RSS Feed

Category Archives: Isis

Just A Thought (or three)

In a time of stiff world-wide competition among a very few countries and global corporate conglomerates for total and absolute domination of technology, artificial intelligence, bio-engineering and its associated chip development, etc., etc., etc. when everything we read seems to be purloined from the pages of a classic Sci-fi thriller, this would seem to be the time to pay more attention to the atrocious problem of so much of our technological work product being siphoned away from our shores. Sometimes it is required in order to obtain a new market (should not be allowed), sometimes acquired in merger or acquisition (rare) and then sometimes it is stolen (bingo!) China has even stated through it’s media that it plans to rule the world (insert evil laughter here) through technology and STEM development and domination. 

Obviously, in the course of “growing up as a republic” we have allowed some institutions to become established with an insufficient amount of oversight. As a result these institutions have recently made it increasingly obvious that “We, the People” should shine the light of exposure on these highly secretive organizations so that they may either be cleaned up or abolished entirely. Proper controls and procedures could be put in place under President Trump, General Kelly, Senator Lee from Utah, Senator Cruz from Texas, or perhaps a few other select individuals HONEST, TRUSTWORTHY, UNPURCHASED and wholly committed to the Constitution in order to ensure Government security, defense of the homeland and intelligence is not compromised or released. However it is done, our president needs to set up some sort of review board or committee for:

  1.  Intelligence agencies
  2. DOJ
  3. IRS
  4. State Dept.

Our three branches of government no longer even blink when crossing the boundaries set by the Constitution. Federal appellate courts are blocking lawful Presidential Executive Orders on ideological grounds. The judicial branch has no knowledge, no familiarity and no authority over immigration yet, for example, a Maryland federal judge suspended President Trump’s executive order requiring more extensive vetting of refugees entering this country. We MUST return to the principles and the fundamentals set out for us in our founding document. We must get rid of the arbitrary administrative rules, regulations and requirements which have been attached to the people’s institutions in order to circumvent the purpose of those bodies or shift the responsibilities which each member bears as part of his duty to his/her constituents. Even more common it is used as a method to hide what he/she is voting for or against.

I will no longer be tactful and polite about it. The Democratic Party appears to have launched a campaign to chip away at our Republic, pushing this radical idea that being born on U.S. Land makes you a citizen, advocating for the rights (?) of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!, advocating for and passing laws to protect lobbying, advocating for the consideration and even the application of foreign law in our courts (including sharia law) and I am not even covering education or the entertainment industry. Why does the Democratic Party want to change America in such a radical way? 

If we want to keep our American culture and our Constitutional Republic we had better wake up and closely monitor our representatives and senators. If the people we elect to vote in our name do not vote with our voice, if they vote for big business, if they vote with the media, if they vote with non-citizens – then we can not afford to vote them back into office again.

An elected office is a service job. Those who are called to SERVE are obligated to fulfill the promises they make, to work for the goals and needs of the poorest as well as those who own small businesses and the largest corporations equally. Any elected office is hard work involving more problems than possible solutions, it requires being excruciatingly frugal with the taxpayer’s money while concurrently being generous of heart but armed with research on how to get the most bang out of every single buck. An honest Senator or Representative does not get rich in Washington or the state capital, does not vote for automatic pay increases, outrageous perks or unbelievable pensions. For an ideal in service we need to think back to the beginning when George Washington was asked to become King by a very sincere and thankful nation. Most generals, heck most men who had fought tooth and nail, sacrificed and been through so much would have accepted the offer to continue to lead and protect the fledgling nation through its formative first years with the power to ensure all was done correctly and all the states stayed in line.               
GEORGE. WASHINGTON. SAID. NO. 

Advertisements

Just Another Gun Duel

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

🇺🇸

It has been said millions of times…guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Evidently, to many who live for simplistic solutions this nice catch phrase sounds great but it has no meaning whatsoever. Their belief is that if you remove guns from honest people you will stop massacres, crime, and all random acts of violence. They are absolutely wrong.

