The Law Cannot Keep You Safe from Harm . . . Only You Can Do That

Standard

In light of what happened in Chicago recently, it is important to understand that, for the most part, in spite of what some claim, our crimiinal laws, even when coupled with Hate Crime Legislation, do NOT shield any of us from harm!

How could they possibly do that?

If someone physically attacks you, criminal laws provide for the attacker’s apprehension and punishment and may later provide you some measure of financial compensation for pain and suffering but the attack happened, it is now a fact of your life and there is no Constitutional or even moral way the law could have prevented that. Criminal law is actually less effective than a home security system or some kind of personal security device that notifies emergency services at the push of a button.

Adding “Hate Crime Legislation” to that criminal law does not add another layer of protection for a member of a “protected class” of people. Hate Crime Legislation does, however, add some disincentives for the criminal. If it can be discerned that the crime was created against a member of a “protected class”, solely due to the victim’s race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity, the punishment for the perpetrator is more severe. If on the other hand, the crime was committed because of an animus for that particular individual, even if he or she belongs to a protected class, it is not necessarily a hate crime.

The overall point of this post is to make sure that the reader understands that most criminal laws do not shield you from harm, they simply provide you the satisfaction of seeing that your attacker will be punished and they will possibly provide some financial aid to you, the victim.

If you want to be safe from criminals you really have to do it yourself!

* Obtain and use those home or personal security devices.

* If you are able-bodied enough, invest in some self defense training.

* Obtain a weapon and, most importantly, learn the rules for using it. If you don’t know when and where you can legally defend yourself you might wind up with serious legal problems.

There are plenty of laws ‘on the books’ that protect and/or punish the criminal and, to be fair, plenty of laws that benefit victims, but protecting yourself from a crime is pretty much up to you.

Advertisements

The Pejoritive “Racist” Is Intentionally Being Misused

Standard

I dislike hip-hop music, hearing the English Language mangled, abused and cheapened by hip-hop artists is painful. Artists?  If artist is defined as someone who can create something ugly, yes than I guess they are artists. (Personal preferences are still legal!)

These few outspoken and honest personal preferences will, I’m sure, quickly get me labeled as a racist — but only by people who are too illiterate to understand the definition of racist, just as these same illiterate people quickly branded Donald Trump as a racist because he called Justice Gonzalo Curiel a Mexican and insinuated that, because of his Mexican heritage he will not adjudicate the Trump University lawsuit fairly.

I’m not saying that Donald Trump does not have Foot-In-Mouth disease; he does! What I’m saying is, it is ignorant to brand someone a racist for a single comment that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with ethnicity and politics. (Go HERE to be reminded of the difference between ethnicity and race.)

A “racist” in particular is defined as a person who believes that one race should control all others or that a particular race is inferior to his or her own (Merriam-Webster).

Obviously “racist” does not apply to Donald Trump and, as obvious, is the fact that individuals and media figures who use this pejorative about Donald Trump are creating their own definitions for their own benefit.

It’s obvious that Trump, before the foot went in the mouth, should have not only mentioned but highlighted Judge Curiel’s membership in the “California La Raza Lawyers Association” and this Associations ties to the National Council de La Raza (the Council of “The Race”). LaRaza is infamous for its opposition to existing immigration laws and gets absolutely rabid at the mention of a wall on the Mexican border; a wall like the one Donald Trump has promised to build, to stop the constant influx of illegal immigrants into the United States. LaRaza is also a supporter of sanctuary cities (Trump is an opponent of the sanctuary city model), where illegal aliens are protected from immigration laws.

Yes, the United States is a country that was, at least in a sense, “built” by immigrants, but the vast majority of them were here in the United States legally and later became citizens. Now, however, there are so many immigrants here illegally that there is no way to account for them and increasingly no way to continue paying for their education, housing, health care, etc. without great sacrifices on the part of American citizens and on the part of those immigrants who are here legally.legally. Now, however, there are so many immigrants here illegally that there is no way to account for them and increasingly no way to continue paying for their education, housing, health care, etc. without great sacrifices on the part of American citizens and on the part of those immigrants who are here legally.legally and later became citizens. Now, however, there are so many immigrants here illegally that there is no way to account for them and increasingly no way to continue paying for their education, housing, health care, etc. without great sacrifices on the part of American citizens and on the part of those immigrants who are here legally.

