Monday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Monday, April 13. 2026

At The Heartland Climate Conference: "What Is The Proof?", Extreme Weather Events Edition

Mid-Air Birth Flies Home. How Stupid Birthright Citizenship Is

Eric Swalwell and the Brett Kavanaugh Karma Train

Trump Moves: Massive Oil Reserve Release Announced

Trump Is Denounced -- Even by Some Republicans -- Over the 'War of Choice'

British General Admits That It Can't Deploy a Division Abroad

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 08:00 | Comments (25) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

The Constitutional amendment granting birthright citizenship was intended to protect the recently freed slaves from being denied voting rights. But the language is expansive, and the extension to anyone born in the US seems to be a natural development. It will be very hard to overturn decades of judicial interpretation, and limit its meaning to freed slaves.

#1 Bob Sykes on 2026-04-13 08:46 (Reply)

It may be difficult to try and change wide interpretation of the amendment but with the destruction of the country happening now someone needs to fix it. With the help of the Dems open door policies and bringing in so many family members along with the unproven morality of the invader is placing too much strain of the finances of the government tax payers. When many of those here now had ancestors come through legally in the late 19th early 20th century the incoming had to have some money, an address where they were going and a clean bill of health and list a skill available for employment. Now we frequently get the dregs and outcasts of prisons of third world countries. Plus they often expect more freebies than actual legal Americans have available for help.

#1.1 JC on 2026-04-13 09:09 (Reply)

Progressive demons love judicial precedent. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent of progressivism. All it takes is one bad decision and jurisprudence will be corrupted going forward. Then they are free to wreak destruction upon society.

#1.1.1 Rusty on 2026-04-13 09:17 (Reply)

Bob Sykes: The Constitutional amendment granting birthright citizenship was intended to protect the recently freed slaves from being denied voting rights.

The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment debated extensively who would be included. They framed it purposefully to include former slaves and immigrants (including, gasp, "gypsies"), while excluding diplomatic families and Indians (who had independent sovereignty by treaty and by law).

Rusty: judicial precedent.

Judicial precedent is the foundation of the common law, upon which the American Republic is based. Lower courts are bound by judicial precedent, but higher courts can revisit precedents. While there is a presumption of stare decisis to provide stability to the law, precedent can and has been overturned.

Of course, a constitutional amendment can also overturn precedent, as the Fourteenth Amendment effectively overturned the precedent set by Dred Scott v. Sandford: "they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

#1.2 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 10:28 (Reply)

Resident Progressive Demonic Entity Zachriel: "Judicial precedent is the foundation of the common law."

Did you have a counterpoint or did you just want to impress us with your Wikipedia skills?

#1.2.1 Rusty on 2026-04-13 15:40 (Reply)

Rusty: Did you have a counterpoint

Perhaps we misunderstood your position. Are you saying judicial precedent is not important to common law? Or that common law itself is suspect?

#1.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 15:48 (Reply)

My point, which I clearly stated, was that progressives love it because it allows them to inflict maximum damage to western civilization. Especially in a secular post-Christian society that hates western values.

#1.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-04-13 16:22 (Reply)

Rusty: progressives love it because it allows them to inflict maximum damage to western civilization.

You didn't directly answer the queries. You seem to be saying that judicial precedent is fatally flawed. Is that correct? What alternative system do you propose?

#1.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 16:35 (Reply)

"You didn't directly answer the queries."

Why on earth would I want to be "queried" by you?

If you have a problem with what I said then refute it.

(You can't)

#1.2.2.2.1 Rusty on 2026-04-13 17:01 (Reply)

Rusty: If you have a problem with what I said then refute it.

Be happy to agree or disagree, but your position isn’t very clear. You seem to be saying that judicial precedent is fatally flawed. Is that correct? What alternative system do you propose?

#1.2.2.2.2 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 21:46 (Reply)

The American republic is NOT based on common law. The constitution unambiguously delegated law making to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. You've made a fundamental misstatement of how our government is designed to work, I suspect intentionally. Despite your lip service to "democracy" you prefer rule by edict of the unelected and mostly unaccountable.

