The Double Standard

Getting a little sick of "fake outrage" and hypocritical attitudes.  Maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but I do.  Let me explain this to the BLM mob and such.  

In 2012, a conservative blogger entered a bar as a perfectly healthy man, only to drop dead moments after he left there.  Yet there was no outrage, no press conferences or calls for explanation, no protests, and no calls for justice.  The man died in a mysterious manner, yet it's almost like the death never happened (1) (see note 1).  

A couple of weeks ago, I witnessed (albeit from a long distance) a murder with my own eyes.  It happened in Portland, Oregon.  Horrified, I watched on a live stream as a man was gunned down, and his life needlessly ended (2).  It is clear to me that this killing was politically motivated, and that the man was targeted because he was a supporter of President Trump (3).  

Even so, as in the previous case, there is no outrage, no press conferences, no calls for justice.  In fact, if you talk to a liberal about this, you will get one of three responses; either "it never happened", "no, he was with the BLM movement", or "he deserved it/got what he had coming".  

Now, let's delve into a hypothetical situation.  

Suppose a black man is walking down a city street late at night, and he clearly has a weapon of some sort in his pocket (let's say a knife).  Our man is confronted by a white police officer, who asks him if he has a permit for the knife.  Suddenly, the man starts to act awkwardly, and puts his hands in his pockets.  The officer, fearing the worst, draws his gun.  He opens fire, hitting the black man, and killing him.  

In our purely hypothetical scenario, what do you think would happen the next day? Hmm....I'll give you three-to-one odds that "leaders" on the left will scream for officer firings, and unrest in the streets (whether force was justified or not).  Following right along, the mob will chant "no justice, no peace" and "say his name".  

I'm not a betting man, but if I was, I might bet my yearly income on this happening; the left talks a very big game in such instances.  Yet, in the event that a white man or conservative is killed by a black man or liberal, there will be no screaming.  There will be no chanting, no rallying, no "say his name"...no NOTHING.  In fact, you'll be hard-pressed to find a liberal who admits that the victim even existed; why is this? 

Could it be that "Black Lives Matter" is simply an empty slogan to the left? Is it, perhaps, possible that liberals in power are using crises to attempt to STAY in power? This is, after all, the party that says "never let a crisis go to waste" (4).  And speaking frankly, it shouldn't be "black lives matter", it should be "all lives matter".  

"Say his name"? OK, let's say some names.  The life discussed in the first paragraph is that of Andrew Breitbart, 1969-2012.  The second is that of Aaron "Jay" Danielson, shot and killed August 29, 2020 (5).  Both of these men were killed simply because of their beliefs.  I ask you, where's the outrage? Why don't I hear liberals saying their names? 

When it comes to the left's reaction on these matters, you could hear a pin drop.  Perhaps it would be more accurate, then, to say that the left declares that unless you support them, no lives matter.  

I'm disgusted with it.  

Note 1: I believe the death of Breitbart was a political assassination.  There are sources of information asserting this (I have personally read them), but they have proven very difficult to find at present.  Believe what you will.  

Counting Blessings (On September 11th)

It's been nineteen years since the most horrible attack that our country has ever known; I remember the day well.  Rather than talk about that, let me expound on the good things in life.  

In the quiet of my own space, I often find myself counting my blessings, which are many.  OK, maybe I don't have the biggest house in the world, the fanciest car (I don't drive..."car? What car?"), or the most money of everyone I know.  Maybe I don't get to meet friends at the Patterson Club, or hob-nob with socialites.  Even so, I count myself as VERY lucky.  

I am quite fortunate, it seems, as God has granted me a number of good things.  

He has seen fit to give me a working brain, and at least a decent amount of intelligence (no offense to my jock friends, but being a jock is overrated).  I have a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and good food (and refreshments) on my plate.  I am in relatively good health, with a good (although sometimes wacky) sense of humor.  I have many good friends, a great family, and the best parents a guy like me could've ever asked for.  I am blessed to live in what is STILL (even with all its faults) the greatest and most free nation in the world.  And although I have been "lucky in cards, unlucky in love", I know the feeling of loving someone who is not part of my family (note 1). 

Now, I don't have everything.  There are heights in life that I have not achieved, and places that I have not gone.  I am hated by some people, many of which will continue to hate me no matter what I do or say.  And the love that I feel and show for....well, my "intended other"....is of the unrequited sort.  With time, I have learned to accept these things (not that it makes unrequited love any easier).  Indeed, "haters gonna hate", and "players only love you when they're playing" (1).  

