Monday, August 31, 2015


When I can calm down I will write about Council's rejection of the PILOT.


My Sunday blog about tonight's Council meeting apparently went off into cyberspace along with all of my August blogs. They are all back and  readable now.


We have heard a great deal from Trump and the other Republicans seeking the nomination about the “Anchor Babies”. Most of us are not familiar with the term and its significance. This is how Wikipedia defines the term:
"Anchor baby is a pejorative term for a child born in the U.S. to a foreign national mother who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.There is a popular misconception that the child's U.S. citizenship status legally helps the child's parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful permanent residence and eventually United States citizenship".

According to former Plainfielder, Michael Rosin, who has become a Constitutional scholar in an email he wrote: “Donald Trump made a “top men” claim a week or so ago when he said that he had the support of “great scholars” to support a lawsuit he plans to bring claiming that children born here to two aliens, not legally present in the United States, are not birthright citizens. (Here is the relevant text of the Fourteenth Amendment. “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.”

One of the “great scholars “John Eastman, Dean of the Law School at Chapman University and also Chairman of the National Organization for Marriage claims that when the 39th Congress drafted the Citizenship Clause in 1866 it intended to preserve the meaning of precursor text in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

Eastman’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause goes much farther than necessary to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. with neither parents legally present in the country”

I further learned that a strict interpretation of the law is that even if the child is born in the United States neither parent should be a citizen of a foreign country. If they are then the child would not be a citizen.

According to Rosin:
"If that were true them neither Barack Obama nor Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) was born a U.S. citizen. Hughes, by the way, was (1) Governor of New York (1907-10), (2) Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (1910-16), (3) Republican presidential candidate (1916), (4) Secretary of State (1921-25), and (4) Chief Justice of the United States. In my opinion, he and Henry Clay are the two greatest persons who came close to but lost a presidential election.

Someone else noted that on Eastman’s interpretation Bobby Jindal, who was born in the U.S. shortly after his parents immigrated from India, was not born a U.S. citizen.

Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, IS a U.S. citizen thanks to 1401(g). It gets crazier. Jeb Bush’s wife Colomba was born in Mexico in 1953. She and Jeb married in 1974. Their first two children were born (in the U.S.) in 1976 and 1977. (FYI, I haven’t confirmed the birthplace of the second child.) Colomba did not become a naturalized citizen until 1979. So only their youngest child, born in 1983, was born a U.S. citizen. Could it be that their oldest child, who is the Texas Land Commissioner, is ineligible to hold that office”?

Sunday, August 30, 2015


There is a Special Council Meeting in the City Hall Library at 7:00 pm Monday night for the specific purpose to vote on the PILOT for the South Ave development.

Since most Council meetings including IMPORTANT Special Meetings are held in the Court House which can hold a substantial number of attendees; the location of this meeting plus the time it is called for raises a question if the Mayor anticipates a Council Boycott.

That would result in a non-meeting due to the lack of a quorum. The lack of a quorum would permit the Taylor, Tolliver, Rivers block from having to face the public and justify their objections to the PILOT with legitimate concerns not to put it bluntly a bunch of c—p.

Yes I have a concern about the PILOT which had not been addressed and that was the length of the agreement. That has not been the argument presented by Taylor or Tolliver. Instead Taylor among other things about being disrespected had questioned an under the table deal. She had also mentioned that she too knew how to play the game. (Listen to the video from the last Council meeting).

If any Council member has a reason to reject the PILOT let he /she go on the record. Likewise if any Council wishes to abstain their reason should also be recorded.