Trump has One of the Writers on His Side

  President Trump has been widely ridiculed for suggesting the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship. He shouldn't be. Disagreed with, yes; Ridiculed, no.
    One of the writers of the amendment agreed with him.
    Jacob M. Howard, arguing for inclusion of the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," said the Fourteen Amendment, "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 person."
   There you have it: According to Howard, those getting citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States . . . who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of (such people)."
   It appears clear that Howard, in getting the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," inserted into the amendment intended the law to do exactly what Trump wants it to do: Exclude children born here of "alien" parents.
   You may argue that if you read the amendment, no, it doesn't exclude birthright citizenship (and I will), but you should not believe Trump does not have a good argument. With no less than one of those who helped draft the amendment on his side, Trump's belief holds substance. Disagree with him -- though we may -- we should acknowledge Trump's argument has basis. The weight of Howard's words will have to be taken in the balance if this ever goes to court. (And, it most likely will.)
  I will add this, however: That one of those on the committee for the Fourteenth Amendment felt this way, does not mean they all did. Others might have felt differently, but allowed the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to be included because they did not feel they achieved what Howard was intending. And, even if the others did agree with Howard, if the words say one thing, that is what they say, regardless of what you intended. If you wanted birthright citizenship, you should have used words that parrot those that Howard used in his speech. Just come out and say it, perhaps the wording being,  "Citizenship is not automatically extended to those born in the United States to parents who are not citizens themselves."
   Say what you mean, if you want it to mean what you mean.

(Note: Edited 11/1/18)

In the NFL National Anthem Controversy, it's Shoot the Messenger

   Here is the message: Blacks are being subjected to an inordinate amount of police violence. And, who are the messengers? Answer: Colin Kaepernick and the NFL kneelers.

   Shoot the messenger? You might argue that it is justified. You might argue that not standing for the National Anthem is a separate issue of its own. But, still, the messenger is being shot. And, in more ways than one. Not only are the kneelers attacked for not standing, people question why they don't give more to civic causes, and accuse them of only doing this when they are in the public spotlight. Kaepernick is pretty much accused of being a communist.

   Shoot the messenger? There is no doubt that is what is going on.

Society Teaches its Own, and then it Fails to See its Work

   These words are traceable. We can see the similarity in them in things we, ourselves, have said.
   "All these Jews need to die."
   Take Robert Bowers words and wonder where he learned to think that way. Wonder if society had any influence on him. Wonder if words of our own have any similarity.
   Do we ever suggest that if someone invades our home, they need to die, or deserve to die? Do we have former spouses who we see as so evil that we wish they would die? Our words echo in the hearts of others. The hatred we espouse may seem to fall harmless from our lips, but if those words teach others that killing can be okay -- even right if the person being killed "deserves" it -- then we are spreading the illness that killing can be justified depending on who you are killing.
   Our cough becomes their cold, or vice versa.
   So, I open my morning paper today, and see those words, "All these Jews need to die," and I see them as evidence. If you were a detective on the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting case, and you wanted to know what brought Robert Gregory Bowers to do what he did, this would be evidence.
  Guns are used to kill. But, the gun has to be brought out, loaded, and the trigger pulled before anyone is killed. They don't act on their own. Just so, the laws of cause and effect are at play in humans. There are things that bring us to do what we do. If we would study why we have so much violence in America, we would trace back words such as, "All these Jews need to die" to where they come from. We would try to learn who taught the shooter to think like that.
   Society teaches its own. And, then it can't understand where all the Robert Bowers come from.

Those Who Disagree with Me are Also Christians, and Wonderful Ones

  I pause tonight, to consider what I said last night -- that we once practiced the Christian principle of helping others, and that if the Honduran migrants were suffering from poverty and criminal affliction, we would have been appalled at laws preventing us from helping them, laws that locked them out. We would have quickly changed our laws, and welcomed them in with open arms.
  Back in the day, you helped those in need. That was part of who we were, as a nation.
  Here is what I want to say tonight. Here is what I want to make clear: There are beautiful people, wonderful Christians, who disagree with me. I am not saying those who disagree with me are not Christian.
   But, yes, I do believe helping the migrants is the Christian thing to do. Let us disagree on it, but I do so believe it.

If we speak of immigration, do the principles of party mean more than those of the good book?

