Say No to any more debt (or bonded indebtedness). Your property taxes are going up now because of earlier debt you agreed to. We as a community need to learn to live within our means. We need to be a community that can thrive in difficult times as other cities fail under the weight of crushing debt. Please do not enslave your children to pay for things you cannot afford with current revenue streams in your household or your church or your community.
Remember to vote today and please say NO to any more debt!
Voter registration is closed for the Primary Election. But you can register to vote in the August 28 Runoff Primary Election and the November 6 General Election.Get an application here.
Last time to request an absentee ballot . . . 5 PM, Wednesday, June 20. Get an application here.
OK-SAFE recently had the opportunity to interview two Oklahomans about their encounters with FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration, aka the Mob), local officials and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). One successfully rebuffed the officials; the other was not so successful.
What was the issue? The designation of their (non-flooding) property as being in a flood zone, resulting in the devaluation of the property; the limitations on development of the land; the devaluation of the land as collateral; reducing the future sell-ability of said property; and the forced purchase of flood insurance for said property.
Listening to the accounts of these two separate incidents it appears that the maps being used to determine the flood zone designation are rather whimsical: it all depends on which map the agent is using, and whether you want to be designated as flood zone or not. The gentleman in the township of Skiatook, OK was actually presented with 3 different maps over the course of three days. He resisted the OWRB/FEMA efforts and they actually backed down.
This was not the case in Ramona, OK.
There, a family with 40 acres of property was surprised to find that their property was now designated as being ‘Zone A High Risk’ flood zone. The property has been in their family since 1946, has never flooded, and the land is actually mapped as upland agriculture. The result of the ‘Zone A High Risk’ flood zone designation has been a 50% decrease in the assessed value of their property.
FEMA and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board are using stealth methods to steal property in Oklahoma; in essence, they’re stealing home.
For an excellent analysis of the FEMA/Oklahoma Water Resources Board activities and ties to sustainable development see article below posted on Axxiom For Liberty.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board/FEMA Flood Map Follies, by Kaye Beach.
August 24, 2011 America in the Balance, an internet radio program hosted by Amanda Teegarden (Exec. Director, OK-SAFE, Inc.) & Don Wyatt (Tulsa 912) did a very interesting show on the FEMA Flood mapping taking place in our state last Sunday.
Their two guests David McClain and Margaret Snow shared their experiences with FEMA and the new floodplain maps that are being drawn up in Oklahoma.
The two are looking for other Oklahomans who have had a similar experience with FEMA and their new maps. OK. Attorney General Scott Pruitt has agreed to take a look at documented instances of questionable FEMA flood re-designations. (Contact information can be found at the end of this article.)
These flood maps produced by FEMA will indicate which property owners must purchase flood insurance. Development is discouraged in the designated zones and building or development in the floodplains is often highly regulated
If you have had your property’s flood designation changed or had an encounter with FEMA or the Oklahoma Water Resources Board regarding floodplain designation, you will be interested in these two stories.
(Listen to the archived show here or read the summary I have written from the radio show interviews.)
Skiatook Township, David McLain
David McLain, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Skiatook tells Amanda and Don that a few weeks ago he noticed some officials taking measurements on his property. David approached the two gentlemen to find out what they were doing. The two identified themselves as being with FEMA and informed Mr. McClain that they were working on adjusting floodplain designations. One of the agents, Gavin Brady, although he introduced himself as being with FEMA, the business card he handed to David showed him as being with the Oklahoma Water Resource Board. The other agent is reported to be Matthew Rollins.
Curious as to why the man is representing both FEMA and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, I did a little searching and found that the OWRB is under a cooperative agreement with FEMA and is the coordinating state agency for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for the state of Oklahoma. link Map Modernization
The OWRB website explains that this is a “Map Modernization” effort;
“Many of the nation’s flood hazard maps are outdated and no longer realistically depict the true flood risk. As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is conducting a multi-year effort, the Map Modernization Program, to update these maps and present them in a more reliable digital format that is easily accessible to local and state floodplain officials” link
(For more about the FEMA/ Oklahoma Map Modernization program, click here.) (Rest of Kaye Beach article here.)
Article I, Section 8: "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"
Note: This article was written by Shelli Dawdy and Linda Rohman of Grassroots in Nebraska (GiN). Shelli is the founder of GiN and Linda is the Policy Research Coordinator for the Lincoln, NE based group, founded in 2009, the mission for which is to actively promote a return to Constitutional, limited government and sovereignty.