Also, lower (district court) precedent is not biding at all. Not even in the district it originates in or even the judge who authored the opinion. And appeals court opinions are not binding outside their circuit of origin. At either the district court level or the appeals court level.

Further, the 14th amendment makes absolutely no mention of the families of diplomates.

#1.2.3 James on 2026-04-13 19:22 (Reply)

James: The constitution unambiguously delegated law making to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Well, yeah. In England, the source of common law, they have statutes too, the country “planted thick with laws”. The English legislature is actually more powerful than the American legislature, parliament being supreme.

James: The constitution unambiguously delegated law making to the legislative branch, not the judicial branch.

Yes, and the constitution unambiguously delegated the judicial power to the judicial branch, the meaning of judicial power being inherited from the common law, with all the workings of the courts part of that common law. Indeed, the only state not based on common law is Louisiana (which inherited the French civil code).

James: Also, lower (district court) precedent is not biding at all.

As noted above, lower courts are bound by (held to) precedents as set by courts above them, with the Supreme Court at the top of the judicial hierarchy.

James: Further, the 14th amendment makes absolutely no mention of the families of diplomates.

Nor are slaves, for that matter, mentioned in Section 1, the citizenship section. See our previous comment about the framing (crafting) of the Fourteenth Amendment.

#1.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 22:27 (Reply)

At the risk of engaging in yet another lengthy and unproductive conversation like the last one I offer the following:

Zach: The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment debated extensively who would be included.

A statement that the framers of the 14th Amendment debated extensively is not in itself dispositive of your argument. A statement that they framed it purposefully while also explicitly excluding some groups is not in itself dispositive of your argument. Comments made with the tone of authority and superior knowledge are not necessarily true and correct.

As far as such debate is concerned:

A May 30th, 1886 publication of the "Congressional Globe" records a conversation in the U.S. Senate as Michigan Senator Jacob Howard proposed his amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The text he proposed was approved and later became the first Article of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"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."

Jurisdiction Standard: Howard and other framers, such as Senator Lyman Trumbull, clarified that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "complete jurisdiction" or not owing allegiance to anybody else,...

You may be correct in your presumption that babies born even to illegal aliens become citizens automatically if born on United States soil. The matter has never been directly ruled on by the Supreme Court, and the framers of the 14th Amendment specifically said that of course it did not include persons born in the United States who are foreigners or aliens.

#1.2.4 GrayDog on 2026-04-13 22:53 (Reply)

Massachusetts Dems Advance Bill To Limit How Far You Can Drive In Your Own Car

The proposal, Senate Bill S.2246, doesn’t slap a hard cap on your daily commute… yet – but it orders the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set binding goals for reducing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It also creates a new government council tasked with pushing people onto public transit whether they like it or not.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/massachusetts-dems-advance-bill-limit-how-far-you-can-drive-your-own-car

#2 feeblemind on 2026-04-13 09:22 (Reply)

The Eric Swalwell saga is so much more interesting than it appears. The Democrats decided that they didn't want Democracy and voters to choose the next governor of California and Swalwell had to drop out. But he wouldn't so "mud" was created and thrown in his face. This blatant use of their disgusting political assassination technique says so much about the Democrat party AND about the "Me Too" attacks. How much is true? How much is blatantly false? Who is behind it? The same lawyers and ableists? Often the curtain lifts slightly and we get to see the same people, lawyers, rich funders, activists, etc. Why are they never exposed or deposed? How many of those involved in the E. Jean Carroll fabrication are also involved in this latest "me too" charge? You would think this part of the story would be something an honest and competent MSM would want to report on but instead the MSM puppets the lies almost as though they are part of the plot.

#3 OneGuy on 2026-04-13 10:39 (Reply)

One Guy you're a sharp fella. What is going on with Trump?

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=27b04becbc364c98&sxsrf=ANbL-n5xEptcfe5ieCwRAX1Xdv0iyvS_mQ:1776098575928&q=Trump+AI+picture&s

Or is this fake news? Thanks in advance.

