Sunday, June 26, 2016

Immigration, "Illegals" & Blacks

The term "undocumented immigrants" is willfully false. Those persons are "illegal immigrants" who have begun their lives in my nation in violation of our democratically enacted laws. They continue to violate those law by stealing jobs from our fellow citizens, especially the poorest among us.

Secondly,  B.H. Obama  has not had dangerous criminals deported, but has turned them loose on the innocent victims of their future crimes. He has (Like, but more than other presidents) failed of his oath-of-office as to enforcing our laws.

Thirdly, our immigration laws are not "broken"; But, have never been effectively enforced (Especially as to those legally entering the USA but now violating the conditions of their visas by: Overstaying the time limits allowed; Stealing jobs from our citizens and legal immigrants; And, being involved in terrorism and other criminal activities.

Fourthly, if those "Illegals" do not wish to be separated from their children, they should take those with them when they return to their real "home lands".

I still wonder at the failure of "Black leaders" to forcefully and always demand the enforcement of our democratically enacted immigration laws---As such "illegals" steal or occupy jobs which should be held by the poorest among us (Black youths).

I am the son and grandson of legal immigrants.

Constitution, Due Process & The Second Amendment



President Thomas Jefferson addressed all matters of considering the Constitution as being best considered in the light of the intent of its authors.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to to the probable one in which it was passed." [Please specially note that the term "trying" was used as in "boiling down" something (eg Whale blubber or the Constitution) to obtain what the actors wish (eg Whale oil or perverse decisions by judges "making law from the bench"; About which please see the novel Moby Dick.]
Two of the comments of the Founders include (As shared by other, like, patriots):
A. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"; “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (President Thomas Jefferson)
B. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Their swords and  EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE INSTRUMENT OF THE SOLDIER ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AN AMERICAN.. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”(Emphasis added); “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms (Tench Coxe; Member of The Continental Congress and, later, constitutional scholar and author). [Emphasis added]
[“Tyrants” include street criminals, those waging Jihad, politicians attacking The Bill Of Rights (Especially Articles I, II, IV, V and X) and other criminals.]

Mr. Tench Coxe's remarks, about military-grade, weapons is specially applicable to the AR-15 and like weapons.

The "AR-15" is short-hand for all semi-automatic-only long arms with magazines holding more than eight-rounds. That (Such) weapons have be decried as "weapons of war" by opponents of the fullest exercise by citizens of "the right to keep and bear arms" (Without "infringement). Although I do not own such a firearm, I will accept that application---And approve of it on the basis of the following points.
1. The "AR-15" is the ideal weapon to resist the war-like attacks of home-and-business invaders, those waging Jihad and other dangerous thugs as: It  is much more accurate at the usual self-defense distances of 30-feet or less than are hand-guns; Its light weight and recoil make it more suitable for women and trained youths to use in the home/business defense of self and innocent others; And, its "round" will tumble when hitting walls or criminals---And, not go through them to kill or injure other persons at great distances as do, for example, the "30-30" round so common in hunting rifles.
2. Large magazines allow the usually-needed three rounds to "put down" some thug and for the (According to reports on home invasions) multiple such critters.
3. As Islamic-Terrorists are now waging war (With both guns and bombs) in the USA, that such war-weapon allows citizens (During the usual too-long wait for effective police action) to have a "war weapon" which allows them some chance of defeating those orthodox Muslims waging Islam's commanded "perpetual war" (Jihad) against those "unbelievers" who are 99% of our fellow citizens.
4. Possession of large numbers of such weapons by law-abiding and presumed sane citizens provides a safeguard against government tyranny as rightly feared by the Founders.

Supporters of “reasonable” conditions for gun ownership fail to exactly address the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment---As written by those Founders who were masters of the English language---And knew,also exactly, what “shall not” and “infringed” meant. That lack of considering that clause specially applies to judges and those politicians (Especially in such places as grossly anti-gun Chicago with its growing-and-gross record of illegal shootings). [In other words, I do not find any provision in the Constitution for "reasonable conditions", as would allow infringement, except by "due process of law" as applied to each-and-every, individual, citizen.]

It appears that The Bill Of Rights also requires (Except in time-of-war?) “Due Process Of Law” to take away those rights as it provides. As to the Second Amendment, it appears that there must be no “infringement” except by a court-of-law (Where a jury trial may be demanded) finding that each challenged citizen is too criminal or too dangerously mentally ill to exercise the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Members of the Democratic (sic) Party have taken the lead in attempts to “infringe” on our rights under the Second Amendment (And other provisions of The Bill Of Rights).

