Is it Constitutional?, Law, Politics

Second Ammendment

Even if every gun, knife, car, truck, and any other man-made item that could possibly be used to kill on a mass scale were completely removed from the face of the earth, man’s ingenuity would find a way to make something that would accomplish the same effect using rocks if nothing else. The idea that laws are going to prevent crime of any kind is absurd. Laws only punish bad behavior. They don’t, and never will, prevent bad behavior. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It simply is not possible to make mental illness a crime. To restrict the liberties of sane people because of the mental illness of a fraction of the population is ridiculous.

Advertisements
Standard
Law, Politics

Prosecute Felonious Actions—It’s the Law

 

 

So let’s see now. The left illegally unmasked Trump team members before the election, Obama said he would take it as a personal offense if people voted for anyone other than Hillary, the left smeared Trump for not immediately saying he would accept the results of the election and not challenge them, Hillary was given debate questions in advance (cheating), the media constantly hailed Hillary as the first American queen and Trump as a hateful, knuckle dragging cretan, and yet they lost the election. Wow. Even with the mainstream media on their side doing everything they could to thwart Trump and pump up Hillary, and with all their dirty tricks and arrogance, they lost. And they didn’t just lose the presidential election. They lost gubernatorial elections and congressional seats as well. And yet they still can’t see that their ideology is dying. It isn’t what the people want. They still want to obstruct the government while claiming they want what is best for the people. They are causing great harm to the country. 

When the Republicans were thinking of withholding funds to stop Obama’s policies, they were called all kinds of nasty names and the left claimed that the Republicans would rather shut down the government to impede Obama. What the hell are they doing now? They don’t have a majority in either house of congress, so they can’t withhold funding, but they’re causing a massive gridlock situation which, in essence is shutting down the government for all intents and purposes. It is hurting the people. It is telling the people that what they decided doesn’t matter. To the left, the only thing that matters is their socialist agenda, not listening to the people they are supposed to serve. They insist on telling us what to think and what to drive and what to wear and what to eat and which doctor to see and whether we should have that surgery or just take pain pills and how to raise our kids and on and on. THEY are supposed to be doing what WE tell them to do. WE hire THEM. Not the other way around. 

Yes, what was done was illegal. It was felonious. And if the Justice Dept. doesn’t get to the bottom of it and actually prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, there is likely to be hell to pay because the average citizen isn’t going to continue to accept being prosecuted for doing far less when those who are supposed to be our “leaders” get away scot free for doing so much worse. The law is the great leveler. It is supposed to be upheld and enforced for every citizen in exactly the same fair way. This skirting around the law and playing semantics with legal wording must stop. Once a society loses respect for the law it is only a heartbeat away from collapse.

Standard
Law, Politics

Crime? What Crime? Provide Some Facts

Sessions never lied about anything. Franken was asking him about the Trump campaign regarding the Russians. Does the left really think that senators don’t talk to foreign dignitaries? Just what do they think the job of a senator is and what do they think senators are expected to do? Of course, as a senator, Sessions spoke with the Russian ambassador. Would the left expect him to refuse to talk to the ambassador? That would be inexcusable behavior and an insult to Russia. I believe those on the left schmooze everyone, foreign and domestic, for money. We on the right work and earn our money by building businesses and providing jobs. Of course, people running for election do attend fund raisers, but they aren’t seeking funds from foreign governments. That would be illegal, a concept the left doesn’t seem to relate to unless they are gunning for someone on the right.
We have election campaigns going on constantly. The left’s way of thinking would mean that no one in government could talk to any foreign dignitaries ever because at some point they might run for re-election and that would be considered collusion. Get a grip! Do you expect us to be total isolationists? Our government officials have to communicate with and show respect toward leaders of other nations. That doesn’t mean we are colluding with them. Do leftists still look for monsters under their beds, too? Talking with people doesn’t mean you get in bed with them. Well, if you’re a left wing nutcase who has no traditional moral values I suppose it may.

Where’s the same outrage toward Hillary for selling 20% of America’s uranium to the Russians? Where’s the same outrage toward both Bill and Hillary for taking tens of millions in “donations” for speeches (ahem) from nations that have proclaimed they want us dead? What about Obama’s statement to a Russian dignitary caught on a hot mic shortly before his re-election when he told the man to let Putin know he would be in a much better position to give Putin what he wanted after he won his re-election? The left doesn’t consider that collusion? But a senator talking to a diplomat from another country in the course of doing his job, not for donations of money, that’s got them all worked up? They have no way of knowing what the conversations were about. They assume the worst and then go about trying to prosecute and pillory the man on those assumptions just because they want it to be true. No facts, just emotion.

