N.O. via West-Cal

How could you possibly be surprised? Rand Paul has been essentially an isolationist his whole career.

I have been critical of some and even embarrassed by some of Trump’s recent posts, but I am fine with this.

I was not a fan of picking Downs a couple months ago but I would be more than happy now that I have learned more about him. Bain makes me a little nervous.

I have to go with Carter, at least in my lifetime. His failure to deal more aggressively with Iran set the stage for the 47 years of the mess that is the Middle East.

As an admittedly more casual observer than some, it blows my mind to think that Bell could be available that late. He looked like a beast when I watched him.

What a wonderful example of how self absorbed two people can be.

“Our cities are more violent, and it’s because of multiculturalism. You can try and handwave and muddy the water all you want, but those are the facts.”

I just don’t see the facts to support this unless you’re pointing to a historical trend from roughly 1966 through 1996. But you would still need to account for the decline thereafter. I am not committed to th numbers supporting any particular agenda, but it sounds like you are.

I’ve never seen any stats like that. Here is something along the lines of what I’ve seen everywhere I have looked:

“ The rate of aggravated assault fell from 16.5 per 1,000 persons in 1993 to 4.7 per 1,000 in 2024.”

"“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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.”

The above quote is not the language of the 14th Am. Unlike some, I have no problem with looking cautiously to evidence of "original intent" to help derive the proper meaning of a text, but the problem is that different people said different things even at the time, which is one of the main reasons the text must reign supreme. For example, here is one statement from a quick google search that is contrary to what you quoted:

Senator John Conness (CA): Explicitly stated that the amendment applied to children of foreign parentage born in the U.S., specifically citing the "children begotten of Chinese parents in California," confirming that they should be regarded as citizens.

The 14th Am just isn't as clear as the passage you cited. If it were, we likely would not have had WKA. Now, we still have a 150 year old Am and a 125 year old Supreme Court precedent, neither of which clearly addresses the children of "illegal aliens" and certainly not birthright tourism but which was construed in such a way as to provide citizenship to anyone born here and "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US. ("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."). I just can't see this going the government's way.

We are in a giant mess. As I understand NBA trade restrictions (admittedly at not the highest level), we are going to have some trouble even blowing things up. What a mess.

I sure didn’t mention Obama or Biden, but you seem awfully focused on them.