What is greatly ignored is that members of that Party, “Registered Democrats” (The Orlando Muslim-Massacre-Monster may have been such) and client-beneficiaries of that Party's policies have made-up the vast majority of those involved in the USA's mass or notorious, unlawful, shootings. (As far as I know, no members of the NRA have been the criminals inflicting such shootings.)

If Democrats (Or any, if any, others) wish to restrict the “right to keep and bear arms”, they should submit an amendment to the Constitution which requires the approval of our democratically elected Members of The Congress and of many State Legislatures. That Party's efforts attempts to bypass that democracy-based process, required by the Constitution and the time needed to make such a critical decision .

The Democrat's insistence on “instant gratification” (And such “temper tantrums” as very recently demonstrated in the chamber of the House of Representatives”) can best be described as infantile.

Those persons also will not admit to the facts that:
  1. Armed targets of criminal attacks are less likely to be murdered/maimed than unarmed “sheep”;
  2. Many more persons are saved from death or injury by the use (Often “mere” display) of guns than are unlawfully killed or injured by firearms;
  3. The primary, world wide, “terrorism by gun” is inflicted by those orthodox Muslims obeying Islam's unalterable command to wage “perpetual war” (ie Jihad) against “unbelievers” (ie 99% of our fellow citizens); And,
  4. Most of the unlawful shootings in the USA are by Blacks---To the extent that removal of those acts-and-actors from “The Statistics” would yield a USA violence rate about average for other developed nations.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

"AR-15" & Like Arms NEEDED By Americans

The "AR-15" is short-hand for all semi-automatic-only long arms with magazines holding more than eight-rounds. That (Such) weapons have be decried as "weapons of war" by opponents of the fullest exercise by citizens of "the right to keep and bear arms" (Without "infringement).

Although I do not own such a firearm, I will accept that application---And approve of it on the basis of the following points.
1. The "AR-15" is the ideal weapon to resist the war-like attacks of home-and-business invaders, those waging Jihad and other dangerous thugs as: It  is much more accurate at the usual self-defense distances of 30-feet or less than are hand-guns; Its light weight and recoil make it more suitable for women and trained youths to use in the home/business defense of self and innocent others; And, its "round" will tumble when hitting walls or criminals---And, not go through them to kill or injure other persons at great distances as do, for example, the "30-30" round so common in hunting rifles.
2. Its (Their) large magazines allow the usually-needed three rounds to "put down" some thug and for the (According to reports on home invasions) multiple such critters.
3. As Islamic-Terrorists are now waging war (With both guns and bombs) in the USA, that such war-weapon allows citizens (During the usual too-long wait for effective police action) to have a "war weapon" which allows them some chance of defeating those orthodox Muslims waging Islam's commanded "perpetual war" (Jihad) against those "unbelievers" who are 99% of our fellow citizens.
4. Possession of large numbers of such weapons by law-abiding and sane (Unless declared otherwise, for each challenged citizen, by a court-of-law after a full "due process hearing) citizens provides a safeguard against government tyranny as so properly feared by the Founders of our Republic

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Citizens & Modern Weapons

The massacre in an Orlando nightclub has brought forth the usual, Fascist, demands to take away modern and effective guns from The People.

Below, you will find the relevant comments of a very well known Founder of our Republic and one of his lesser co-actors in the USA's first Revolution.

A. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms"; "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"; “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. LET THEM TAKE ARMS.” "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (President Thomas Jefferson)

B. “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Their swords and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.”(Emphasis added); “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms (Tench Coxe; Member of The Continental Congress and, later, constitutional scholar and author). [Emphasis added]

Vigilantes & Politicians

There are times-and-places when-and-where the police (And even the military) cannot OR are unwilling to control the vicious attacks of criminals (As includes those waging Jihad as individuals or groups) against innocent persons.

Where the People have effective arms and courage, responsible citizens sometimes become “Vigilantes” to protect their communities. They do so by:
  1. Taking time from earning livings for their families; And,
  2. Placing themselves at great physical and legal risk from government officials and other criminals.
Tyrannical government officials who disarm the People do so, not to safeguard others, but to protect themselves----And other crimina

Wednesday, June 08, 2016

Mohamed Ali As "Hero"


As evidence of the basic nature of today's "Black Culture" many have touted Mohammed Ali as a "Superhero". I suggest that those critters and all others consider the following.