The obvious problem then is not any good or evil Trump University might have fostered, the problem is a judge who is very likely to rule against Trump University, not based on the facts but based on the Trump University founder’s political stances.

Huckabee and the Law

Standard

Huffington Post Headline: “Mike Huckabee On Kim Davis: Obey The Law Only ‘If It’s Right'”
(The GOP presidential hopeful wants citizens to disobey the Supreme Court ruling.)

Mike (God is my Vice President) Huckabee, already out of the running for president, except in the eyes of the most other-worldly Evangelicals), has now effectively trashed his credibility as a presidential candidate.

“Only if it’s right,” Huck? In whose eyes?

There are many thousands of American’s who still think that, in spite of existing laws, openly selling highly-addictive drugs to all who want them is ‘right.’ Should they just go ahead and do their thing? Go ahead and break the law because they don’t think it’s ‘RIGHT?’

Of course not; and I know Huck would agree with me on that because that could not, even in a Disney movie, be depicted as a victimless crime. But neither is the crime that Huck is so readily encouraging his minions to commit, a victimless crime; the crime of taking away the legal rights of tens-of-thousands of gay Americans because HE and his church disagree with their lifestyle.

For everyone, except those with their eyes firmly closed, it’s obvious that the “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment was being misinterpreted as permission to mess with the lives and Constitutional rights of those who fall outside of “accepted religious belief and ritual.”

When Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was written into law, the Supreme Court was recognizing and responding to the fact that the clear majority of states (37 out of 50) had already legalized gay marriage; but it’s pure folly to hope that the religious far Right will ever agree with the clear (and growing) majority on the subject of religion.

Speaking of the Religious Far Right: Justice Scalia, in the meantime, is bouncing off the walls. Scalia’s dissenting opinion is a scathing attack; surprisingly not attacking the majority opinion itself, but attacking the right of the Supreme Court to write that or any opinion into law.

Following is an excerpt from “The Big Think” titled: “Scalia’s Dissent in the Gay Marriage Ruling is a Dangerous Attack on American Democracy Itself:”

“(Scalia) is rejecting the very right of the Supreme Court on which he sits to adjudicate disputes where the answer requires interpretation of the Constitution, (which is of course precisely what the court did when it interpreted the Second Amendment to enshrine the personal right to own guns, an opinion Scalia wrote), a role that has proven to be a corner stone of American democracy. Because he is upset by this ruling (legalizing gay marriage), Justice Scalia directly rejects the authority of the court itself.”

This is the equivalent of a judicial nervous breakdown, as is illustrated by this excerpt directly from Scalia’s minority opinion:

“… the Federal Judiciary, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers, is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this court, which consist of only nine men and women, successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale law school. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner. (California does not count.) Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans) or even a Protestant of any denomination. … To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

How about that as an example of allowing personal opinion to trash the rights of others and even the right of the Supreme Court to exist.

That said, I can’t help but agree with his unstated accusations that 1) The concept of Supreme Court Justice For LIFE is one that needs a closer look and 2) The Supreme Court inserting itself into the question of marriage is ludicrous.

The Folly of Birthright Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

Standard

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

This Amendment was created for the sole purpose of insuring that the children of slaves would be considered citizens and given the rights and privileges due to all U.S. Citizens.

Jacob Merritt Howard (1805 – 1871) was a U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator from the state of Michigan during and after the American Civil War. Senator Howard was also the author of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. In his writings, he was very clear about  who would fall within the “jurisdiction of the United States. Here is what he wrote:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the United States this will NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, those who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the legislation and jurisprudence of this country.”

This is from the guy who actually drafted the Citizenship clause of the 14th amendment. Is there any doubt about what the clause is saying? Only in the minds of those who refuse to acknowledge the history of the 14th Amendment and those who refuse to apply common sense to the reality of illegal immigration and birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship has been misapplied to hundreds of thousands of children who just happened to be in the United States when they were born, the children of illegal immigrants who heard there was an easy way to get into the United States without bothering with paperwork, learning anything about American history, American Law or all the other things that the people who do things the right way and who want to become Americans, not just foreign residents,  have to do.