   Have we lost the notion that if someone needs help, you help them? Once, would we have looked at the immigrants from Honduras, observed their poverty and their afflictions at the hands of a criminal society, and said, "Of course we will let you in"?
   Do the words of the hymn no longer apply? Are they good to be sung, but not to be lived? Is there some reason they are no longer applicable? To think that words of the hymn speak of the immigrant . . . is that just a little too much?
      "I cannot see another's lack and I not share;
    "My glowing fire, my loaf of bread,
      "My roof's safe shelter overhead
    "That he too may be comforted."
   Has our world changed? Was there a time we would have let these immigrants in, welcoming them with open arms, anxious to be of help . . . ?
   But, has that day had its end? Have we changed? Is the world different? Has that part of the goodness of humanity been abandoned? Are political expediencies more important than humanity? Do the principles of a political party override the principles of the good book?
   Perhaps there was a day when if we had heard it was illegal for them to come, we would have been appalled. Perhaps there was a day when we would have said, "Well, that's nonsense," and would have changed that law in a hurry. Right was right, back in the day. And, to say you could not help another person was just a little too odd.
   Or, is it just that there are too many MS-13s among them? Or, too many terrorists? Is it that they would flood the gates of our welfare system? Is it that they refuse to speak English? What are the reasons we are finding for not helping them? Is it because they are rapists and murderers and criminals? Or, is it that they don't build our economy -- they send all their money back home to their families?
   Are we so hung up on rule of law that we do not have room for charity?
   We have been considered a Christian nation, one built on Christian principles. And, even those who are not Christian among us -- even the atheists (wonderful people) -- they can see the difference between right and wrong. I do not know but what more atheists advocate for the immigrant than do the Christians.
    What has become of us? Where is our moral compass? Have we lost it? The principles of being a Christian -- they have not changed. If you see a neighbor in need, you do not turn him away at your door, crying that he is invading your space.
   If you can help him, you help him. That is what we once were all about. If we would return to the day when America was great -- if we would make America great again -- this would be part of that.

If we have lost the art of loving in our nation, we must reap the fruits of violence.

   In our words, there are echos. They bounce around in the minds of those who process them.
   And, not always with the desired effect.
   I think of the attacks on President Trump, and how he is accused of fomenting Cesar Sayoc to violence. Now, I retract from the thought of laying the president to blame for Cesar Sayoc. I do think that too much of a blame game.
   But, the same, I think we should be mindful that all we say has consequence. And, that if we speak of violence, it can spawn violence. And, that if we even so much as utter words of hate, it can lead to violence. Words that inflame, can inflame to violence. Any hateful word, or any intolerant word can prompt someone to violence.
   That might not be what we intend, but it is what we reap, the same.
   So, all the hateful things Trump has been known to say? And, what of all the hateful things uttered by us, on both sides of this Republican/Democrat divide? What of such seemingly innocent words, calling people out for being "stupid"?
   Do not they incite? Do not they inflame? Do not they stir us to anger one against another? And, when you have fomented hatred, you have fomented violence.
   Rather than looking at President Trump, we should look at ourselves. Few of us there are who are not castigating, deriding and tearing at those on the opposite side of the political aisle.
   If we would have less public violence -- fewer shootings, and fewer mass murders  -- one thing to do would be to be civil in all we say. Words of hate stir up feelings of hate. They breed hate. And, those infected by the hatred become more inclined to violence.
   And -- mind this -- the target of our words is not always the one who ends up being hated by our listener. We may be ill-mannered towards one person, and our listener ends up being ill-mannered toward another. If we say all Democrats are stupid, it brings a feeling of hatred into a person's heart, and that feeling of hatred can be transferred to other targets.
   In other words, hatred can be non-directional. Once you have created it, you cannot control it -- it goes the direction it will.
   If we have lost the art of loving in our nation, we will reap the fruits of violence. And, so it is, we stand where we stand.

Was Cesar Sayoc but Practicing His First Amendment Rights?

On Facebook, someone writes, in a comment on the dummy mail bombings: "I support these so called American terrorists. They are embracing the exact same mentality and patriotic fervor which motivated our founding fathers toward ACTION." 

  I reply:

"I have some reservations that I am still thinking on, Heather Sidwell, but I do consider on what you say. I read how Cesar Sayoc did not want to kill anyone, did not want to hurt anyone. I think that wonderful of him. We cannot doubt him, for none of the devices were made to actually explode. So, is he so different from our nation's founders, who, as you note, 'dumped something like 340 crates of tea into the Boston harbor and threatened the British Magistrate and his soldiers with life and limb . . . ?'

"There can be an argument that Sayoc was but expressing himself in accordance with his First Amendment rights. If no violence was intended, nor possible, do we say he was but practicing his free speech rights? And, that if you shut him down or prosecute him, you shut down and prosecute his First Amendment rights?