be deported, or not?

4:40 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:31 And like spreading lies about people all over the state. That probably keeps him pretty busy.

4:48 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or... you can't prove it. (Yes, I believe the entire family should be deported. I thought I made that clear).

And illegal immigrants' scholarships are no more the collective public's problem than your sister-in-laws' problems are. How is it that you point to one unconstitutional program in an attempt to justify the other?

You are reinventing the wheel with your misplaced 'compassion'. Just look to Europe to see what happens when this specious reasoning is followed out to its ultimate conclusion. Or try California for something a little closer to home.

4:49 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just tired of people complaining about things but do nothing about it. What good does it do to complain? I want to see action, and it's not happening, not from Jim or anyone else. I'm tired of you trying to make people think that Jim will solve all of our problems if we elect him. He won't. He'll do nothing and get paid for it. I guess you could also call that welfare.

4:54 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You argue with me, but you do not know me. How do you know I "complain but do nothing?"

You, on the other hand, seem more intent on digging the hole of America's troubles deeper! Maybe you should "do nothing" for a while.

4:57 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'Anchor baby' myth explained

5:08 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

4:57 I'm glad I don't know you because you don't make any sense. You don't know me either, so please don't make statement about me that are untrue.

5:15 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read the "Anchor baby myth" link and while the author of the piece agreed with your analogy that aliens baby's are not US citizens, the Supreme Court did not. That piece was the opinion of the authors, but not in occordance with our Constituion. I still cannot believe that you would want US citizens--BABY'S--deported. Is this the view of the Holt campaign? We already know he doesn't want these same babies to receive prenatal care.

7:28 PM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where did you read that the Supreme Court didn't agree? They dodged the question, because they know the implications. Your insistence that "it's in the Constitution" is globalist wishful thinking.

There is no law saying that the children of illegals are citizens. While it has been inconsistent policy that the INS has often allowed such children to receive citizenship, such a policy is ILLEGAL.

Wake up. You're destroying our country with your liberal giveaway philosophies.

I do not work for the Holt campaign, nor do I know their position on this subject.

6:34 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wasn't born yesterday...of course that is the view of the Holt campaign, definitely the view of Mark Moore...I've heard him say it. And of course you know it. You just know that position would be a very unpopular one--punishing babies (citizens) in such a crass way.

6:39 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, you don't know me, so stop with the idiotic assumptions. Unlike you on most topics, I'm not ashamed of my positions. I believe in following our constitution and that means deporting the entire family of illegal aliens (you carry on as if only the babies will be sent across the border to starve and dehydrate!). And I support any conservative who believes likewise. I would be exceedingly glad to hear that Holt is one, though I've never heard a statement to that effect.

I'm glad Holt's not like the other Arkansas House & Senate RINOs who voted for the failed scholarships/tuition bill or the RINOs on the US Senate committee who just passed an amnesty bill on to the House. You liberals are destroying my country.

7:57 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This isn't YOUR Country. This is OUR country and that goes for everyone else who is BORN here. The babies of illegals have every right to be here if they were born here. Quit trying to change the constitution. Conservatives like to obey it.

Tell me where in the constitution in states that babies born to illegals in this country aren't legal? Quote it word for word!!!

8:52 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your theory: If you break into this country illegally and happen to go into labor, then your baby is given citizenship and yours will come 18 years later. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE!

An article was already referenced. Try reading it.

From the XIV Amend:
"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."

You emphasize the word "born" but ignore the word "AND." You cannot do that with the constitution. Even the liberal activists on the Supreme Court will not make your argument, because they know any intelligent person can read plain English!

10:11 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now your turn: Show me the federal or state law which bestows automatic citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.

You will be busy a loooooong time if you insist on finding one.

10:14 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok let’s use your argument which is right in the constitution!

From the XIV Amend:
"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


They are born here, however they are not subject to the jurisdiction.

A) They could murder without being subject to the jurisdiction.
B) They could murder and be subject to the jurisdiction.

I would choose B.

I know it is touchy subject when does Jurisdiction begin and end. If you are subject to it and you where born here you are a citizen. If you are born here and not subject to the Jurisdiction that means you would not have to pay taxes, follow the laws, serve jury duty or get a marriage license to marry or partner of the same sex.

10:36 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even IF your argument (choice B) didn't butcher of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," it still retains the ridiculous outcome mentioned in the 10:11 comment.

But, your argument DOES misinterpret "subject to the jurisdiction."

An excellent article from FrontPage Magazine covers it well. From the article:

1. The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

2. The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

3. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

4. There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

5. The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

10:55 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't we all go back and check to make sure our relatives came to this country legally? Many of you would probably lose your citizenship with your argument. Do you think that just because it was hundreds of years ago when your family did it, that it shouldn't matter anymore. For some reason you think that since your skin is white, you deserve to be here. You just want the Mexicans to go back to where they came from. Our country has done things this way since the beginning, but now you want it to change, because you think that you are safe.