Apply some common sense to the situation! How ludicrous is it that anyone really believes that coming to America and birthing a baby while here would actually/magically make that baby an American. It is ludicrous, but yet the majority of politicians, judges and immigrants believe it and they actually started practicing and legalizing this fictitious birthing ritual.

If you are pregnant, try it yourself. Wait until the date the baby is due and then go to a foreign country (if you’re on a budget just go North to Canada or South to Mexico) have your baby at an airport or bus terminal and try to claim that the baby is now a citizen of that country and you and the baby can stay in the country with no contest from the country’s legal system. You can be sure, if you don’t wind up in a prison cell, you will be on a bus, plane or train on your way back to the United States as soon as the country’s immigration officials can get you there.

Canada, in fact did, once upon a time, practice the same fictitious birthing ritual that the United States is now practicing. They allowed any baby born in country to become a citizen. Thousands of Orientals took advantage of their serendipitous interpretation of birthright citizenship until it got so bad the Canadian government had to finally end that practice. They were left with thousands of new oriental citizens but it ended right there. ‘Bout time we did the same.

My source and inspiration for this fact filled journey through birthright citizenship is “The Great One”, researcher, Constitutional lawyer and Constitutional expert Dr. Mark Levin. (and in case you didn’t know, he also has a daily, National radio show.

You’ll find many Mark Levin videos on Youtube and his many books in bookstores or your local library.

Now if you think Donald Trump (who by the way is right about the “Anchor Baby” situation) is a bit too caustic most of the time, you’ll find that Mark Levin is even moreso. If that’s not enough for you, check out Michael Savage on Youtube (in bookstores, libraries and on the radio) he also has common sense and understands what a ridiculous lark it is to endow citizenship on the babys of Illegals.

Levin, Savage and Trump are all right on this issue and Trump is the ONLY presidential candidate with enough commonsense and guts to say it out loud.

Obama Gets Another Sycophant, Attorney General Designate Loretta Lynch

Standard

Our newly confirmed United States Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, is the nation’s top “Law Enforcement Officer,” but like her predecessor and like virtually every official in the Obama administration, when it comes to illegal immigration, she has no respect for the law or for the rights of the citizens of the United States,

Wednesday, during a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) asked Lynch: “who has a greater right to work: Illegal aliens, or lawful immigrants and American citizens?. The question itself should cast doubt on Sen. Sessions ability to address the issue intelligently; it implies that Illegal aliens have a questionable right to work in the United States, when common sense and existing laws reject that possibility.

The Attorney General designate’s answer leaves no doubt that she is not qualified to hold the position she was just confirmed to  she stated: “I believe the right and the obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in this country, regardless of how they came here.” She went on to expound on her personal philosophy, which she probably hoped obscured her answer. Bottom line: Lynch believes: ‘the law be damned, Obama is entitled to get what he wants.’

I have no doubt that our congress as a whole is so irresolute that Obama WILL, in the end, get his way on immigration just as the Judiciary Committee gave him his new sycophant.

In my View: The only right any illegal alien in the United States may have is the possible “right to remain silent” until they have legal counsel and even that is probably not an enforceable “legal right”.

Handling Our Border Crisis — The Obama Way

Standard

President Obama wants to spend 3.7 Billion taxpayer dollars in an effort that “he HOPES” will help resolve the mess he helped create at our southern border. He wants to handle illegal immigration on a case by case basis through a new and improved legal system (hmmm, something wrong with that — perhaps the name should be changed to the “Illegal System”) and build nicer detention centers to keep the illegals ‘comfy’ while they wait for the ‘wheels of justice to get up to speed. I would bet that the first deportation hearing will not begin for six months to a year while the Washington “genius'” are re-creating current immigration laws to make them kinder and gentler. (You know that’s going to happen don’t you?) All this time we are feeding and caring for them and you can bet that every judge that is appointed to hear these cases will be a push-over for “doe-eyed” children and adults with particularly poignant “sob stories”.

