As I indicated yesterday, as a member of Congress Bob Barr cosponsored legislation to remove the American citizenship of American-born babies, even when the father of the baby is an American. This was a move to jointly remove the rights of fathers and the rights of their children born right here in the USA. In its place Bob Barr tried to implement a system that would mandate marriage for fathers of American-born babies, and institute a Nazi-style citizenship system in which purity of a baby’s bloodline trumps the place of a baby’s birth.
Introducing marriage mandates.
Instituting Nazi blood purity thinking.
Revoking fathers’ parental rights.
Revoking American babies’ citizenship rights.
And under the banner of what party is Bob Barr currently running for President?
Yes, Bob Barr is running for President with The Libertarian Party.
This afternoon, after a Barr supporter suggested that Bob Barr had perhaps changed his position on this subject, I checked Bob Barr’s current presidential platform statement on the subject. Here’s what he writes:
The U.S. also should reconsider the policy of “birthright” citizenship. The members of Congress and state legislatures that approved the 14th Amendment (in the late 1860s) never imagined that their work would turn the children of tourists, as well as illegal migrants, into citizens. Although a constitutional amendment likely will be necessary to do this, America should join most of the countries of the world and require more the than location of birth to determine citizenship.
Here’s what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America currently 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 wherein they reside.
The only change Bob Barr has affirmed is that now he recognizes the existence of the U.S. Constitution. While in his previous legislation Barr tried to unconstitutionally overwrite Constitution with a bill in order to constrict Americans’ rights, now he wants to amend the constitution in order to constrict Americans’ rights.
No renunciation of Nazi blood line theories.
No renunciation of his attempt to revoke the parental rights of fathers.
A reaffirmation that Americans’ rights should be constricted.
This isn’t an aberration. It’s part of a trend.
Bob Barr voted for the Patriot Act.
Bob Barr worked to prohibit military women overseas from obtaining abortions, even when they pay for it themselves.
Bob Barr wrote an article explaining why it was a great idea for the government to pay for discrimination against gays and lesbians.
These positions should give any liberty-loving American pause.
Sigh! I’m beginning to suspect that you are uninterested in Barr’s true positions and only wish to continue smearing him soi this may be the last time I bother to point out your distoritiond of his position.
First, note that his current statement does not repeat the business of revoking citizenship for babies with American fathers. You have no evidence that he supports this anymore. Yes, it may be necessary to change the Constitution to revoke the citizenship of babies born to person’s who enter the country illegally. Barr does not say that it can be done just by passing a law. He says only that it should be done to remove one of the strong incentives for people to seek illegal entry.
The Constitution is intended to be amended when circumstances a. It was deliberately made difficult to do so that there would clealy be a strong concensus for any changes that succeeeeded.
Sigh! I’m beginning to suspect that you are uninterested in Barr’s true beliefss and only wish to continue smearing him so this may be the last time I bother to point out your distortion of his positions.
First, note that his current statement does not repeat the business of revoking citizenship for babies with American fathers. You have no evidence that he supports this anymore.
Yes, it may be necessary to change the Constitution to revoke the citizenship of babies born to person’s who enter the country illegally. Illegal entry wasn’t even a recognized concept when the Constitution was written. Barr does not say that it can be done just by passing a law. He says only that it should be done to remove one of the strong incentives for people to seek illegal entry.
The Constitution is intended to be amended when circumstances warrant. It was deliberately made difficult to do so that there would clearly be a strong consensus for any changes that succeeded.
I haven’t stated a single thing in this post that is untrue or undocumented. I understand you’re upset at this news, but really, who’s smearing? Don’t make this about me. That’s a hamfisted attempt at distraction, and besides, if you look here you’ll see I’ve harshly criticized John McCain and Barack Obama as well as Bob Barr. It’s about Bob Barr. Bob Barr has done things that should be disturbing to people who care about the preservation of Americans’ rights.
Bob Barr actively supported taking away fathers’ parental rights, and after an extensive search I can find no evidence that he has repudiated that stance. With this information about what Bob Barr has supported, he needs to step up and answer three questions: 1. Why did Barr support the revocation of Americans’ rights? 2. How is this compatible with his avowed support for American freedom? 3. What is Barr’s current position, not only on fathers’ parental rights but on the rights of American babies as well?
I see you support Bob Barr, which is no wonder because you agree with him on this issue. So you support the revocation of Americans’ citizenship rights too. Because these are American babies we’re talking about, you know, and Bob Barr supports the revocation of their rights. To constrict liberty: that’s what this Bob Barr platform plank does.