Unalienable Rights vs. Security


Decl of Independence

Understanding Justin Smith’s essay, you have to understand the nature of Unalienable Rights:

 

Unalienable rights are those which God gave to man at the Creation, once and for all. By definition, since God granted such rights, governments could not take them away. In America, this fundamental truth is recognized and enshrined in our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence:

 

“[A]ll men are created equal…[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

It is important to understand that the very premise of our nation is the fact that these rights are “God-given.” If they are not given to us by an Authority higher than human government, then any government action to abolish those rights would be against God’s will. Rights that is subject to government restriction or license is called a privilege rather than a right. The Founding Fathers understood this principle and created a revolution in political theory by enacting, for the first time in history, a government specifically established to protect the rights that had been given to man by God. … (Unalienable rights; Conservapedia; page was last modified on 5/27/2016, at 14:52.)

 

The Founding Fathers considered self-defense an Unalienable Right and NOT a government given privilege. In the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, the Second Amendment is recognition of a God-given Right.

 

JRH 6/18/16

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Unalienable Rights vs. Security

Weapons of War

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 6/18/2016 1:58 PM

 

President Obama and U.S. Senators such as Chris Murphy (D-CT) are intellectually challenged in ascertaining the limits of their authority, when in the face of the worst act of domestic terrorism in decades, on June 12th in Orlando, FL, they divert time and resources from the real threat of Islam inspired terrorism to advocate, filibuster and place legislation for a vote designed to infringe upon, limit and impede the “unalienable” right to “keep and bear arms” under the Second Amendment. And in the process, they have placed the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments on the chopping block too.

 

Barely a day had passed, and with 49 Americans lying dead in the morgue and many more in Orlando regional Medical Center’s critical care unit fighting to stay alive, President Obama stated: “We have to make it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on weapons of war that let them kill dozens of innocents.”

 

“Weapons of War”? Damn Straight. Any firearm is a weapon of war and it is good for only one thing — killing; killing the robber, crazed drug addict, rapist or murderer breaking into one’s house, as innocent Americans fight a war on crime; and killing anyone, including a Muslim terrorist, on the street in defense of one’s self or a group of innocent bystanders. Even a single-shot revolver or a single-shot bolt action 30.06 can be “a weapon of war”, but more than that, whether a semi-automatic Sig Sauer CMX or a single-shot muzzle-loader, these are weapons for self-defense.

 

Obama and company have taken this crisis — this tragic, horrific act of Islamic terrorism — and twisted it towards their oppressive goals to place every principle of the Bill of Rights and every invaluable and most sacred privilege of man at the mercy of government. Self-defense is our “unalienable” right as witnessed in Nature’s Law, which is God’s Creation, and thus, our unalienable rights are God-given.

 

Rather than focus on the Muslim Students Association, an arm of the terroristic Muslim Brotherhood, which is busy on all of America’s college campuses advocating “grand jihad” against America, and unindicted terrorists like Siraj Wahhaj — a black Muslim convert, and indicted terrorists such as Ramadan Shalah — still fleeing the FBI, the Democrats are assaulting the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Rather than focus on mosques that spread anti-American, violent propaganda, like the Darul Uloom Institute [DTN info on founder Maulana Shafayat Mohamed] and the Husseini Islamic Center [Gay-hating Sheikh Dr. Farrokh Sekaleshfar spoke there], Democrats and Hillary Clinton would destroy our right to self-defense, as they echo Obama’s words.

 

A few weeks prior to Omar Mateen committing mass murder at Pulse Night Club, the Husseini Islamic Center of Orlando hosted an imam who preached that “gays must die”, according to Michelle Malkin on June 15th, and that Muslims should not “be embarrased about this … let’s get rid of them now.”

 

With full knowledge that the Islamic State terrorists are using Muslim immigration to infiltrate America and European nations, Obama still insists on bringing more Muslim “refugees” into the country, and simultaneously, he and his “progressive” fascists seek to disarm us all in the face of the greatest threat America has faced in decades. Whether they are Muslim American citizens or foreign born islamofascists, Americans are not fooled, and the pattern is clear from 9/11 to Ft Hood, Boston to Chattanooga and San Bernadino to Orlando.

 

Todd Starnes, conservative journalist, asked on June 15th, “… does he [Obama] plan on confiscating our pressure cookers?”