I say we should deport every illegal we can find! They are not here because we invited them, they are not here because they can contribute to the economy or welfare of the country! We have a U.S. Embassy in virtually every major city in the world! That’s why THEY are there; to handle applications for asylum in the U.S. as well as applications for legal entry into the United States. If our embassy’s are incapable of doing that, lets “beef THEM up” before more refugees and asylum seekers get to our borders.

The answer to the unasked question ‘why are deportation hearings necessary?’ eludes me. Only American Citizens or those holding valid visas should logically be granted any legal rights or be entitled to due process under our laws and under our Constitution. If you are not wanted in a person’s house, you have no legal rights to be there and the owner of the house has every legal right to eject you. Don’t you think that that principle of ‘private property’ should apply to our borders? If not then we are no longer a sovereign country.

But our president has vowed that if we don’t do it HIS way he will ‘do it himself.’ Now THAT I believe, or that he will at least try.

If there is any way to stop our government from going into a 2-month recess, now is the time to pull it out of a hat. While the cats are away, the rat will play. Leaving Obama alone, virtually in control of the government and in control of America’s future is like leaving your twin six-year olds alone in you home for a weekend. They will break everything.

Oh yes, the president says he wants to beef up our border security and he wants to speed deportations — but only a fool would believe that. He owns the Justice Department who are the people who will be controlling this grand scheme and if you look at the last 6 years of the Obama administration you will notice that he does not like the thought of a strong United States. He has continually tried to turn our once powerful, influential, militarily dominant United States into his fantasy version of a third-world country that is ripe for the picking of our enemies. He has continually tried to subvert our Constitution and now he is attempting to virtually eliminate our sovereignty.

Revisiting “The Homophobic Baker”

Standard

Arizona Senate Bill 1062 was one of several similar bills in U.S. state legislatures allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs. The bill was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and then, on February 26, 2014, unexpectedly vetoed by Republican Governor Jan Brewer.

Remember? There was a baker in Arizona who refused, because of his religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The lawsuit that arose out of that situation was one of the prime factors behind AZ SB-1062.

I posted an article on this blog last December “The Case of the Homophobic Baker”  condemning the baker based on Federal anti-discrimination laws that make it illegal and legally actionable for a business to discriminate against members of protected classes. “What Is, IS!” It’s a law and we have to follow it or face legal penalties.

What I didn’t realize at the time (and still do not understand why) was that every state has a different list of protected classes. Isn’t this Federal legislation? Doesn’t Federal legislation automatically trump state legislation?  Guess not! That teaches me to try and think logically about any aspect of the Federal Government. Just because LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgendered) individuals were added to the Federal ‘list’ of protected classes, it apparently does not mean that every state has to add them to their state anti-discrimination legislation. Arizona, at least at that point at the beginning of this year, does not have anti-discrimination legislation that covers LGBT individuals.

So, going back to the baker who I condemned as a law breaker; I was wrong! What IS in many states, IS NOT in Arizona.

I’m not saying that discrimination based on a person’s sexual identity is in any way right, or that this particular baker is not reprehensible but, at least in Arizona, it’s apparently perfectly legal and justified to be a religious bigot.

Governor Brewer faced a hail-storm of criticism because of her veto of SB-1062 and it primarily came from religious bigots who identify themselves (as most do) as Conservatives. Thanks however to Governor Brewer, as much as she may have wanted to as a Conservative politician, she could not bring herself to sign that legislation that would potentially allow uncontrolled religious discrimination. As part of her statement after the veto she said:

“Religious liberty is a core American and Arizona value. So is non-discrimination.”

Unfortunately Gov. Brewer made that good decision based on a common misconception. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was put in place not to protect citizens from unwarranted religious bigotry but to protect religions from government interference. All that, however, has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws; they were put in place to protect citizens from racial, sexual, and religious bigotry. Either way, the “Homophobic Baker” comes out a loser (not to mentions being an incompetent businessman).

Read about the case:

CNN Politics: “Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoes controversial anti-gay bill, SB 1062