1. Whatever the faults/sins of too many of its followers, Western Christianity invented and is still developing "Civilization" as supports learning, wide knowledge and is working towards "equal justice under law".
2. Mohammed Ali left that faith and joined Islam which: Is very opposed to such equal justice; And, which very often is opposed to learning beyond the Koran and such weapons-technical information as allows its followers to better murder others---Including students of "Western" knowledge.
3. To compound that offence against civilization, Ali first joined "The Nation Of Islam" as, very much, supported a KKK-plus level of racism.
4. Mohammed Ali refused to be inducted into our Armed Forces as he opposed the Vietnam War (Which I found to be very much mismanaged and lost by Democrats) in opposition to our democratically-enacted laws  and as put some other draftee at risk.
5. That "hero" earned very much money by pounding the heads of other (Usually Black) boxers as is likely to have resulted in injuries even more serious and immediate than those inflicted on him.

All  might better consider such Black heroes as: Professor Thomas Sowell (A “high school drop-out”); Secretary-of-State, Professor and pianist Condoleezza Rice (Whose parents were school teachers in the “Old South” when such were neither well paid nor respected by Whites); Mathematician and business-leader Herman Cain (Who I supported with money and words during his campaign for election to the Presidency)Dr. Benjamin S. Carson; Member of Congress, Ms. Mia Love; Congressman, military hero Alan West (Who destroyed his military career by “protecting his troops”) And, Mr. Justice Thomas (Who was born in a Southern town without a sewage system and to a “farm worker” father and mother who worked as a “domestic”.

We should also consider that the usual "Heroes" of the successful and racially identifiable Americans of Chinese decent are scholars---As is  also usually the case for Jews.

What "role model" should be held up for  Black and other citizens (And legal immigrants) in the USA?

Racists Comments, Racist Judges?


First, please note that I did not support Mr. Trump in his campaign as to the Wisconsin primary election and did not vote for him.

House Speaker Ryan and too many others have denied that judges can be biased on the base of their race/culture/ideology.

It appears that he and those others are either totally ignorant of history OR are corruptly seeking election advantages by denying its lessons.

Within the USA we certainly have many examples (In and out of the "Old South") of White judges being biased, in opposition to the Constitution, against Black, Latino, Chinese and American Indian citizens. Is there some logical reason that some judges from those (Protected) groups do not hold and act upon like biases against Whites? 
Outside of the USA, such bias has been shown by: Stalin's and Hitler's persecuting "judges" against those opposed to those tyrants' ideologies; Mexican judges against "Gringos"; And, Islam's courts against all women and all "unbelievers".
                                                                 
My father and grandparents were legal immigrants into the USA. Can US Judge Curiel maintain the same claim? Or, is he such an "Anchor Child" of parents who avoided the full jurisdiction of the USA by illegal entry into our nation---As apparently required for the full protections of the 14th Amendment to our Republic's Constitution?

If a judge is a "true believer" in Islam, can such a person be suspect of bias as that ideology is:
1. Strongly opposed to "Equal Justice Under Law"; And, 
2. Supports/demands the replacement of all other law systems with Sharia.

Monday, June 06, 2016

On Shooting Laquan McDonald

On the basis of the limited information available it appears the 17-year old thug, Laquan McDonald, (An "adult" under Illinois's criminal laws) was attacking now Ex-Officer Jason VanDyke with a knife AND was only 15-feet away from that potential victim when the first shot was fired. That short distance is well within the "Deadly Threat" distance as scientifically established by the Tueller Test .
I note that it has taken up to 33-"hits" to stop a charging criminal. The FBI has addressed the question of multiple shots needed to stop such attacks and the physiological reasons for that danger.

Unlike a possibly “doctored” police video (Did it take a year to morph that video?), it appears that the first volley of gunfire resulted in wounds only to the front of the target's body---Showing that he was facing the shooter AND not walking past him (Unless it was to get a better “angle of attack”?) before turning towards Mr. VanDyke.


Yes, it would have been better For Mr. VanDyke to stop shooting after the real criminal was "down" (As WAS established in the case of Missouri's Michael Brown); But, the fear of being “cut” might be a mitigating factor.