Excluding Some Muslims As GOOD

Mr. Khizr Kahn, the father of an American Captain who saved some (How many?) of his troops was a most passionate speaker at the 2016 Democrat's National Convention. He proclaimed that Mr. Donald Trump's (Who I did not support in his primary campaigns) policies would have exclude that son from being available for such military service.

Such (Temporary) policies might as well have excluded: The Boston Marathon bombers; The perverse couple who murdered so many of their fellows at a San Bernardino (California) party; The father of Orlando's Muslim-Massacre-Monster and others who have-and-will execute other murderous acts of Jihad against our fellow citizens and those in obedience to the unalterable commands of Islam. We know of the hundreds of those past victims of Islam in the USA. We must wonder how many more Americans will be destroyed by such terrorists who hide among real refugees and are admitted to our land without being effectively "vetted".

                                                        

PS---I also served, at risk, in a combat arm of our Armed Forces.

                                     NOTES

(A) Post: Defining Islam---Again 
Link: <http://crusaderknight. blogspot.com/2011/06/defining- islam-again.html>
(B) Link: <http://crusaderknight. blogspot.com/2009/07/three- monotheistic-religions-vs- islam.html>; 
(C) <http://crusaderknight.blogspot.com/2015/12/there-are-no-radicalized-muslims.html>;

(D)  Link: <http://crusaderknight. blogspot.com/2009/11/no-adult- male-muslim-can-be-trusted. Html>;

(E)   <;http://crusaderknight.blogspot.com/2016/02/history-responding-to-jihadists.html"
(F)   8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

(Association with terrorist organizations

Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.

(Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

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 nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

(Underlining added).

Your Voting Choices

If you, even "sort of”, invent or accept excuses for the recent and murderous attacks on police in Dallas, Baton Rouge AND many other places---Vote for Democrats.

If you approve of "Black LIES Matter", the "New Black Panthers" and other race-baiters such as MR. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton (The step-son of "The Father Of Lies")---Who all maintain their incomes and poof-up their over-developed and unjustified senses of self-worth by stirring up race hate in the USA---Vote for Democrats.

If you approve of taking away modern firearms from law-abiding and legally-presumed sane citizens, leaving them to be victims of the tyranny of those waging Jihad, gang-bangers, rights-destroying politicians and other criminals---Vote for Democrats.

If you wish to support the Party as has contributed the vast majority of mass/notorious killers in the USA (Without help from members of the NRA)---Vote for Democrats.

If you support the mass importation of Muslims from ISIS controlled lands who have not been sorted-out to eliminate those who are likely terrorists---Vote for Democrats.

If you favor the mass immigration of "illegals" (Including those who violate visa conditions) who bring with them terrorists, illegal drugs and those occupying/stealing jobs from our poorest fellow citizens (eg Black youths)---Vote for Democrats.

If you approve of Obama who has aided Iran, which is supporting war against us, by giving that Jihad waging theocracy many millions of dollars and, directly or indirectly, aiding its A-bomb program---Vote for Democrats.

If you approve of "Hillary" who (With her "co-actor" husband) has accepted bribes from foreigners)---Vote for Democrats.

OTHERWISE, VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS!

                                                 

PS---I also offer this choice to those Democrats as still support democracy, the rule-of-law, the defense of all of us against our internal-and-external enemies, the more honest of officials-and-candidates and all of the protections under The Bill Of Rights.

GOP Convention Disorder As A Virture

After viewing the floor at today's Republican convention and listening to various comments I was very much reminded of my earlier comment: I AM NOT A MEMBER OF AN ORGANIZED POLITICAL PARTY, I BELONG TO THE GOP!”.

Yet, I think that democracy-based disorder far superior to those Parties as require their members and subjects to strictly obey the “Party Line”. Such Parties were headed by such, founded by commitment to Socialism and Atheism, leaders as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and other such “lovers of democracy”.

It, most strongly, appears that Democrats are moving towards that strict control of Party members (And those they rule) and are, more-and-more, basing policies on that same Atheism and Socialism as supported by the above-named monsters.

One of the earlier evidences of Democrat's shrinking of their “tent” was their refusal to even allow anti-abortion delegate Robert P. Casey to speak at their 1992 convention. In the days of Congressman Clement Zablocki (The last truly honest member of The Congress?) and President Harry S. Truman (The best CIC of the last century), I was a Democrat. Since those better times, the Democratic (sic) Party left me by its new basis as noted above and its attacks on all of The Bill Of Rights---Within the meaning intended by its authors.

Obama's Insult To Police Officers & Truth

 On July 13, 2016 my local newspaper printed a story (From the AP and Dallas Morning News) headed "Obama honors Dallas officers". In that story he noted the recent "police shootings" of two Black men.

One of those was Mr. Alton Stirling and that event in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. That person: Was reported, by citizens, as threatening them and being armed with a pistol; He is a convicted felon who, by possession of that pistol (Apparently without a pardon and special permission) was another felony; Upon the arrival of uniformed police officers, Mr. Stirling refused their lawful orders; He was not disabled by those officer's non-lethal use of a "Stun Gun" (Which leads to the question: "Was he under the influence of PCP or some other, like, illegal drug?".); Thereafter, he continued to physically resist those officers who were attempting to restrain him by non-lethal physical force; And, was shot to death when attempting to reach his pistol.

