Is it Constitutional?, Liberalism, Politics

The REAL Reason for Gun Control

Response to online comment by calebsmum to article on Blue Lives Matter website, article titled “Nationwide Manhunt For Michael Bullinger After Multiple Dead Women Found On His Property” dated June 21, 2017

Some background:  calebsmum was responding to someone who disagreed with his/her favorable stand on gun control which morphed into what his/her true issues seem to be.

calebsmum How do we pollute less? Lots of way. 🙂 Live close to your work so that you can walk or bike instead of commute 30 minutes to an hour, like many people do. Use carpools, public transportation, bikes; use solar or other alternative energy sources to heat/cool your home. If you don’t need it, don’t use it (air conditioning). Many people use it just to be comfortable when it’s not necessary, instead stay cool by closing doors and windows during the heat of the day, using deciduous trees to block the sun during the summer but allow heat during the winter…we CAN do more, it’s just that many people feel selfishly entitled to what they want, instead of what’s best.

My response:  You are a very dangerous person.  You presume to know what’s “best.”  Best for whom?  Everyone?  The entire world?  Just who the hell are you to make such assumptions?  You think that everyone should live as you choose to live and everyone should agree with your ideologies.  And if they don’t, you call them selfish?  Selfish according to your personal judgment?  Again, just who the hell are you?  You think that you have all the answers to save the world and mankind.  You see no problem with infringing on others’ rights or freedoms when it will enforce your personal beliefs.

That is the definition of fascism.  You feel it is just fine to tax, fine, and even imprison people if they don’t adhere to your ideas of what is right for all of mankind.  God made this planet and presented it to man.  God Himself gave man the freedom to choose who to worship and obey, and you weren’t on the list of choices.

Who or what the hell gave you the superior authority to overrule anyone on how they should live, where they should live, how they should heat or cool their homes, what form of transportation they should use or how comfortable they should be while doing any of that?

And none of that has anything to do with whether people have the right to keep and bear arms without restrictions being placed on them when they purchase such weapons.  But you think you’re so morally superior and have so much more knowledge that you should be able to dictate that as well.

And when people refuse to comply with all your high and mighty edicts then the punishments are visited on them.  Well, if you wish to call me selfish, that is your label not mine.  I am an individual and I have the freedom to make my own choices.  I will not comply with enforced morality based on computer models and junk science and consensus rather than empirical, factual evidence.  Not when it is in regard to how I live my life or how I defend my life.

You, and those who think as you do, are pompous asses.  You seek to rule over people in every aspect of their daily lives and control them completely because you think you have that superior right, much as Islam rules over people.  Well, if God didn’t seek to force me to agree with Him and gave me dominion over the earth, if He didn’t try to force me to worship Him, I sure as hell am not about to bow down to you and your ideas of what is important or necessary for the earth to survive and I’m never going to be forced to worship at the altar of man-made computer models which pose as science.

As for your ideas on gun control, stop fearing your fellow-man.  The only reason you want gun control is because, when people refuse to do what you tell them to do, you don’t want them armed and able to defend themselves to prevent their being imprisoned for not complying.  Even God didn’t go that far.  So who the hell are you to think your ideas are more worthwhile than His?  You are a fascist and you label others as fascists for not agreeing with you.  That’s what the left always does.  They paint others with the identifying label before it is used against them.  Saul Alinsky much?

You know perfectly well that it isn’t safety against unhinged people having guns that is at the heart of this gun control argument.  It sounds all compassionate, but it’s really about keeping the populace under control so that other restrictive rules can be pushed down people’s throats and then, when they refuse to be pushed any further, they won’t be able to defend themselves from being pushed the last few steps into complete domination by tyranny.  This isn’t NRA talking points.  Read history from ancient times through to the present day.  It’s always the same pattern.  As I said in the beginning, you are a very dangerous person.

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
Uncategorized

Sharia Law

For many generations Jews have lived and worked in Christian communities without violence.  They have maintained their religious requirements in diet and worship and daily life.  They have not tried to force their beliefs or religious laws on anyone else.  In return, the Christians have benefited from their friendship and been just as tolerant of them.  That is not to say there haven’t been some with anti-Semitic sentiments who have been intolerant and disrespectful, but by and large that has not been the case in recent decades.

Now Western culture is faced with a different religion from the Middle East.  This religion, Muslim or Islam, is extremely intolerant of any other religion.  It is a religion with its own set of laws which they carry over into their secular lives.  The law, Sharia, is very harsh and uses extreme brutality in many cases as punishment for infractions of that law.