The Nebraska Unicameral session has been in full (fast, furious) swing since its opening on January 5. We’ve been taking a look at the many bills that have been introduced, including Senator Charlie Janssen’s LB48, which many people have characterized as “Arizona-style immigration law”, referencing the controversial SB1070.
There are a number of elements in the bill we’re examining and among them are potential implications for the very important issue of jurisdiction. Recognizing the need for a deeper look at this subject, I asked Linda to prepare a presentation for our January 10 meeting, which I’ve edited for ease of reading and reproduced here along with some additional thoughts from the follow-up discussion at the meeting.
For the purposes of discussing jurisdiction and the implications for immigration, it’s necessary to take a look at some history associated with citizenship.
The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that a person, born into slavery in Virginia, was not freed by virtue of being transported into and residing for a time within either the State of Illinois or the Territory of Wisconsin, both of which outlawed the practice of slavery within their borders.
Specifically with reference to the matter of citizenship, the Court further held that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves (or their descendants, whether or not they were slaves) were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S. citizens.
Chief Justice Taney and President-elect Buchanan thought that the Court’s decision would lay all existing sectional differences to rest, fully and finally, but they overestimated their ability to persuade abolitionists to accept constitutional law as the Supreme Court interpreted it. Far from resolving the crisis, the Dred Scott decision is now considered to have actually accelerated the country’s descent into civil war.
Enacted during Reconstruction following the Civil War.
Response to continued discrimination against former slaves, particularly in the South, denying them the rights attendant upon citizenship, including the rights to:
Make contracts
Sue and be sued
Testify in court
Inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and
Vote
The Act declared that everyone “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” is a citizen without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude.
Introduced shortly after the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Supporters feared the Supreme Court would declare the Civil Rights Act of 1866 unconstitutional and supported the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to forestall any such ruling by the Court.
Citizenship Clause:
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.
“. . ., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . .”
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
GiN is committed to the concept of ORIGINALISM: (from our About page)
The Constitution is an enduring document, not a living, evolving one. Consequently, a proper interpretation of the Constitution can only be achieved by reference to the original meaning of the words it contains.
An understanding of original meaning requires consideration of the words themselves and their context, as well as history, tradition, and legal precedent, the latter grounded in American jurisprudence as opposed to that of foreign jurisdictions. A judge’s consideration of “values” and of consequences evaluated in light of those values is inconsistent with the rule of law and outside the proper role of a judge.
Using the concept of Originalism, as defined above, one can examine a phrase contained in the Constitution, step by step:
1. The words themselves and their context:
AND is a conjunction. When used in the context of a list, it implies plurality rather than the singular.
If a person is born in the United States, he or she is physically in the United States at birth.
To construe “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning within the boundaries of the United States reduces them to a redundancy. In other words, the phrase would literally mean:
“All persons born . . . in the United States, and in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
“A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary.” Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).
2. What’s the history and tradition behind the adoption of this language?
Senator Jacob Howard (MI) introduced the proposed amendment for consideration by Congress. In discussing the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” Sen. Howard stated:
“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.”
Senator Howard also said:
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already . . .”
(Arguably, a reference to the Civil Rights Act of 1866.)
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into the Fourteenth Amendment explained:
“[T]he provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
(An even more clear reference to language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.)
There are many other examples similar to the ones above, sufficient to demonstrate that this was the general understanding of the clause when the proposed amendment was discussed in Congress (although there were a few Congressmen who stated the language would render anyone born within U.S. borders citizens).
As an adult, he renounced his allegiance to his tribe, moved to non-reservation U.S. territory (Omaha, Nebraska), and there attempted to register to vote, claiming citizenship under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Wilkins, the registrar of voters in the district where Elk lived, refused to register Elk on the grounds that he was not a citizen of the U.S.
The U.S. Supreme Court held:
Although “Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,” “they were alien nations, distinct political communities,” with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress.
Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States.
The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
But just 14 years later, the Court reached the opposite conclusion:
Wong Kim Ark was born in the U.S. to parents who were Chinese immigrants and, apparently, legal resident aliens (i.e., they remained citizens of China although living and running a business in the U.S. for a period of years).
The parents returned to China in 1890, and Wong Kim Ark went to visit them there in 1894, returning to the U.S. from that visit in 1894.