As has been proven in other societies, criminals do not give up merely for lack of a gun. Tasers, physical violence (with bats, foreign objects like knives or daggers) or cunning can often be employed instead. Where only one person is required to waive a gun around, two or three criminals working together offer enough of a threatening presence to achieve the goal. Also, consider that today most crimes are not the type that utilize a gun, they just steal from people by con. Identity theft is on the rise yet congress does nothing to protect citizens against the most basic collection of information by large corporations choosing instead to focus on guns. Email scams, Internet rip-offs are all out there just waiting for stronger regulation….but that would be hard.

The most obvious of all, of course, is that any laws that are passed of whatever stringency will have absolutely no affect on criminals, only on honest citizens who buy guns legitimately. Criminals do not buy guns in stores or in gun shows, they get them on the black market. No laws or regulations and no taxes to bother with on the black market. There are black market guns everywhere. Criminals don’t care if we put harsher regulations on gun ownership, as a matter of fact, it would make their lives infinitely safer and easier if innocent people cannot defend themselves! After all, even the mass killings tend to hit “soft targets” which means those places where guns are not allowed! Doesn’t that tell anyone anything??

🇺🇸

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
🇺🇸

Chicago is a great example of what happens with the criminal element when you impose some of the strictest gun control in the US. The gang members and other criminals do not turn in their guns, honest citizens are left with no way to defend themselves and a city that was once wonderful now has a section that has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation! None of this is news, we all know it, so why are we not paying attention?
If government could protect us 100% of the time we would be 100% safe and no mass murders or crimes would ever occur.The government tells us that the police are there for our protection, but they are not everywhere all the time. As much as I respect and honor our warriors in blue, we were designed to be a country with guns and a brave people who could protect and defend themselves and their neighbors.

People, especially those in the government, tend to skip over the main reason that the founding fathers made sure that the citizens of this country would forever keep their God given right to bear arms. There was no guarantee that the new Constitution would stand the test of time. Many were very afraid that too much power had been given to the centralized federal government. They had experience with an oppressive British King and were wary of any form of it. We have our guns because a well armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. It is true that our forefathers were closer to the land and hunted more. But make no mistake, if you read what they had to say on this issue, they were not ambivalent.

The liberals have chosen guns as an issue. However, if a disturbed, insane, evil person or a radical jihadi terrorist is determined to cause havoc and kill massive numbers of people – he does not have to use a gun! A gun is just a tool. I have friends who can shoot a bow as accurately as a gun, knives, bombs, cars, vans, eighteen wheelers, acid, poisons, etc. Jumping on the gun issue seems to be screaming at one of the symptoms when we ought to be looking at the genesis of the problem.

🇺🇸

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Double Standard?

Posted on

Looking at the current judicial approach to President Trump’s Executive Orders on Immigration, the courts are very outspoken about their ability to rely on his statements made during the campaign in order to determine the intent of the Orders. It may violate judicial precedent and certainly is contrary to the facts of the case, nevertheless, reason and logic has not been allowed to intrude on these Federal Court Decisions (9th and 4th Circuits) unconstitutionally removing a legal power from the executive branch.

Whether they take it now or wait until the conclusion of the Circuit Courts’ legal proceedings, eventually this issue will be facing the Supreme Court. During the campaign, at about the same period of time as President Trump’s campaign statements, one of our SCOTUS justices spoke out publicly against candidate Trump. Justice Ginsburg made some fairly extreme statements indicating that she did not like him at all. http://nypost.com/2016/07/11/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-unhinged-assault-on-trump/

Since judges are required to recuse themselves in circumstances like these, and although Supreme Court Justices are exempted, there is really no good reason why this should be so. If anything, recusal should be mandatory for justices also. The cases they decide are far too important and affect far too many lives to be decided with any justice who is too biased, opinionated or Politically motivated to objectively evaluate the facts, weigh the merits fairly or render a logical Constitutionally based decision. It is bad enough that Justice Ginsburg actually feels such animus, but it is beyond concerning when she cannot keep her mouth shut about it in front of the media.

So, (to quote my grandparents) what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Or maybe we should change judicial thought and say, what is said in the campaign stays in the campaign!

60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries

By Patrick Goodenough | February 16, 2017 | 4:20 AM EST

60% of Refugee Arrivals Since Judge Halted Trump’s Order Come From 5 Terror-Prone Countries

(CNSNews.com) – Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.

Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.
Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.
Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.

Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations. Trump’s Jan. 27 order barred entry to the U.S. of all refugees for 120 days; prohibited entry to refugees from Syria indefinitely; and blocked all entry – immigrant and non-immigrant – by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days. (The order does not itself name the seven countries, referring instead to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).” 

That law, signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015, required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns. Two months later Obama’s DHS added Somalia, Yemen and Libya to the list of “countries of [terrorist] concern.”)
In the week between Trump’s inauguration and his Jan. 27 executive order, a total of 2,090 refugees were admitted to the U.S., of whom 918 (43.9 percent) were from the identified countries: 296 from Syria, 218 from Iraq, 211 from Somalia, 155 from Iran, 37 from Sudan, one from Yemen and none from Libya.

The following seven-day period – from the day of the executive order to the day before the judge’s restraining order – only 19 refugees were admitted from the countries of concern (18 Somalis and one Iraqi, all but two arriving on the actual day of the order). Those 19 comprised just 2.2 percent of the total 861 arrivals over that period.

The next week, from Feb. 3 to Feb. 9, saw 1,180 refugees arrive, 882 (74.7 percent) of whom were from the countries of concern.

Last Saturday, Trump tweeted that 77 percent of refugee admissions since Robart’s ruling, which was subsequently upheld on appeal, “hail from seven suspect countries.” (The actual figures at that time, according to the Refugee Processing Center data, were 402 refugees from Syria, 340 from Iraq, 155 from Somalia; 115 from Iran; 38 from Sudan; and none from Yemen or Libya, amounting together to 71.7 percent of the total admissions.)

Since then the proportion of refugees from the countries of concern has declined somewhat, although the countries continue to account for a disproportionate number of the total contingent of refugees admitted since Feb. 3.
While those five countries alone – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sudan – have provided 60.1 percent of the refugee arrivals from Feb. 3 until today, another 22 countries have together accounted for the remaining 39.9 percent.
Those 22 countries are Afghanistan (25), Bangladesh (2), Bhutan (96), Burma (147), Burundi (2), Central African Republic (12), China (1), Cuba (17), Democratic Republic of Congo (347), El Salvador (23), Eritrea (48), Ethiopia (15), Honduras (3), Moldova (10), Pakistan (24), “Palestine”(2), South Sudan (6), Russia (22), Tanzania (1), Uganda (4), Ukraine (213) and Vietnam (8).

Apart from the majority of 1,424 Muslims, other religions represented among the refugees admitted since Feb. 3 include Christians, (including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and evangelicals, from countries including Iraq, Iran, DRC, Ukraine and Burma), Buddhists (mostly from Bhutan), Hindus (from Bhutan), Baha’i (from Iran), Yazidis (from Iraq) and Ahmadis (from Pakistan).

RePosted From RECLAIM OUR REPUBLIC

We hear about the Political arguments and the Constitutional arguments over President Trump’s temporary ban but this post by Reclaim Our Republic, one of my favorite blogs, boils the issue down to what is important. We should consider why the President has plenary power over immigration.

I’m putting up a partial transcript, as this video is being deleted fast. One deletion said it violated a “hate-speech” policy, meaning “, we can’t let the truth slip out!!!”

Steven Gern, a 10-year veteran of the Marine Corps working in Iraq, uploaded a video to his Facebook page on Wednesday talking about President Trump’s immigration order and Gern’s own experiences asking locals how Americans are dealt with in the countries that were on the watch list. 
In the short time it’s been on Facebook, the clip has been viewed over 35 million times, racked up over 1.4 million shares, 250 thousand “likes,” and almost 60 thousand comments.

Here’s the transcript of Gern’s viral statement:

“I work currently in Iraq, which is one of the countries that’s on the list. Obviously, in the United States, a lot is going on – and over here, this is a lot going on, as well, just a lot of things y’all don’t see.
The other morning, we were having a discussion on the executive order, and a lot of the Iraqis showed their displeasure in this executive order, and why they feel like they’ve been betrayed by the United States…

So, I listened to what they had to say, and after they were done yelling and screaming about their opinion on things, I asked a simple question, and I got an answer to that simple question, and I got it without hesitation. My simple questions was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’

They answered me, and said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘Okay, what would happen if I went in town?’”