The difficulty here is that, while Jews adhere to religious laws, those laws do not preclude the laws of the land in which they live.  Jews are subject to the magistrates and legal authority of the country. They do not segregate themselves into separate communities or try to live by separate and very different laws from the rest of the nation.  In this way they mix and benefit within their communities with others from differing faiths and there is a very symbiotic relationship formed.

Practitioners of Sharia are quite different.  They form separate communities from the rest of their neighbors.  They practice Sharia law even if it is against the laws already established in that country.  In other words, they put their religious law in a place above the law of the land.  They do not subject themselves to the laws all other citizens are subject to.  They disrespect and disregard the law of the land.  They hold themselves apart.  This is not at all similar to the segregation people of color were subjected to before the civil rights movement.  These people are choosing to be segregated.

They are also demanding the rest of society change to be in alignment with their Sharia religious dogma.  They attempt to use the law of the land, which they refuse to abide by, to force restaurants and other business establishments to provide them with their particular religious requirements based on our freedom of religion amendment in our constitution.

First of all, freedom of religion means you may worship any way you see fit.  It does not in any way mean that others must change in any way to accommodate your faith.  Secondly, when anyone enters another country voluntarily, they do so knowing what that nation’s culture is.  They are not forced to enter.  They are aware of the differences between where they are leaving and where they are going.

The laws of the nation they are entering are exactly that, laws.  All citizens and foreigners are expected to abide by those laws.  Now, if a person wants to leave their own country for whatever reason, they are free to choose what country they wish to move to.  If a country has laws that they do not agree with, they do not have to go there.  If their own country is not comfortable for them, they can remain there and work to change things there.  If that is not possible for them, then they must realize that wherever they choose to go, they will have to make some changes in order to achieve some degree of happiness.

No sovereign nation is expected to change its culture to accommodate immigrants.  Immigration is a regulated act which allows people from other nations to enter based on the benefits that immigrant will be able to provide for their new nation.  It is not a safety net nor is it meant to benefit the immigrant.  Quite the opposite.  There is no reason for any nation to take in people who would be a drain on them financially or cause disease or criminal activities to take root in their country.

America has been very welcoming over the years.  But there has always been the requirement that a person entering to live here permanently should have a job and ability to work and provide for themselves.  They have always had to be screened physically to ensure they have no disease that would infect the population here.  They have had to be cleared on criminal background checks.  They have also had to be cleared of any possible threat to the government, such as affiliations with groups that would try to overthrow our own government.

Suddenly we are being told that to do that is not in keeping with what America is all about.  Even in the early 1900s, when Ellis Island was the first stop upon entrance into America, these same stringent requirements were in effect.  Nothing has changed.

But when we are allowing people into this country who refuse to live by the established laws of the land and who are immediately placed on welfare roles rather than working, when the people coming in are refusing to assimilate and conform to our culture, then we are setting ourselves up for disaster within our own borders.

If the Jews, a religion that has spanned thousands of years, can assimilate and become part of our culture without harming their own, then there is no reason Muslims or Islamists can’t do the same.  They are not wanting to join us.  They are wanting to destroy us and set up their own country in place of ours.  Any who would bow to their demands are being foolish.  Our culture is healthy and has welcomed people from all other cultures.  There is no reason for us to change.  Sharia law is not the law of this land and we should never allow such things to occur here.

In Great Britain there are now 85 Sharia courts established and many enclaves of Muslims who control everything which occurs within those enclaves.  The laws of Great Britain are routinely broken and Sharia law is considered the only law in those areas.  It is tearing down the structure of Great Britain.  Women are killed, sexually mutilated, young girls are forced into polygamous marriages, dismemberment is used as punishment for certain crimes against Sharia and established law enforcement is not even allowed to enter those areas.  A nation cannot long exist without the ability to enforce its laws equitably among all of its citizens.  France is experiencing the same problems as are Germany, Switzerland and many other European nations with Muslims within their borders.

It is fine to mouth the words that Muslim and Islam are faiths of peace, but in reality that is only so if the people follow Sharia.  If not, there is no peace.  There is only fear, barbarism, terror and death for anyone who does not abide by their Sharia law.  This cannot be allowed to happen here.  We must be willing to stand firm on this.  Anyone entering this country must be willing to abide by the constitution and the state and local laws already in effect.  There can be no other laws held to be superior to that.  It is not refusing to allow someone to practice their faith.  It has nothing to do with that.  They may worship in any way they choose, but their religion is not to supersede the laws of the land.  If that is necessary for them, then they need to live in a nation that abides by Sharia law.  America does not and will not.

Standard