He was detained upon seeking re-entry into the U.S. on the grounds that, because his parents were Chinese citizens and owed their allegiance to China, Wong Kim Ark, although born in the U.S., was also a Chinese citizen.
The Court:
Distinguished Elk v. Wilkins as limited solely to Native Americans. This is not as surprising as it may seem at first reading. In many respects, recognition of Native Americans as a minority group and acknowledgment of their civil rights came even more slowly than for African Americans. For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 specifically “exclud[ed] Indians not taxed” from its birthright citizenship provision.
HELD: The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English Common Law, which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory.
The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth — namely, that Indian tribes “not taxed” were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act).
Where does that leave us?
Considering the citizenship clause from the perspective of originalism, at least two arguments can be made:
The Wong Kim Ark decision was wrongly decided. Even though there is some legal basis to support this contention (i.e., that the interpretation of the citizenship clause runs counter to legislative intent and the original meaning of the words used therein), there is always a great deal of reluctance on the part of the Court to upset settled precedent. Without more, it is unlikely such an argument would prevail.
If the English Common Law exceptions recognized by the Court in Wong Kim Ark are to apply, the children of illegal aliens are arguably more similar to exception number (3) — children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory — and should be denied birthright citizenship under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment on that basis. In today’s political climate, this contention would unleash a firestorm of criticism upon anyone with the temerity to assert it. Even setting that aside, there are legitimate questions as to whether the facts support the analogy. BUT videos like the one below and the Absolut vodka ad picture, give some credence to the argument.
An Absolut vodka ad targeting Hispanic customers
At the January 10 meeting, there was further discussion of this issue, with a number of questions raised, associated with the 14th Amendment and the implications when interpreted according to long standing legal standards.
At the time of the meeting, our preliminary survey of relevant court cases had only turned up Elk and Wong. We are continuing our research work and have just discovered some additional information, which we’ve only started to dive into. One of the things we’re looking at is a research paper entitled “Regulation of Immigration is Historically a State Function“.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the US Congress. Included in that list is, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”. Naturalization is the process by which someone becomes a citizen.
The Constitution does not enumerate immigration as falling under the Federal government’s power. Immigration is simply “the act of moving to or settling in another region or country, temporarily or permanently”.
It’s very unclear when immigration became a Federal issue – did it occur legislatively in Congress or through bureaucratic regulation? The Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization was created by federal law in 1906. So, certainly, by that time, it was being treated as within the purview of the federal (general) government.
Just because something is done at one time and another way now doesn’t necessarily indicate which is the RIGHT way. The question remains: Is immigration properly handled as a State or Federal issue?
These questions are highly relevant, considering that LB48, the immigration measure introduced by Senator Janssen, includes language that would actually codify Federal authority over immigration into Nebraska law. Is that a good idea? Further, is it not a relevant question: If there are existing immigration statues on our books, including the law pertaining to property, are there already adequate laws available that are simply not being rigorously and consistently enforced?
We are looking into all of these questions and hope to have some answers very soon. Again, one of the things we are looking at is “Regulation of Immigration is Historically a State Function“, which references many court cases on this subject.
“I call on you in the name of Liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the American character.” – Lt. Col. William Barret Travis, the Alamo, February 24, 1836A vote to extend the omnibus Patriot Act is an act of moral cowardice. The American character is about constitutional government, our rights under law, the very underpinning, the cornerstone of who we are. While there are parts of the act I do not disagree with, such as some of the intelligence-sharing provisions, the suspending of the 4th Amendment is a travesty and is something that a free people should not tolerate. That is just for starters.
Travis fought for a constitution that had been de facto suspended, the Mexican constitution of 1824, which was very similar to ours.
Your property is now subject to warrantless search. In fact, no notice need be given if your premises is entered, according to Pat Act One. If you are placed under suspicion as a terrorist, even if you are questioned, under Patriot Act Two, which was passed by Congress as the public was distracted by the capture of Saddam Hussein, you are not able to notify anyone including your attorney, according to this act of Congress. As a matter of fact, you may be assassinated or imprisoned or tortured overseas with this act as a basis. None of these provisions are constitutional, but will any judge in this era have the courage to overturn them?
When John Adams was president, we passed laws called the Alien and Sedition acts that in effect made it illegal to oppose or even say critical things about our government. It took the election of Thomas Jeffersonto overturn most of those provisions. Why were they enacted ? Fear of our former allies, the French.
