American Values vs Middle East Refugees

Recently some have questioned what exactly are American values. . American values are based in our founding documents; there is probably not an American that at one time has not said "this is a free country". We are also a country of indivual rights; that all men are created equal (endowed with rights that can not be taken away by a government). We are a country of laws, not men and of course what has been coined the Protestant work ethic; in our free country self generated hard work, discipline, frugality and delayed gratification is the key to success and godliness. Like any moral code we often fall short, but as long as we strive toward such lofty goals, we will continue to get closer.

The vast majority of those coming from middle east countries are not immigrants; they are refugees, with no desire to assimilate into American jurisprudence . When the Syrian and Libyan refugees (most are military aged men that don't want to be forced into service with ISIS) are questioned, about a quarter back the mission of ISIS and over 95% prefer Sharia law over the American Criminal Justice system. Many of these refugees, when they settle in non-Muslim countries want to live in segregated communities ruled by Sharia law, and while other countries are welcome to do what they want, this is not possible in America, as it is in direct contradiction to the Constitution and our system of Criminal Justice. Further. "these seven nations were not chosen at random. They were all singled out as exceptional security risks in the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015 and its 2016 extension. In fact, President Trump’s order does not even name the seven countries. It merely refers to the sections of U.S. Code that were changed by the Terrorist Prevention Act". The fact is there is a reason these countries were named as provocateurs of terrorism and just becasue they have not yet murdered anyone in the US yet, does not mean the terrorists from these countries have not wreaked havoc and murdered in other countries. And while some have questioned the nature of the roll out of President Trumps "extreme vetting", US intelligence, ICE and Homeland Security have said that this type vetting has been too long over due.

Speaking of Criminal Justice, there is nothing that President Trump has done that is in any way illegal. It was Obama that continually talked with contempt about the Constitutional restrictions of the Executive Branch, including the separation of powers. The reason President Trump can so easily strike down the legacy of Obama is becasue he never used the rule of law to create his policies, rather he attempted to rule by fiat with Executive Actions; and what was created by Presidential decree, can just as easily be revoked by Presidential decree. As a matter of fact, much of what President Trump has done is to demand by EA that currently laws be enforced, rather than be ignored as was done by Obama's EA. Yet you have Democrats that will insist that any policy they don't like must be illegal, and even more absurd, that the enforcement of current law is unconstitutional; you just can't make stuff like this up! No one would believe such things would occur in the real world (until it does).

2014 More Democrat Mis-information to Come

As I wrote in the past, the Democrats own ObamaCare lot, stock and barrel and have had complete control of it's structure and rollout; but this has not stopped the Democrats for somehow trying to blame the Republicans for it's failings, ObamaCare is Flawed Because of the Republicans. What? and expect to see more of the same in 2014; and since this will threaten the 2014 midterms for the Democrats, expect it will become very ugly.

While it appears ObamaCare was preparatory for singlepayer (socialized medicine), the Democrats biggest fear is the roll out of ObamaCare was so much worse than they expected (it was meant to be a failure, but not this bad) that the citizenry will see the government is simply incapable running of their heathcare period; this regardless of Medicare which is quickly collapsing under it's won weight. A National Single Healthcare Based on Medicare. Welcome to Hell. Since their lies show they have never really been concerned about affordability and quality of the healthcare of the citizenry, their only concerned right now is how to blame this debacle on the Republicans. This has been problematic as the Republicans been united in their opposition to ObamaCare. The only tactic for the Democrats has been to blame the Republicans opposition to ObamaCare for it's failure. The main street media have obliged by publishing articles like this Professor Blames Southern White Radicals for ObamaCare Debacle that claim the failure of ObamaCare was due to Southern White Radicals (racist). You also see that the Republican House has voted to repeal ObamaCare near 40 times. The problem with this reasoning is Republicans have been unable to affect the roll out one iota, as they simply don't have the votes to do anything to slow down, defund, change, or affect ObamaCare in any way shape or form. But expect to see more of this, as all the Democrats have is lies and misinformation. 