10:56 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For that matter, why don't we just erase our borders and let everyone in?

But there you go with the race baiting. You don't know my skin color, and Mexicans aren't the only illegal aliens. You're coming off as the racist with that last statement.

11:00 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 11:00,

You just have to love the internet! People don't know who you are and must listen to what you say instead of looking at your skin color or gender. It would be crazy to find out that you are female of Latina ancestry! Lol!

11:32 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

7:57 ...not ashamed of your position... Then what is your name?
And one thing about your second paragraph bothers me--do you want only the babies to starve and dehydrate or would you prefer the entire family? I wasn't sure which one you meant when I read it.

11:43 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If this is the level on which you care to argue, be gone, troll!

11:53 AM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

11:32-It's the same on alot of blogs that have anonymous comments. When the facts run out for the shallow liberal arguments, the name-calling begins. Eventually, they want to know your name, color, etc. so they can derail the discussion and namecall. They are the true bigots.

12:04 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was no name calling (not liar, or slimer, or bigot among the more popular terms on this blog), I just truly want to know. You made the original statement, so please answer the question.

12:07 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, I forgot troll.

12:08 PM, March 28, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Wow! This blog has grown since this morning! Good discussion on the fourteenth amendment. Few people in Congress understand our Constitution. I'm not surprised that some of the weasels who frequent here don't!

12:10 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow...Mr. Toast, or Josh (nice name) is smarter than most of Congress. Maybe he should run for President.

12:16 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Josh Duggar doesn't have time to run for President. He's too busy having to take care of all the little trolls running around his house.

12:19 PM, March 28, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

I think you just confirmed the point made at 12:04!

12:20 PM, March 28, 2006  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

By the way, why do you assume that I'm Josh Duggar?

12:22 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tell me where the words "slimer" and "troll" came from? They came from you, Mr. Troll. If you don't like name calling, then don't START the name calling!

12:23 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because I know.

12:24 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About as much as you know the Constitution!

12:28 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We all know the Constitution. I'm surprised that Josh knows the Constitution. Actually, I don't think he does, I think he only knows what he is told by the other people he hangs around.

I wish you would care as much about what the bible says, as you do about what you "think" the constitution says. Or do you have your own interpretation of that too?

12:40 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here are some model future American anchor babies.

7:29 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm sure we could come up with some model American citizens too: think Charles Manson, Andrea Yates, Scott Peterson...it's not very fair to lump the bad in with the good. One bad anchor baby doesn't make them all bad, and if that is how you feel I feel sorry for you.

8:51 PM, March 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'm sure we could come up with some model American citizens

Um, hopefully those people will never become citizens. I'm not the one advocating that we give them citizenship just because their parents made it undetected across the border somewhere. I would rather SCREEN them first, so we DON'T get the Charles Masons, etc. For some reason, you have a problem with that simple and effective process. You would rather reward the Scott Petersons of the bunch with citizenship which amounts to bumping the law-abiding immigrants to the back to the line. Have you ever asked that second group of potential Americans what they think of your "compassion"?

9:34 AM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back to what was said earlier. Why don't we go back and screen everyone here. I'm sure there are so many of us here that are only here because our ancestors came here illegally. Why don't we check and then send all of those people back to where they originally came from and then make them fill out paper work and stand in line and come here legally. The law is the law. Everyone should have to obey it, even our ancestors. Just because it was generations ago when your family broke the law, doesn't give you any more right to be here than the people who are breaking it now. Are you willing to put your citizenship on the line? If you're wanting something done, make sure it's done right.

9:36 AM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:34...you make no sense.
Charles Manson and Scott Peterson were not "rewarded" with citizenship. They were (unfortunately for us) born here which automatically made them citizens. I (and you, I assume) was born here, and while I am priviledged to be an American citizen, it is also my right by birth. Do you seriously not realize this?

10:44 AM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:44--read the 9:34 post again. I think you misunderstood it.

11:13 AM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

9:36--I'm not contesting the validity of citizenships given by the government (to anchor babies, for example), but we must contest the constitutionality of the practice. And I don't challenge the validity of Reagan's 1986 blanket amnesty, but it was a terrible decision that should not be repeated.

11:16 AM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, what do you have to say to the people waiting in line overseas, "Too bad you didn't get in on the law breaking too!"? You act as if your compassion doesn't cost anyone else anything.

11:18 AM, March 29, 2006  
Anonymous abe lincoln said...

Interesting blog. A good read.

Sincerely,

Abraham Lincoln Jr.
abe lincoln
http://www.AmericanStalin.com

6:36 PM, October 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep up the good work
» »

9:28 AM, December 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very cool design! Useful information. Go on! »

3:57 PM, March 15, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home