Mr. Obama's citing of that dangerous thug is a repeat of his "rush to judgement" in the case of Missouri's Michael Brown where, despite his efforts, a Grand Jury unusually refused to indict the "clean record" police officer. Thereafter (As far as I know) no finding of guilt or liability was had in a court-of-law.

Mr. Obama's mention of this case was an insult to the assassinated officers who were slaughtered by a racist terrorist. That creature was no better than those KKK members whose murders were also racist.

The Minnesota case is less clear and may be resolved only in  court and that according to real evidence (eg Mr. Castile "matched" a police radio description of an armed robbery suspect).

It would have been better journalism for that newspaper or the noted news/propaganda sources to remind all of the above facts and Obama's insult.

13-YEAR OLD HOME DEFENDER "SCORES" FOR THE COMMON GOOD---PLUS

Good Gun Stats: Six-Time Felon Killed in a Shootout With 13-year-old

by Michelle Neuenswander | Jul 3, 2016

The Left hates stories where people who exercised their Second Amendment right to own a firearm. They hate it even more when the weapon is used legally and for one of its real intentions.

And that happened when a 13-year-old kid shot and killed a bad guy. Thank God the teen had a gun, this day and time.

As reported by The Post and Courier,

A 13-year-old Ladson boy fended off two would-be burglars by using his mother’s gun to protect himself while home alone Tuesday.

He killed one of them in an exchange of gunfire, and the second suspect was later arrested, according to the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office.

Lamar Anthwan Brown, 31, of Summerville, died at Trident Medical Center of gunshot wounds, according to Charleston County Chief Deputy Coroner Bobbi Jo O’Neal. He was dropped off at the hospital by the second suspect, Ira Bennett, after fleeing the Elderwood Drive home where the shooting took place, according to the Sheriff’s Office.

Bennett, 28, of Kent Avenue in North Charleston has been charged with first-degree burglary and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

Thankfully, the kid was ok. His mother said she is grateful for the outcome. Moreover, she’s grateful her son at some point learned how to use a firearm. And, the kid used it well.

I’ve often asked how many times a day this type of story happens. I’m talking about a story where the good guys have firearms and the bad guys losses. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.

I know the Fed keeps statistics on gun deaths in just about everything. For example, they track gun deaths at workplaces, in law enforcement, and society at large. However, I was able to find gun stats, with limited data from the Fed.

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year — or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that “only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The ‘error rate’ for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.”[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as “Saturday Night Specials.”

The government had no reasonable studies on the effectiveness of guns. Nevertheless, in this article there were two government agencies mentioned.

* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. [20] Justice Department study:

* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that “a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.” [21]

[20]U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.

[21]U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27.

It’s easy to see that the Fed has no interesting in good statistics around an armed populace. And the stats are even better in areas where people can carry concealed weapons.

Let’s chalk this one up as one for the good guys…the gun guys!

Hillary Clinton, Email Report & Statute Of Limitations

1. Will the "Statute Of Limitations" protect Ms. Hillary Clinton from prosecution under the appropriated sections of 18 US Code after January, 2017?

2. Will the FBI or Attorney General release the full and unedited investigation documents as to Ms. Clinton's violations of law and security-rules to The Congress and, better yet, to the People?

3. If later information is received that there was "hacking" into those classified emails, will the FBI then recommend prosecution?

4. Is Ms. Clinton's "intent" of any weight as to 18 US Code provisions noted below?

                                                         

                                                        NOTES

A. 18 U.S. Code § Sections 798 and 1924 
B. 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.


PS---She and her co-actor  should remember that the "Statute Of Limitations" does not apply to TREASON.

Numbers & Gun-People Control

I have not verified the below. However, "the numbers" appear consistent with those known to me. The political conclusions are "right on"!

Very Interesting Facts About Gun Control:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms.  That is not disputed. 
What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.

•    65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws

•    15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

•    17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons

•    3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually but drops to 5,100.

Still too many?  Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

•    480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago

•    344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore

•    333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit

•    119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities.  All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.  
This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per state.

  
That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others.  
For example, California had 1,169. Alabama had 1. 

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far?  California of course but understand, it is not the tool (guns) driving this.  It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific?

How about in comparison to other deaths?

All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime.  Robbery, death, rape, assault; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals. 

But what of other deaths?

•    40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!

·    36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths

•    34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good

•    200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical malpractice.

    • You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!

•    710,000 people die per year from heart disease.  Time to stop the cheeseburgers!

So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even 10% a decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.  Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! 

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?  

It's pretty simple.

Taking away guns gives control to governments.  
This is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact. 

Why is it impossible for the government to spill over into dictatorship?  
Why did the Japanese not even attempt to attack California in WWII?  
Because as they put it, there is a gun behind every blade of grass.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did.  
They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies because it is not difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.  
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the constitution.  
It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom 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 that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.  
A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."