Tea Party Organizers -- A Troll-Free No Spin Zone!

Tea Party Organizers Educational Forum. Our Mission is to Educate & Organize.

For those subjects  that just don't quite fit any of the other ones--haha

Welcome to all Visitors.--

Please note:  If and when I use caps. or underscore any of my posts---

Please know that I am attempting to " emphasize " only, and am NOT HOLLERING--OK?

  Please show all links or sourses of your info--Let 'er Rip.   Thanks, Landel

Views: 107470

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I hope so because I live in an apartment and the ones that mow it are all mexican. They had the buildings painted and surprise, they were mexican too!  They didn't speak English to each other. 

It really makes me mad and they tore up the lawns with their big equipment.

John Bolton <info@reply.boltonpac.com>

Landel –
barry obuma gutted the national missile defense program that President George W. Bush tried to create. It was all but defunded and our capabilities are minimalnowhere close to the layered missile defense that the Bush administration planned to protect us against North Korea. 
  This is
just one powerful example of how policy decisions in Washington can have long and far-reaching effects on our security. 
Landel, who we vote for matters. 
That's why I formed John Bolton PAC – to seek out and support candidates who are committed to restoring strong American economic and national security policies.
And that's why today, I'm announcing my endorsement of Kevin Nicholson for the US Senate – because he's exactly the kind of national security candidate I had in mind.  

Kevin Nicholson

Let me tell you about Kevin Nicholson's selfless service to our country:

Kevin is a Marine veteran.  From 2006-2007, he led a 37-Marine unit on over 100 combat missions in Al Anbar, Iraq, earning the Navy Achievement Medal.  In 2008-2009, he served in the Kandahar Province, Afghanistan earning the Bronze Star for leading the "best Counter-Improvised Explosive Device (IED)" team.  Following his service, he earned an MBA from Dartmouth and an MPS from Harvard.

Landel, we must be prepared to do what it takes to protect the idea of American exceptionalism and our basic Constitutional priorities – and that starts with electing leaders like Kevin Nicholson who are committed to keeping this country safe.  
 Liberals are opposing rock-solid national security candidates like Kevin. Please make an urgent contribution right away: 

We need strong leadership in Washington, the kind my PAC is fighting for, if we are to be great again. 

Remember: Patriotic, conservative, national security-focused candidates who will restore American strength – like Kevin Nicholson – are counting on our success and support. 

I'm prepared to help lead America back to strength – no matter what it takes. 
For America, 
John Bolton
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

I have heard this before. Our offensive missile capabilities are 2nd to none but our defensive missile capability is almost non existent. 

If that is true then someone let up on it.  We need defensive almost more than offensive.  But that doesn't surprise me since we haven't had a real leader for over 8 years.


                                         Trump Declares National Opioid Crisis!

On Thursday, President Donald Trump told reporters that his administration is drafting paperwork to officially declare the devastating opioid crisis a national emergency.

“The opioid crisis is an emergency, and I’m saying officially right now it is an emergency,” said the president, speaking outside his New Jersey golf club. “It’s a national emergency. We’re going to spend a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money on the opioid crisis.”

“We’re going to draw it up, and we’re going to make it a national emergency,” he reiterated.

“It is a serious problem the likes of which we have never had. You know when I was growing up they had the LSD and they had certain generations of drugs. There’s never been anything like what’s happened to this country over the last four or five years. And I have to say this in all fairness, this is a worldwide problem, not just a United States problem. This is happening worldwide. But this is a national emergency, and we are drawing documents now to so attest,” continued Trump.

A report on the epidemic advised that declaring the crisis a national emergency was the "first and most urgent" step President Trump should take in tackling the issue.

"Our citizens are dying. We must act boldly to stop it," said the report. "The first and most urgent recommendation of this Commission is direct and completely within your control. Declare a national emergency."

After being briefed on the report, the president vowed to crack down on foreign and domestic “drug dealers that poison our communities."

"At the end of 2016, there were 23% fewer federal prosecutions than in 2011. So they looked at this surge and they let it go by," Trump said Tuesday. "We're not letting it go by. The average sentence for a drug offender decreased 20% from 2009 to 2016."

As noted by The Hill, "The nation has seen a significant uptick in deaths from opioids, with the rate of death from heroin and prescription painkillers quadrupling since 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

President Trump frequently spoke of the crushing opioid epidemic during the 2016 campaign.

Skip to main content
Search form Search
Congressman Steve King Congressman Steve KingRepresenting the 4th District of Iowa
Keep up-to-date with my work in Congress
by signing up for my weekly eNewsletters.