They said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour. I would be tortured first, and after they were done torturing me, I would probably be beheaded. It would go on video for everybody to see as an example.

The point I’m trying to make is – this is the local populace that would do this. This isn’t ISIS. This isn’t al-Qaeda. So, my question to them was pretty simple after that.

If you would do this to me, in your country, why would I let you in my country? All this means to me is that if you had the opportunity to take the life of an American, you would do it.

Maybe that’s something y’all need to think about back there. If this is the way some of these cultures feel… about Americans, why would you be so naive to believe that, if they came to the United States, they would do anything any different than what they would do right here in their own country”

I’m just trying to inform you about what’s actually happening on the ground in one of the ‘banned countries’ – something you should probably think about. I can’t go out in town here. Why should they go out in town in my country?”

Gern’s Linkedin profile reveals a long and decorated career as a Marine and security specialist operating in the Middle East. The profile summary reads:

Driven, exacting and self-motivated professional with 10+ years of distinguished service in the U.S. Marine Corps and 10+ years as a Personal Security Specialist in a High Threat Environment. Embody and reinforce core values that define success in team building, training, program management, and continuous improvement. Respected as a sound Leader, professional program manager, and technically and tactfully competent security consultant. Skilled in identifying and correcting flaws, deficiencies and gaps in security in any High Threat environment.

Our Liberal Outreach: Watch, and then Share with a “liberal” so that they Might Come to Know the TRUTH…

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13150/viral-video-marine-working-iraq-praising-trumps-chase-stephens

Religious Test?

So what exactly do those democrats mean when they claim that we are violating the Constitution by applying religious tests to refugees? 

Do they mean that the Constitution applies to all people everywhere instead of just United States Citizens? 

Do they mean that exterminating every one of the Christians in the Middle East is preferable to discriminating against Muslims? 

Do they mean that anyone in the world has a right to come here if they want to? 

Do they mean that American Citizens should have no say and no control over what kind of people come into our country? 

After seeing the democrats in action, specifically the appalling way that they twist the Constitution to serve their purposes and ignore it when they can’t, I really shouldn’t be surprised.  We absolutely can apply religious tests to immigrants and refugees. They are not citizens and are not under the authority and protection of the Constitution. As a sovereign nation we have every right in the world to decide who would make good citizens and assimilate well into our culture and who would not. 

As a nation established on Judeo-Christian values, it is perfectly understandable if we should choose to bring over the very few remaining Christians in the Middle East since they have practically been eliminated by ISIS and are cruelly tortured, small children are being crucified, whole families are massacred and they have vanished entirely from certain areas. 

I am not at all interested in the crowd size of the protesters or what they are chanting. I am very sorry that some unlucky travelers got caught up in the limbo of bad planning and inexperience. Also, let’s face it the President is working at a disadvantage since he doesn’t have the large majority of his cabinet yet. He will make mistakes, but he is taking steps in the right direction and doing his best to make his countrymen safer. I trust that the situation will be corrected soon. Honestly, it probably could have been fixed easier and with less red tape if there had not been all of these protests and marches.

 As a common ordinary citizen from flyover country I am tired of the media exaggeration and spin. I am impatient with politicians who assume we are all naive and rather stupid. Finally, I am sick of the liberals who seem to be determined to destroy my beautiful America. 

VIDEO Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves

Sept 16, 2016 by Kristi Ann The FALSE prophet muhammad was a Pedophile / Child Molester / Rapist / Racist / Fascist / Terrorist / Murder of Christians and Jewish People!! Please Pray for the Holy L…

Source: VIDEO Muhammad: The White Prophet with Black Slaves

DCWhispers.com

A Peek Behind The Political Curtain

USMC Semper Fi

United States Marine Corps

Preacher01704's Weblog

My Published Works

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world

larrysmusings

This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and commentary on various issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Classy Libertarian

FOR MORAL AND POLITICAL CONSISTENCY

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

SMALLGOVREPORT

Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: