Dec 10, 2015

Before we go off on Trump for being a facist, well Listen to Pat Buchanan on keeping the bad people OUT

by Pat Buchanan  - conservative comentator, advisor to Nixon, Ford, Reagan

Calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” Donald Trump this week ignited a firestorm of historic proportions.
As all the old hate words – xenophobe, racist, bigot – have lost their electric charge from overuse, Trump was being called a fascist demagogue and compared to Hitler and Mussolini.
The establishment seemed to have become unhinged.
Why the hysteria? Comes the reply: Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration tramples all over “American values” and everything we stand for, including the Constitution.
But is this really true?
The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime.
In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States.
Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.
Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land.
Did this represent 40 years of fascism?
Why might Trump want a moratorium on Muslim immigration?
Reason 1: terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists were Muslim, as were the shoe and underwear bombers on those planes, the Fort Hood shooter, the Times Square bomber and the San Bernardino killers.
And as San Bernardino showed again, Islamist terrorists are exploiting our liberal immigration policies to come here and kill us.
Thus, a pause, a timeout on immigration from Muslim countries, until we fix the problem, would seem to be simple common sense.
Second, Muslims are clearly more susceptible to the siren call of terrorism and more likely to be radicalized on the Internet and in mosques than are Christians at church or Jews at synagogue.
Which is why we monitor mosques more closely than cathedrals.
Third, according to Harvard’s late Samuel Huntington, a “clash of civilizations” is coming between the West and the Islamic world. Other scholars somberly concur. But if such a conflict is in the cards, how many more millions of devout Muslims do we want inside the gates?
Set aside al-Qaida, ISIS and their sympathizers. Among the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide are untold millions of followers of the Prophet who pray for the coming of a day when Shariah is universal and the infidels, i.e., everyone else, are either converted or subjugated.
In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone?
With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?
Many European nations – Germans, French, Swedes, Brits – appear to regret having thrown open their doors to immigrants and refugees from the Islamic world, who have now formed unassimilated clusters and enclaves inside their countries.
Ought we not explore why, before we continue down this road?
In some countries of the Muslim world, Americans who embrace “Hollywood values” regarding abortion, adultery and homosexuality can get their heads chopped off as quickly as converts to Christianity.
In what Muslim countries does Earl Warren’s interpretation of the First Amendment – about any and all religious presence being banned in public schools and all religions being treated equally – apply?
When is the next “Crusade for Christ” coming to Saudi Arabia?
Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?
President Obama and the guilt-besotted West often bawl their apologies for the horrors of the Crusades that liberated Jerusalem.
Anyone heard Muslim rulers lately apologizing for Saladin, who butchered Christians to take Jerusalem back, or for Suleiman the Magnificent, who conquered the Christian Balkans rampaging through Hungary all the way to the gates of Vienna?
Trump’s surge this week, in the teeth of universal denunciation, suggests that a large slice of America agrees with his indictment – that our political-media establishment is dumb as a box of rocks and leading us down a path to national suicide.
Trump’s success tells us that the American people really do not celebrate “globalization.” They think our negotiators got snookered out of the most magnificent industrial machine ever built, which once guaranteed our workers the highest standard of living on earth.
They don’t want open borders or mass immigration. They want people here illegally to be sent back, the borders secured and a moratorium imposed on Muslim immigration until we fix the broken system.
As for the establishment, they are saying pretty much what The Donald is saying. To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell’s speech to the Rump Parliament:
You have sat here too long for any good you have done here. In the name of God, go!


Dec 7, 2015

Supreme Court decides to keep letting cities ban assault weapons

The Supreme Court declined Monday to weigh in on whether cities and states can ban assault weapons, sidestepping a charged debate rekindled by a series of mass shootings around the country.
In refusing to take the case known as Friedman v. Highland Park, the court — at least for now — lets to stand a lower court's ruling in favor of the Illinois city's prohibition and, by extension, several similar bans in place in municipalities around the country.
The case stemmed from an ordinance Highland Park enacted in 2013 prohibiting residents from owning any assault weapons. Arie Friedman and the Illinois State Rifle Association challenged the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to uphold the ban.
The city’s ordinance defines an assault weapon as any semi‐automatic gun that can accept a large‐capacity magazine and has one of five other features: a pistol grip without a stock; a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock; a grip for the non‐trigger hand; a barrel shroud; or a muzzle brake or compensator. Some weapons, such as the AR‐15 and AK‐47, are prohibited by name.
Friedman and the National Rifle Association argued that the ordinance substantially restricts their options for armed self‐defense.
Highland Park contended that its ordinance was valid because weapons with large‐capacity magazines are dangerous and unusual. 
Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented from the court’s decision to reject the case, saying the court has recognized in past cases that the Second Amendment applies fully against the states as well as the federal government.

Justice Ginsberg says the 2nd amendment was NEVER to define rights to individuals...

IT was created to keep state MILITIAS...since the Young America couldn't afford an army.   READ ON

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Second Amendment
"The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."
But, Justice Ginsburg explains, "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So...the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."
As for the Heller case, decided by the Court in 2008, Justice Ginsburg says, "If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."
Via @Linda Anne Brown