First Name

Last Name

Email Address
Sign Up
Twitter iconFacebook iconFlickr iconYouTube iconRSS icon
You are here
Ending Birthright Citizenship Does Not Require A Constitutional Amendment

Aug 19, 2015
The keys to understanding Birthright Citizenship:

The plain meaning of the 14th Amendment means that one must BOTH be born in United States AND be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Since there are two explicit requirements, they both cannot be met by simply being born on U.S. soil.
The history of the drafting of the 14th Amendment makes clear that the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant a citizen could not owe allegiance to any other foreign power. This excludes illegal immigrants who are in defiance of U.S. jurisdiction and are citizens of a foreign power.
The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are automatically citizens.
Because the Supreme Court has not interpreted the Constitution to mandate automatic birthright citizenship, the Congress can pass a law to correct the current misguided and incorrect policy of automatically granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants.
Plain Meaning of the Language of the 14th Amendment:

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment states, “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 where they reside.”

By its own terms, the language in the amendment precludes the notion of universal automatic birthright citizenship. It would have been quite simple for the language to exclude “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to accomplish the goal of bestowing citizenship on any child born in the United States no matter the status of their parents. The 14th Amendment’s addition of a jurisdictional requirement to the territorial requirement, however, denies any interpretation that birth alone grants citizenship.

Counter to this logic, proponents of universal automatic birthright citizenship claim that those born in the United States necessarily are subject to the jurisdiction of the country. However, this renders the language “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” superfluous. Why would the drafters of the 14th Amendment include this qualifier at all if it was met simply by virtue of being born in the United States? The legislative history outlined below will make clear that the addition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was designed specifically to make sure the people granted citizenship did not have divided political loyalties.

Legislative History of the 14th Amendment:

During Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause it was made clear that the drafters did not intend automatic birthright citizenship for all persons born in the U.S. Senator Jacob Howard, a drafter of the 14th Amendment, in floor debate said of the Clause:

“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.”[1]

Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, “Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Notice the reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Senator Edgar Cowan said, “It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.”[2]

Senator Lyman Trumbull said:

“The 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.”[3] (emphasis added)

He further elaborated, “What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

There was still more discussion of the language by Senator Reverdy Johnson. He said:

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”[4]

Supreme Court on Birthright Citizenship for illegal immigrants:

While some have discussed birthright citizenship as if it is settled law that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen, the Supreme Court has never ruled as such. In the famous 2004 Supreme Court case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Taliban fighter Yaser Esam Hamdi was discovered to have been born in the United States to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even though he was born in the United States, the Court never called him a citizen and the Court made no declaration in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen.

In the Slaughter-House Cases of 1873, the Supreme Court said, “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Next, in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement because that required that he “not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.”

Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case, there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land.

Congressional power to change the policy:

Under the Constitution and reiterated by the Supreme Court, Congress has plenary power over immigration and naturalization. We see this in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the 14th Amendment explicitly grants Congress the power to enforce the Citizenship Clause.

So not only does Congress have the power of naturalization in Article I, but the 14th Amendment provides Congress the power to enforce the Citizenship Clause. Together, these two provisions make it clear there is no need to amend the Constitution to change the current faulty birthright citizenship policy.

Congress has the power and duty to say who can be a citizen of the United States. The legislative branch has a responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and on the issue of birthright citizenship it is clear the plain meaning of the Citizenship Clause as originally understood is being violated. The Congress can and should make the legislative fix necessary to correct this problem.


It is undisputed that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause requires that one is both born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Further, no fair reading of the legislative history of the drafting of that Clause leads to any conclusion other than it required those granted citizenship have complete allegiance to the United States.

Logic dictates that illegal immigrants in defiance of the jurisdiction of the United States and citizens of foreign powers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as required by the 14th Amendment. And the Supreme Court has never held the opposite to be true. Congress, therefore, with its plenary power over immigration and empowerment to enforce the Citizenship Clause can restore the correct birthright citizenship policy through legislation. And indeed, if we are to have a rational immigration policy controlled by government as opposed to one controlled by every person who illegally enters, Congress must return to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment.

I authored H.R. 140, The Birthright Citizenship Act in the House for many years in order to restore the 14th Amendment and the Rule of Law.

[1] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on the Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Howard. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l....

[2] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Cowan. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l....

[3] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Trumbull. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l....

[4] The Congressional Globe, May 30, 1866. Debate on Senate Floor. Remarks of Senator Johnson. Available at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/l....

Issues: Immigration
Press Releases
Contact Info Media Issues News Services Info
My Offices
Washington, DC Office
Fort Dodge
Mason City
Sioux City
Washington, DC Office
2210 Rayburn Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202.225.4426
Fax: 202.225.3193
1421 S Bell Avenue
Suite 102
Ames, IA 50010
Phone: 515.232.2885
Fax: 515.232.2844
Fort Dodge
723 Central Avenue
Fort Dodge, IA 50501
Phone: 515.573.2738
Fax: 515.576.7141
Mason City
202-1st Street SE
Suite 126
Mason City, IA 50401
Phone: 641.201.1624
Fax: 641.201.1523
Sioux City
526 Nebraska Street
Sioux City, IA 51101
Phone: 712.224.4692
Fax: 712.224.4693
306 Grand Avenue, P.O. Box 650
Spencer, IA 51301
Phone: 712.580.7754
Fax: 712.580.3354
Iowa 04 District Map

I am very interested in hearing your views on issues of importance to you. Please use the drop down menu below to select the type of inquiry you'd like to make.

OK, I am headed for bed.  Good Night,Ray, BHT, Mangus and everyone, sleep well and pleasant dreams!  See you all tomorrow!  Drive Carefully, Ray, Be Safe

I was in bed, and the loudest thunder boom that I have ever heard, jolted me wide awake!


Check yer britches!

  ROFLMAO---   That's a good one!

         I do have a "Porta Potty" close by. LOL


I Was a Transgender Soldier. Gender Dysphoria Poses Real Problems for the Military.

Gender dysphoria can seriously affect a service member's duty performance.

As a transgender military veteran, an Army retiree, and the first person in the United States to have their sex legally declared as nonbinary, I have a vested interest in the outcome of the transgender military service ban.

In the days when transgender military service was banned, I spent 18 years of torment fearing that I might not get my retirement check and the subsequent military benefits.

Today, that pension income is my livelihood while living as a birth member of America’s most hated minority group. These military retirement benefits are also my source of health care.

But as a former senior enlisted military leader, I also have a duty to speak the truth about the problems with transgender military service.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

The same military leadership manual that taught me to always do what’s right for the Army and for the nation continues to guide me to speak honestly.

When Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., pointed out that a service member becomes nondeployable for 210 to 238 workdays, that doesn’t make her a bigot.

The harsh truth is she’s simply being a good custodian of the nation’s tax dollars and making sure our military is combat-ready at all times. Being combat-ready means that as many people as possible are deployable on a moment’s notice.

Hartzler would be derelict in her duties as a member of the House Armed Services Committee if we’re not.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., proposed a failed amendment that would have prevented the government from funding sex changes for transgender service members. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

When a service member becomes nondeployable because of gender transition related surgery, they’re going to not only not be on duty in some cases, but they will also be on light duty for most or all of that time.

They’ll have a medical profile against either performing their duties at all, or one that limits them. Commanders are forced to respect these limitations. But the health and fighting capabilities of a military unit are determined by how many of its members are deployable. It’s that serious.

As a former platoon sergeant I know this to be true.

Many service members only serve one four-year enlistment because military life is so tough. Patriotism aside, many of them use the military to get what they want or need—and the military does the same to them.

Losing the availability of military personnel for seven of their 48 months of enlistment is neither a bargain for the military services nor for our national defense. To ignore this reality is being disingenuous.

Nor do these figures include all the months, even years, spent in combat and job skill training, leadership schools, or deployment training.

Gender Dysphoria

This debate really isn’t about transgender military service; it’s about gender dysphoria.

Just because someone is transgender doesn’t make them unfit to serve. “Transgender” is a very large umbrella. Some populations under this umbrella have zero medical needs and do not suffer from gender dysphoria.

But if a service member is affected by gender dysphoria, it can seriously affect their duty performance. While they’re obsessing about their gender identity they don’t have their head in the game. Pointing this out doesn’t make anyone a bigot, transphobic, or a bad person.

Untreated gender dysphoria causes anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation. This is all well documented medically. The best-known treatments for gender dysphoria are hormone replacement therapy and a variety of surgeries.

But these treatments are not as harmless as the American public has been led to believe.

For example, in January I found myself in a hospital emergency room with swollen legs and feet. I had to be tested for blood clots—luckily I didn’t have any.

The swelling was caused by taking too much estrogen, as prescribed by a doctor at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Portland, Oregon. This happened even though I had been walking many miles a day to prevent it.

Transgender military service in harsh overseas environments is simply not possible for all transgender people.

I served. And I didn’t die even though I didn’t get any trans health care. I’ve never tried to commit suicide. That’s because I was psychologically tough and overcame gender dysphoria.

I believe that if I’m capable of military service without medical treatment, then I should be deemed fit to serve. As a member of the most unemployed minority group in the nation, I desperately need that option.

Unfairness to Biological Females

One of my duty hats in the Army was the job of equal opportunity representative. I had to make sure people weren’t being discriminated against.