Abraham Lincoln imprisoned both a congressmen and state judges without habeas corpus. Why? Fear of Confederates, even though many of the people whom he threw in prisons without bail were the peaceniks of their time and not Confederate sympathizers.
Fear is the handmaiden of bad legislation and illegal government acts. Some who otherwise call themselves constitutionalists have stated that the Patriot Acts are about our very survival, and that we have to survive in order to have constitutional government. Well, just how far are the panderers of that nonsense willing to take that logic? Perhaps some of our current political leadership might think the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany might be better able to deal with the threat of terror, but I do not think that is the case.
Perhaps some in my party might actually need to look between the covers of the Bible and not just thump the covers in order to discover the reason for courage and wisdom found within. By and large I don’t expect that type of courage from Democrats anymore, but they at least are consistent in their fear-driven worship of the state.
So-called Republicans have no excuse. “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased by chains or slavery?” said Patrick Henry. According to many in Congress, the answer is yes, for the suspension or circumvention of our constitution will ultimately lead to slavery, no matter if it is administered with velvet gloves.
A free and responsible people who have not been lulled to sleep by the siren calls of state security are our best protection against those who would do us harm. No doubt there is a place in a constitutional Republicfor intelligence services, as there is also a place for border security, which failed us through inaction and political correctness on 911.
That inaction was fed by decades of neglect and sloth on the part of our political leadership and the fear of a new protected class in American politics, illegal aliens, especially illegals with a Muslim background. The very laws that could have prevented 911 were on the books before 911. More laws and an attempted legal coup against our constitution will not substitute for a lack of courage by our leadership to enforce our existing immigration law.
A cowardly Congress rushed to pass provisions in both Patriot Act One and Two in haste without making sure there was time to read the bills. That mistake or maybe strategy is now enshrined in tradition in Washington, where bills are no longer read. Many of us rememberNancy Pelosi’s arrogant looneyness in her statement that we have “to pass the bill in order to know what is in it.”
Indeed a Republican-led Congress, with bipartisan fear on its lips and Democrat encouragement, passed thousands of pages of constitution-suspending legislation by way of similar action. Now many wish to extend their error through continuing the Alien and Sedition Acts of our time.
It is reasonable to ask, how long before these laws are used as political weapons against opposing parties or maybe even opinion writers. Is that really the intent of some who support these provisos? That is howJohn Adam’s Alien and Sedition Acts, Woodrow Wilson’s war acts and Abraham Lincoln’s powers were ultimately used.
The founding fathers would not recognize our craven representatives for the most part or the people who elect them. Do we even deserve the liberties we have left? Nationally syndicated neo-conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt once asked me if these laws have been used. My response is that in my experience all laws are eventually used; some are used to oppress. Given how these are written, how are we to know? Where is the check and balance?
Some mis-characterize a statement by President Jefferson, who stated that we have a living, breathing constitution, as an excuse for their mischief. Jefferson was speaking of our right to change the constitution by amendment. We have a lawful way to do that, but neither the Congress through a bill nor a propagandist have the right to reinterpret the very words or circumvent our founding document.
Now is the time for people to decide whether they have the moral courage to be free. There are enough laws on the books to deal with illegal aliens (which the 911 attackers were) and terrorism without succumbing to warrantless sneak and peak searches and even more grievous suspensions of many of our constitutional rights. If we are to kill the Republic, we should at least have the courage to do it by the lawful amendment process – an effort to which I will stand in firm opposition, but at least it would be a legal attempt.
Paul D. Perry
This column was originally published in the Waxahachie Daily Light
If you are inspired to action, here are some ideas and a few fax numbers and a sample fax. The techniques seems to be keep bringing it up until it passes so we must keep up the heat and the faxes and phone calls.
OKG says Liberty, Freedom & OK GOP State Chair, Dave Weston: OK GOP Chairman, Dave Weston, ho... bit.ly/12FjSfj#OKG#TPorg#R3s -- Follow @R3publicans hashtag #R3s 6 hours ago
Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak Compares NSA Spying to Soviet Russia fb.me/2BKZReeBr -- Follow @R3publicans hashtag #R3s 7 hours ago
Illustrator and cartoonist Vic Lockman on the web! Kings and Queens of the Jury and more available to order via his website.