#4 RL on 2026-04-13 12:49 (Reply)

The truth is I'm not "sharp". I have never posted something new or that I have discovered. I have only commented on posts I have seen on the Internet. I have opinions and time and that is all. I haven't formed an opinion on this yet, too soon. But seeing all the MSM with TDS jumping on this like it was gold makes me think Trump is trolling them. He has no fear and very little filter. I say, let Trump be Trump even when he says or does something that I might do or say differently. I believe Trump is honest to his very bone marrow and has honor and high personal standards. I trust him completely to do what is right for America and I don't second guess him. Virtually everyone in government who hates him is his exact opposite, dishonest to their very bone marrow and corrupt beyond redemption and THAT is the entire basis of TDS. They fear he will expose him and they fear he will diminish their gravy train. It is as simple as that. An honest man among thieves, grifters and traitors.

#4.1 OneGuy on 2026-04-13 15:05 (Reply)

I do enjoy reading your opinions on this forum, don't always agree but feels more genuine than the troll. Thanks for posting.

#4.1.1 grant1863 on 2026-04-13 20:50 (Reply)

QUOTE:

At The Heartland Climate Conference: "What Is The Proof?", Extreme Weather Events Edition

We looked with interest at Menton's mirrored graphs, which are supposed to represent the U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI). However, if you look at the original graph, 1998 is about 40%, but his redone graph shows no such value. Since then, 2012 was at 47%, and 2024 was at 46%. If you look at the original graph, you will see much more white space below the line in the past than in more recent years. That's a simple way to size up whether the trend is positive.

You can find the updated graph here, with a 9-point binomial filter showing the trend.

#5 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 12:55 (Reply)

Wow! A 9-point binomial filter!

Thanks, kiddieZ, that clears up everything.

#5.1 Zachinoff on 2026-04-13 14:02 (Reply)

Yes, if you have any doubt about the settled science, simply check out our statistical analysis funded by our corrupt government.

#5.1.1 Rusty on 2026-04-13 16:29 (Reply)

Rusty: Yes, if you have any doubt about the settled science, simply check out our statistical analysis funded by our corrupt government.

Clauser per Menton claimed the graph itself lacked a trend, but not only is the trend discernable, but he mangled the data in his "mirror" graphs. The mirror graphs didn't look correct on first look, but the easiest way to know which is the original and which the mirror is to look for the large 40% spike (which in the original graph is on the right side at 1998). Turns out that there is no large 40% spike in the mirror graphs, not in 1998 nor in its mirror.

#5.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2026-04-13 16:44 (Reply)

Maybe if you repeat yourself enough times you'll start to believe the lies in your head.

#5.1.1.1.1 Rusty on 2026-04-13 17:07 (Reply)

The war of choice has been ongoing since Jimmy Carter. Do note that the actual Persians know far more about this war than the Democratic socialists, the academy, or the MSM known as the blind, deaf and dumb cult.

https://x.com/GazelleSharmahd

This is Tehran now. They are not Iranians. They don't speak our language. They are Hashd Al Shabi jihadists from Iraq speaking Arabic. Iran does not have a "government" that somehow kills "its own people". Iran is under Arab-Islamic occupation for 47 years. The Ayatollahs just learned a bit of Persian, but they are all foreign enemies to Iran, killing Iranians and will continue to do so as long as they remain in power. Where is the anti-occupation crowd? Where are the opposers of "foreign invasion" when US and IDF troops came to take out these jihadists? Where are the UN and EU debates about breach of international law? Where is the "no war" rally for these guys patrolling the streets of Iran in preparation for a massacre?

#6 indyjonesouthere on 2026-04-13 14:46 (Reply)

"Trump Is Denounced -- Even by Some Republicans" My humble opinion is that most people on the right don't want war, but they see this as a necessary war to prevent an even worse future war started by crazy mullahs, and they trust Trump more than anybody else in Washington. The Republicans denouncing Trump are either Never-Trump Rinos, or podcasters looking for clicks.

#7 Frank on 2026-04-13 17:30 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, April 13. 2026

Monday morning links