If they were, then it was my duty to take their complaint, help to investigate its validity, and present those findings to my commanders.

I was always watchful for discrimination against female service members and minorities.

It was a genuine issue.

So, as a former equal opportunity representative, I have to point out the unfairness to the biological females in the military because of transgender policies.

That unfairness stems from the competitive edge that biological males have over biological females. In the military this affects a foundational pillar of service—the promotion system.

The American public has been sold on the ideology that simply switching the hormone operating fuels in the two sexes makes them equal when it comes to sports, fitness, or biology. This is false.

The pelvis of biological males is superior to the bone structure in females when it comes to marching or running because the pelvis of a female was designed by nature to be wider for childbirth. Likewise, the lungs of biological males are larger.  These are scientific, indisputable facts.

Because of my male biology, throughout my entire military career no female soldier ever finished before me in the 2-mile run in our physical fitness tests.

The U.S. military is a meritocracy when it comes to promotion. Formal evaluation reports are used to record and score those merits for enlisted leaders and officers.

When a biological male is switched to being a female because of their gender identity and uses their natural biological capabilities to score high on a physical fitness test, that affects the military promotion system.

It creates a fairness complaint that’s worthy of command action. It’s unfair to service members who are biologically female. And if I were still on active duty, I’d file a complaint. As a former equal opportunity representative, I’m not afraid to point this out.

Women are put at an unfair disadvantage when forced to compete for rank on the same terms as men. 

As we move forward in our battle over transgender military service, it’s important that we don’t harm women. Because what works and applies in civilian employment settings is often irrelevant to military life.

Civilians aren’t forced to pass physical fitness tests as a condition of continued employment. Their physical fitness capabilities don’t decide whether they will be promoted. In civilian settings, the only fight or disagreement over integrating transgender people into the workforce is usually about bathrooms.

Gender dysphoria is the business end of transgenderism. It’s one of the main reasons that transgender people suffer from anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation.

It’s the reason that transgender inmates have castrated themselves in correctional settings. It’s the reason that some trans people describe themselves as being born in the wrong body and seek surgical correction.

It’s a mistake to ignore how severe gender dysphoria can handicap people in the military. We cannot turn a blind eye to complication rates from these surgeries and hormonal treatments.

It’s the reason that transgender inmates have castrated themselves in correctional settings. It’s the reason that some trans people describe themselves as being born in the wrong body and seek surgical correction.

It’s a mistake to ignore how severe gender dysphoria can handicap people in the military. We cannot turn a blind eye to complication rates from these surgeries and hormonal treatments.

The truth is not pretty—even if it comes from the lips of politicians like Hartzler.

Facing Facts

As a former senior enlisted leader and as a nonbinary transgender person, my allegiance is not to the trans community. My allegiance is to the defense of this nation. That didn’t change when I lived as a transgender woman for three and a half years.

That’s why I am speaking out. Because not every member of the transgender community is fit for military service. Nor is every male or every female, for that matter.

President Donald Trump is seriously mistaken in putting a blanket ban on transgender military service because not every trans service member is impacted by gender dysphoria. Neither does every trans person need to transition their sex.

But the president and those that share his views are not completely wrong.

Those surgical and hormonal treatments for gender dysphoria have problems and complications. The unfair effects of transitioning people on the military promotion system are real and discriminatory against biological females. Time away from duty and being nondeployable are indefensible.

Pointing these things out doesn’t make me transphobic. Nor does it make me a traitor to my own community.

I am speaking out because the U.S. Army trained me to tell the truth.

And telling the truth is the only way America can win its battles.


1.  Personally I think it's inexcusable to have gender reassignment surgery offered in the military. You're there to do a job. Do the job, and if you want the surgery after discharge, have at it. Otherwise, they're as fit to serve as anyone else.

2. Like it or not the fact that my tax dollars are paying for an unnecessary operation in order for anyone who joined the military to do a job, a job they willfully signed up to do, if I missed 7 months of work, there would be no job for me to go back to, not to mention my employer is not going to pay for me to have said operation(s) nor is my insurance going to pay for it. So why do people think we should pay more taxes to pay for surgery like this. Thats only one part of this problem over a billion dollars a year in tax payer dollars are spent making women out of men and men out of women, and besides the scientific facts that cutting off parts of your body or adding parts to it WILL NOT change what you truly are.

3. There's no such word as 'cis'! It only exists in the demented minds of liberals who have too much time in their hands. Liberalism, an incurable, mental derangement disorder. Normal people also don't use "Dysphobia", they identify it by the proper term 'gender identity disorder.


© 2017   Created by Ray1547.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service