Resurrecting the Anti-gun Militia Argument

Back in January 2013, I wrote an article attacking the notion that are founding fathers never intended for the 2nd Amendment to include anything other than the weapons that were known in there time The Second Amendment for Muskets? Today I'll be looking at what I call the "Militia Clause" argument, which was settled in the Supreme Court decision of Washington DC vs Heller, but like other anti-gun rhetoric it is and will continue to be resurrected from the dead hoping someone will listen. The following letter was written to the Santa Cruz Sentential Dec 18, 2013. It is a great letter as it not only contains, "Militia Clause" argument, but it also shows the real intention of the left is to disarm the entire citizenry.  

Tom Snell; Why is it that no one mentions the opening words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." Bearing arms was specifically so our nation could have a well-regulated militia, not so we could pretend that by owning lots and lots of guns, we can somehow defend ourselves from each other. Be careful gun owners -- the super wealthy gun industry wants you to be very scared so you will buy and they will profit. But I contend that more guns are more dangerous, not less so. To keep our communities safe, I challenge us all to have the courage to give up our guns with the possible exception of a hunting rifle. And for those people, they and their guns should be licensed and trained the way we license automobiles and require a periodic driver's test.

My response; Tom, why do people like you think you can logically define the contextual meaning of a word or phrase, in a vacuum of legal findings and historical context. This from the Case Brief  of the Holding of the Supreme Court case Heller vs Washington DC http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc..."The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Further,  Scalia wrote for the majority,  "The prefatory clause'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

You can challenge Americans all you want, but you live in a cloistered bubble if you think gun ownership and the NRA are all about the super wealthy gun industry; the more the left wants to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans, the more guns they buy. Further most Americans believe that there are a lot more important issues than additional gun restrictions (gun restrictions always rate very low when the citizenry is polled about what they want from government http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.... Crime rates continue to plummet as do gun crimes, except in areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the local government have disarmed the citizenry yet ignore federal gun restrictions; in other words new gun restrictions are a solution looking for a problem. In California there are laws that allow the police to track down criminals and mental patients and take away their guns ; but these laws continued to be unenforced (they are backed logged to the tune of 20,000 illegal gun owners) as the legislature continues to come up with laws that further restricts firearms to law abiding citizens. http://articles.latimes.com/20...

More gun control is simply a liberal issue that does nor resound with most Americans; but they certainly don't like being lied to about their healthcare. If you want to argue an issue important to you, you should at least do a little research before you base an argument on the way you interpret some wording you really don't understand.

The Truth will Stop Liberalism

There is a truism that says if you want to make a conservative mad, tell a lie; if you want to make liberal mad; tell the truth. We are now seeing this truism play out, and in this case it's the truth about the lies that are fundamental to liberalism. "You can keep your plan if you like it." Nine words that has stopped President Obama and liberalism in it's tracks. It is well known that most Americans did not like President Obama's policies, but the left leaning main street media was so overboard in it's villainization of the Bush administration, that the people voted for hope and change. And even though the President proceeded to go back on practically every promise he made, he was somehow insulated from theses policies and the American people by in large still trusted Obama. Liberals exist on misplaced trust, so when the average Americans personally felt the pain and experienced the loss of their own health Insurance, and it became clear Obama and the Democrats in Congress had knowingly lied about ObamaCare, they finally realized they had been scammed. And with trust gone, the hubris of liberalism is laid bare for all to see.

Obama's Greatest Political Blunder; Being Truthful About His Agenda

For the first time President Obama, in campaigning for the NSA's  communications monitoring programs, he is not only attaching himself to a policy, but to the end results as well;  this has resulted in his popularity falling  9% in one month and 17% with the under 30 voters that expected their emails and facebook would be private from the government. Even some media voices such as Gloria Borger from CNN, says the President needs to lead the conversation on the NSA, while also separating himself from these unpopular government policies.  “He (President Obama) didn’t expect to have these problems on his hands,” Borger added. “I mean, who would have thought that the constitutional scholar, the man who came in against the war, would have to be dealing with the question of arming the rebels in Syria, drones, NSA surveillance, leaks, and all these kinds of issues". The problem with this is all of these issues are of the President's own making; while promising one thing he is delivering another and with the NSA scandal he has dropped his populist rhetoric completely and is leading the conversation contrary to the will of even his past followers. Borger explains this with her comment "I think they're (voters) starting to link the president and their lack of trust in him to the government." So instead of viewing the President independently campaigning from the outside, voters are beginning to realize that the President is actually part of the government they don't trust.