I can see where the left would leap to those conclusions because their own side does those things all the time, so they think everyone does. In reality, they are looking in a mirror, not through a window. They are attributing your own actions to others, not seeing what is really going on. They are not simply hammer heads. They are gold plated hammer heads with no concept of reality. Before casting stones at perceived enemies, they really need to do some background checks on the people they think are so pure on the left. Leftists have a real credibility problem and suffer from a dangerously high level of incompetency based on double standards.

Standard
Law, Uncategorized

Islam is NOT a Religion

Islam is a governmental system. It is a totalitarian system that dominates every aspect of daily life. It is tyranny on steroids. The religion that Islam allows is Muslim. Muslim is a religion, but only able to exist if Islam is the system of government.

Muslim cannot exist without Islam to support it and Islam cannot exist without Muslim followers because neither one allows for any freedom or questioning or individuality. The Muslim faith MUST have a legal system (Sharia) and governmental system (Islam) that will enforce its religious practices or else people will question its practices and many will no longer abide by them. Islam MUST have Muslim believers because without them the government would have too many people questioning its tyrannical hold and dominance over them and many would rise up against that government.

Christianity existed long before there was a USA constitution and without Christianity, the USA would still be able to maintain its legal system and government. The USA does not need world dominance to exist and remain strong on its own. The USA was founded mainly on Christian teachings, but it would survive with Jewish, Buddhist, Daoist teachings just as well. Islam cannot do that, which is why they continually try to force Islam on every living being.

If there is even one person who does not submit to Islam, Islam is imperiled because that one person would be the weak link in their chain of dominance. The human spirit always seeks freedom. That will always be Islam’s weakness.

Standard
Is it Constitutional?, Law, Politics, Uncategorized

Constitutional Immigration Policy

 

It is NOT illegal to restrict immigration.

Federal law—specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)—provides: Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Article VI, Clause 3 states that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” This does not have any effect on immigration status. It only deals with whether someone may be appointed to serve in any capacity at the federal level, not whether someone is allowed to enter the country as a visitor or immigrant.

8 U.S.C. § 1158 clearly requires that, in cases where an applicant for asylum from persecution on religious grounds, “must establish that … religion … was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” If we can allow entrance based on religious persecution, then we can also deny entrance if the applicant’s religion would be detrimental to our own citizens. The only way to know if a person might be persecuted on the basis of their religion is to ask them what their religion is. Therefore, asking what religion an applicant believes in is NOT unconstitutional.

The Immigration and Nationality Act that passed June 27, 1952 revised the laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality for the United States and includes Public Law 414. Chapter 2 Section 212 prohibits entry to the US if the Alien belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the government of the United States by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” Since it is the stated goal of Islam in the Q’ran that everyone not converted to Islam be killed or pay a punitive tax, no one following the teachings of Islam (Muslim) should be allowed permanent residency here.

Teddy Roosevelt referred to Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, and said, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization.”

Islam is not a religion. Muslim is a religion, but it only exists as a part of Islam. Islam is totalitarian and the religious aspect of it cannot stand on its own. Therefore, if someone is a Muslim, he is an integral part of Islam and ALL of its facets because Islam controls every aspect of daily life including the religious aspect. The Muslim religion cannot be separated from the overall system of Islam. It would be akin to removing a vital organ from a living organism.  The complete organism would die. 

 As Islam is completely bent on the destruction of any person who does not convert to that system, no Muslim can be considered harmless to any other religion, culture or form of government. And certainly, as immigration laws are in place to protect and benefit the American form of government based on the constitution, no person who would follow any other system which intends to destroy our system should be allowed entry into our country.

Standard
Conservatism, Is it Constitutional?, Law, Uncategorized

Offense Cannot Be Legislated

“The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit.  We are answerable for them to our God.  The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.”  Thomas Jefferson

 

In other words, if it causes no physical or financial harm, it cannot be legislated or punished because it cannot be submitted to.  Offense is in the eye of the beholder.  It is a choice.  No one should be compelled by government to NOT offend another because it is up to the person who claims offense to be or not be offended.  I cannot be held responsible for your opinion and your opinion is no more valid than mine.  Therefore, be offended if you wish.  It is based on your opinion and your choice.  You cannot force me to agree with you anymore than I can force you to agree with me.  It is not something that can be legislated.   That would be an attempt to force an opinion by restricting freedom of thought and the right to disagree.  It would be TYRANNY.

Standard