 

It is also worth noting that in 1995, Timothy McVeigh committed the worse most heinous act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building, murdering 168 Americans and wounding over 650 more. His weapon of choice? — 350 pounds of “Tovex Blastrite Gel” and approximately 2000 pounds of fertilizer and diesel fuel.

 

Incredibly (by the time this piece is released) the Senate is poised to vote on June 20th on a bill that effectively abrogates much of the Bill of Rights. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) caved to pressure from Chris Murphy’s recent filibuster and other harangues and harassment from Democrats Diane Feinstein (CA), Harry Reid (NV) and Chuck Schumer (NY). Feinstein’s bill blocks gun purchases by anyone on the vague and subjective “no-fly-list” and if “a reasonable belief” exists that he “may” use the gun “in connection with terrorism.” And if passed, it becomes too easy to strip anyone of their 2nd Amendment rights — political opponents, Christian conservatives, Veterans — anyone; through their own reasoning, half the Democratic Party would be disqualified from owning a firearm.

 

Under Feinstein’s bill “probable cause” and the entire premise underlying the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments, from one’s right to forcefully defend against any actual charge to facing one’s accuser and “due process” under the law is thrown out the window. This bill presumes one guilty without any crime having been committed, and it presents the same government officials who cannot protect America now as mind-readers seeking to prosecute “thought-crimes.” Feinstein’s bill rips the Bill of Rights asunder.

 

Howard Stern exclaimed on June 16th: “The sheepdogs are protecting you, but some of them can’t be with you all day. There’s not a sheepdog for every citizen, and a wolf is eating one of you every night. ‘Baaaaaaa, oh I know, let’s remove all the guns from the sheep.’ What?”

 

Less liberty is not the answer, but abolishing “gun-free zones” is certainly part of the solution. Stop giving cowards intent on murdering scores of Americans an easy access, free and open range of innocent Americans, who simply want to live their lives in freedom. Stop trying to illegally disarm U.S. citizens; otherwise, we will continue to witness one mass killing of defenseless innocents after another.

 

Even some in the LGBTQ community see the truth of the matter. Pink Pistols has 45 chapters across America. Their spokeswoman, Gwendolyn Patton recently stated: “… let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s [Mateen’s] guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people [and Americans] so much they were ready to kill. A human being did this [though this is debatable]. The human being’s tools are unimportant compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this … [Don’t] demonize the man’s tools … condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”

 

We saw Obama and the Democrats run roughshod over America concerning Obamacare, immigration and other laws, when they held the majority. Can you imagine what the Democrat “progressives” would do to the country if they could disarm all Americans?

 

The Framers of the Constitution would not ratify the Constitution until the Second Amendment was included. They knew that this one thing would always stand as a safeguard for all of our rights against any future government that might seek to once more impose tyranny on the people.

 

Our Second Amendment Rights, the rights of all Americans, are self-evident, inherent and inalienable, whether or not the disingenuous, uneducated and ill-informed idiots of the Far Left Democratic “Progressive” Party wish to acknowledge the fact, and whether or not those rights are written down in black and white on paper in a document anywhere, it does not make this fact any less true. And in this sense, any license, tax or regulation on the Second Amendment is unConstitutional, since Americans do not possess our natural rights by contract or grant from the federal government. Americans regained and secured their natural rights once upon a time by revolution, and we can do so again.

 

By Justin O. Smith

________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links as well text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

U.S. Dems and RINOs Shoot Down Kate’s Law


John R. Houk

© October 21, 2015

Senate Democrats and two idiot Republicans prevented the Kate’s Law legislation (HR 3011) from getting to the sixty votes needed to enforce defunding of cities, counties and other locations that refuse to enforce Federal law on criminal illegal aliens.

MAP: 340 sanctuary cities, counties and states

Here is the text of HR 3011 shot down by Democrats committed to illegal aliens even if they are committing crimes beyond illegal immigration:

114th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3011

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase the penalties applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after being removed.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 9, 2015

Mr. Salmon (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Zinke, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Clawson of Florida, Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Gosar, Mr. McClintock, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Marino, Mr. Ross, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Brat, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Blum, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Babin, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Yoho) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase the penalties applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after being removed.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015” or as “Kate’s Law”.

SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR REENTRY OF REMOVED ALIENS.