The Purpose of Guns is Not to Kill People

An interesting truth that is often ignored even by those that are gun advocates, is that guns are designed to stop people from whatever they are doing, not kill them. Granted, in the process of stopping them you will likely kill them and the very act of firing a weapon is an act where the use of deadly force needs to be justified,  but killing the suspect is rarely the intended purpose. Now I'm not saying this because I think one should shoot to wound, I am saying this because if the average citizen or even police officer shoots and wounds a suspect, and the suspect is then no longer a threat, practically none will walk up on the wounded suspect and finish them off; is killing the suspect was the purpose they would! The police are taught to shoot at the center of mass at a human silhouette target. This is not because shooting a person center of mass has a greater probability of killing a human target, but because shooting center of mass increases the probability of hitting a human target, thus increasing the probability of stopping a suspect. The left has based all it's anti-gun rhetoric that all guns have one purpose; to kill. That even target shooters are only honing their skills for hunting and/or killing; never mind that of the 100 million gun owners in the US, only 37.7 million have participated in hunting of some kind. Therefore the idea that gun is actually a tool to stop someone from doing harm usually results in extreme responses. This Thursday I called KSCO and talked with Mark Silverman who had as a guest West Holts, from California Gun Talk. My call was in response of an incredibly stupid remark by Silverman. Silverman was discussing an incident where a female shot a male intruder 5 times with a handgun and the intruder survived. Silverman then said since the female didn't kill the suspect with 5 rounds there would be no reason for her to have a large capacity magazine, the impetus being since the only purpose of a gun is to kill people, the victim had somehow failed to protect herself because she didn't kill the intruder and would not need more ammunition if there were more intruders because she had already shown she wouldn't be able to kill them. When I said that she had accomplished her goal by stopping the intruder from doing her harm, which is the same reason a police officer uses deadly force, to stop someone from committing a violent act. At this Silverman cut me off, stated off the cuff that the police are not taught to shoot at knees and hung up on me; expect this result from the left because it is poison to their script..

When deadly force is justified, to sole purpose is to stop the perpetrator; whether it results in the perpetrator's death or not is really inconsequential.

Redistribution By Any Other Name

On the pages of the Santa Cruz Sentinel Opinion section a local World History Professor and unsurprisingly a progressive David Sweet, tries to reintroduce the liberal argument for the redistribution of wealth by simply using different terms. Instead of the old "social justice" terminology he discusses "Defining-and achieving-the Common Good". Here is a small sample.

Without a serious and sustained commitment to achieving and maintaining the common good, Lincoln's quaint notion of a government "of the people, by the people, and [especially] for the people" is nothing but a mockery.
The argument for electing candidates with a well-articulated and reliable commitment to the common good such as several of those we've been fortunate to have the opportunity to vote for in Santa Cruz County over the years becomes much less airy-fairy if we recognize that the common good is synonymous with any genuine "homeland security." The only secure country is one in which there is a broad consensus that government does its best to see to the well-being, not primarily of corporations or the rich or powerful, but of all of the governed.The problem with this argument is by definition it is an overreaching government that has all but obliterated any sense of the “common good”. The reason it is not included in the Declaration of Independence nor is it in the US Constitution, is because, like social justice, the common good, when applied to government is simply another euphemism for redistribution of wealth. The concept of a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people," has seen its death knoll, as government has become a separate entity, not of (and certainly not for) the people. The true common good is the result not of “the people” but as individuals freely giving in support of their neighbor based primarily on religious beliefs and reciprocity. The farther this giving and support extends beyond a neighborhood, the more demanding and tyrannical it becomes. We are left with the fascist like ravings of Jim Wallis who teaches that true Christianity is forced re-distribution of wealth through a supposed benevolent Marxist regime.

One either believes that the people will define the common good as the need arises, or government will become their master as it defines the common good as it’s need to acquire more authority. According to President Obama if the Constitution "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." The document, he argued, "Says what the states can't do to you, says what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf." That remark and David Sweet defining the common good as the job of government, shows a shocking ignorance of the purpose of the United States Constitution. By definition a socialist defines not the actions of the people, but the actions of government as the common good; so the common good simply becomes serfdom to the government. It is the continuing attack against our founding fathers belief that a people can truly govern themselves.