Nevertheless, I seem to have the important things in life.  And the things that I don't have are largely insignificant.  When all is said and done, that is something that I accept, and have come to terms with.  You see, life is not about your car, your house, or your money.  It's about the person that you are, the content of your character, and how you choose to spend your days.  

Now, a couple of final thoughts for this day.  

September 11th taught me, as it doubtless did many others, that NO ONE is promised tomorrow.  Lives can end in mere seconds; as the Don Henley song says, "in a New York minute, everything can change" (2).  And even the best of us are here for simply "a limited time only".  As such, you should never let a day go by without telling those you love how much you love them.  Don't let the next opportunity to do that go to waste, because you may never get another one.  

Time is a precious thing; make the most of it.  Here's to those we have lost, and the times we have had with them.  To quote George Carlin (as "Rufus") in "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"...

"be excellent to each other"

.

Note 1.  In the event that she's reading this...Julie, I love you beyond what words could ever measure...now, and always.  You mean the world to me; I hope you know that.

The Big Question (#1): Citizen, Or Not?

Ran across an interesting legal case today.  Apparently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has ordered the State Department to issue a passport to the daughter of a gay couple (1).  Here's a rundown of the case, as I see it.

(Disclaimer: I am not, nor do I claim to be, any sort of lawyer or legal expert.  Regarding this matter, I am merely an interested and concerned citizen.  If you feel that you have a legal claim, you should contact an experienced legal professional.)

Case Facts:

• Derek Mize & Jonathan Gregg are both US citizens, involved in a "same-sex marriage".
• Daughter Simone Mize-Gregg was born in England to a British surrogate.
• Sometime in 2018, Derek and Jonathan submitted a passport application on their daughter's behalf.  The State Department denied their application.  
• Simone was not born in US, so the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not apply (United States v Wong Kim Ark, 1898) (2).  
• Biological parent: A woman who gives birth to a child, and/or the birth father of a child (3).  
• Since Simone was not directly born to the couple, they are not her "biological parents" (it would be the woman in England that would be as such, according to definition)
• Simone has no biological connection to the US (she was not born in an American state/territory to a US citizen or national.  Rather, she was born in England, to a non-citizen)

For purposes of birth abroad, who is a US citizen? One who:

• Has "both" parents as US citizens at the time of their birth.
• Has "both" parents as married to one another.
• Has at least one parent who lived in the US prior to the child's birth (4).

The law in question here is the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965" (5), which does not specify whether or not "parents" include non-biological parents.  

Now we turn our attention to another legal document, the "Child Citizenship Act of 2000" (6).  

Title I, Section 101, Sub-Section A reads as follows:

"A.  In General.  

  Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows: ‘

"CHILDREN BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND RESIDING PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES; CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH CITIZENSHIP AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIRED"

  Sec. 320.  

   A.  A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1. At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.  
2. The child is under the age of eighteen years.  
3. The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.  

   B.  Subsection (a) shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 101(b)(1)." 

Who can become a "naturalized citizen" of the US? Anyone that:

• Is at least eighteen at the time of filing.  
• Is a legal permanent resident of the United States (that is, they have a legally binding place of residence...a "domicile"...within the United States) 
• Has been a legal permanent resident of the United States for at least three years.  

An applicant for naturalized citizenship must also:

• Be a "person of good moral character".
• Pass a test on the subjects of US History and US Government.  
• Have a working knowledge of English (for most) (7).  
• Swear an "Oath of Allegiance" to the United States (during their naturalization ceremony) (7) (8).  

And now, my final points.  

Question 1.  Taking all of the facts into account, is Simone Mize-Gregg (according to law) automatically a US citizen?

 VERDICT: Maybe.  

  It depends on the specific language regarding "parents" in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  If, under the law, a "parent" must be a "biological parent", then Simone is NOT automatically a US citizen...and vice-versa.   

Question 2.  If Simone Mize-Gregg cannot be considered to automatically be considered a US citizen, might she be able to gain citizenship by means of naturalization?

  VERDICT: Not at this time.  

   Simone is about twenty-five months old, having been born in July of 2018.  As such, she has not yet met the eligibility requirement to be at least eighteen at the time of application (she will do so in July of 2036. approximately).  

THE BIG QUESTION: 

Was the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia correct in ruling that Simone Mize-Gregg must be issued a passport by the State Department?

  VERDICT: "Hung Jury" (unclear).

   The Court's ruling is predicated on the assumption that Simone Mize-Gregg is indeed a US citizen, which itself is uncertain (see question 1).  This is an issue that must be clarified, and perhaps weighed in upon by a higher court.    

(Note: As part of this ruling, the District Court ruled that a citizen child does not necessarily have to have a "biological parent" that is a US citizen or national)