Section 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1326) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph (2) by striking “fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both” and inserting “imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 6 years”; and

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by striking “fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both” and inserting “imprisoned not less than 5 and not more than 10 years, and may, in addition, be fined under title 18, United States Code”;

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking “fined under such title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both” and inserting “imprisoned not less than 5 and not more than 20 years and may, in addition, be fined under such title”; and

(C) in paragraph (4), by striking “fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both” and inserting “imprisoned for not less than 5 and not more than 10 years and may, in addition, be fined under such title”. (H.R.3011 – Kate’s Law; Primary Sponsors – Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ); List of co-sponsors found HERE; Congress.gov; introduced 7/9/15)

This Senate vote should have been 100 for and zero against Kate’s Law. So YOU have to ask, “What in the devil is the reason ANY legislator would not support a law that protects AMERICAN CITIZENS from foreigners who illegally sneaked into the USA who commit crimes that if an American committed would be thrown in the slammer?

In the November 2016 election, why in the world would any registered AMERICAN voter vote for a Democrat that believes supporting the freedom of foreign criminals is more important than the safety and quality of life of an AMERICAN citizen or a LEGAL immigrant that entered our nation the correct way?

JRH 10/21/15

Please Support NCCR

**************************

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities

 

By Kelsey Harkness

October 20, 2015

The Daily Signal

Senate Democrats blocked legislation that would punish “sanctuary cities” in a 54-45 vote Monday afternoon.

The bill, called the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, needed to overcome a 60-vote threshold. It would withhold certain federal funding from states or cities that refuse to comply with requests from federal immigration officials to turn over immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Kate’s Law Senate Yeas and Nays

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., introduced the legislation, which includes a provision known as Kate’s Law, named after 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was fatally shot in San Francisco on July 1. The bill would impose a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for illegal immigrants who are convicted of re-entering the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony or have three strikes for trying to enter the country illegally.

VIDEO: Vitter Urges Colleagues to Support Today’s Sanctuary Cities Vote

 

Published by Senator David Vitter

Published on Oct 20, 2015

Today, U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) spoke on the Senate floor urging his colleagues to support his legislation, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act, which would withhold certain federal funding from sanctuary states or cities that fail to comply with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued detainer requests for illegal aliens. The bill would redirect these funds to states and localities that follow the law.

Vitter has been pushing to defund sanctuary cities since 2007, when he served as chairman of the Border Security Caucus.

Sanctuary policies vary from state to state, but they generally prevent local authorities from cooperating with federal immigration officers, allowing those localities to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation. There are currently 340 sanctuary cities in the United States, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

The issue of sanctuary cities gained national attention when Steinle was killed this summer by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had seven prior felony convictions in the U.S. and had been deported to Mexico five separate times. He was released from a San Francisco jail in April under a city law barring the jail’s deputies from informing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of his release, despite the agency’s previous notification request.

Opponents of the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act question the taxpayer cost of implementing mandatory minimums at a time when Congress is working to reform the criminal justice system. Some, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., even mocked the legislation, calling it the “Donald Trump Act.”

“This Donald Trump Act was designed to demonize immigrants and spread the myth that they are criminals and threats to the public,” Reid said on Monday.

During his bid for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination, Trump highlighted Steinle’s death as an example of why the country needs stricter immigration policies.

In July, the White House issued a veto threat on similar legislation that passed in the House, saying the measure “undermines current administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals.”

Earlier this month, the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that supports reduced immigration, identified the 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered sanctuary locations.

[Blog Editor: The Daily Signal inserted the CIS map on sanctuary locations at this point that I used above.]

A government report commissioned for Congress by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that sanctuary cities released more than 9,000 illegal immigrants whom federal authorities were seeking to deport between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2014. As of last year, 69 percent of those were still at large in the United States.

Of those still at large, 1,377 had another criminal arrest that resulted in the detainer. Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.

______________________

U.S. Dems and RINOs Shoot Down Kate’s Law

John R. Houk

© October 21, 2015

___________________

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities

Kelsey Harkness is a news producer at The Daily Signal.Send an email to Kelsey.

About The Daily Signal

The Daily Signal delivers investigative and feature reporting and the most important political news and commentary. The team is committed to truth and unmatched in knowledge of Washington’s politics and policy debates. We tell these stories in formats that respect your time and intelligence.

VIDEO: What Is The Daily Signal?

 

READ THE REST