Ban them all!

An attack by two Italian immigrant anarchist has resulted in more death and mayhem. It's past time we ended this scourge of Anarchist immigration. Even if it does bar whole peoples and nations.

These Italians do not share our religion, nor our values. How many Americans must die, how many of our vaunted traditions must be trampled upon before we get this?

Those who criticized the President's demand for a curtailment of immigration based on beliefs, where are they now? How many more must die?

OH, wait, my bad. That was back in 1918. Let's see, it's 2017, about to be 2018.

Ahh. I'm up to speed now.

An attack by an Uzbekistani immigrant ISIS member has resulted in more death and mayhem. It's past time we ended this scourge of Islamic immigration. Even if it does bar whole people and nations.

These Uzbekistanis do not share our religion, nor our values. How many Americans must die, how many of our vaunted traditions must be trampled upon before we get this?

Those who criticized the President's demand for a curtailment of immigration based on beliefs, where are they now? How many more must die?

*ahem*

Ahh, history. One can almost get bored with it's repetition. What's the old quote? "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to have Santayana quoted at them."?

Always the same old reasons for banning people. And those who believe in the American value of "innocent till proved guilty" want to bar others because they look like or share some beliefs with some few criminals.

Picture an America without Italian immigrants. Picture an America without Catholic immigrants. That is what the KKK fought for in the 1920s.

What of you today? Will you find a group to fight against Islamic immigration and immigration from "those" nations in the 2020s? They aren't as strong as they used to be, but the KKK will still welcome your aid.

Or, like some who still welcomed strangers and treated them kindly as the Bible mandated even back in the 1920s, will you also welcome the strangers who seek refuge on our shores in the coming 2020s?

As for me and my house, we will welcome the tired, the poor and the huddled masses, yearning not to be judged by a few bad apples.

That Country

This Fourth of July I pray that we stop being "that country". You know, the kind of nation that we always pretend we're "liberating" others from.

We spend more on war - not defense, war - than any other nation on Earth. We spend more on war than the next 25 highest war spending nations combined. And 24 out of those 25 are our vassal states.

We occupy more nations than any other country on Earth. You weren't aware of that? Google "American Military Bases", it will show each nation that we occupy.

Oh, didn't realize that we occupy German and Japan? You thought those were our allies, with we having bases there because we're so gosh darn nice? Care to guess which state those nations have their bases in over here? Don't know?

That's because our "allies" do not get to have military bases here. That would infringe upon our sovereignty.

This always says so much more about those who do it,
then those who have it done to them.

We regard the oceans, and atmosphere and orbits of the planet as ours. We get to go and conduct war exercises any where we want. And patrols and inspections. And incursions. Other nations, were they to approach within 500 miles without our permission are engaging in "aggressive war-like actions" that demand an "immediate response".

We kidnap and hold without charges, and torture and detain, not only any one on Earth we care to, but our own citizens as well. Without trial. Up to, and including, executions. Like the Soviets and the Nazis did. Two other examples of "that country".

We let the citizenry have no rights that the government is bound to respect. Oh, yes, lip service, sure, like the Soviet and National Socialist constitutions had, but the only time you really get to speak or act freely is if you are too small, or they don't notice you.

Block a road, resist in any fashion, or be too loud, and you'll be noticed - and dealt with by black clad armored police using chemical warfare outlawed by the Geneva Convention. Yes, even on students.

I pray for an end to the tyranny of every activity needing a license, every citizen needing papers, everyone needing to have such papers while traveling any where by any means. I pray for the end of everyone needing a number, of no one being able to work or buy or sell without it. I pray that one day we live in a nation where to not comply with that is not to be subject to arrest, detention, and torture.

I pray that we can stop with the modernized camps we call prisons that house a higher percent of our population than the Soviets did in their hey day, or the Nazis did in their hey day, or the PRC and North Korea do in their hey day. I pray that sexual torture and solitary confinement of such who are sent there stop being a national joke and start being a thing of the dark past.

I also pray that I can one day read the Declaration of Independence, and not see that all the complaints we had against King George are now ten times worse under any administration that has ever ruled in my life.

Today, I would encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Independence, and try and find a complaint against King George that could not be levied against our own government over the past 50 years.

And then ask yourself why what they had the right to do back then is something that apparently no one has the right to do now - secede and form their own state. With their own freedom. With their own dignity.

Understanding "Illegal".

I get really tired of hearing from conservatives that they have nothing against immigrants, they just want them to come in "legally".  Then I'll usually hear some pious hypocrisy about "What part of illegal don't they understand?"

First, this really is hypocritical.  Conservatives have famously supported the woman clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to homosexuals awhile back.  They have famously supported armed ranchers occupying Federal lands and buildings.  They see nothing wrong with holding up the Supreme Court appointment of a President they don't like.

And everyone of those things - and many more - were against the law.  Those who did them were lawbreakers.  I wonder what part of illegal was not understood by these conservatives?

A Middle Eastern family breaks the law to flee to another nation.

Secondly, I suspect I do know which part.  The part of "illegal" that conservatives don't understand is that they aren't the only ones who get to make moral judgments about which laws to obey and which laws to flout.  Others, even others who think differently then them, also have that as a right.

The conservatives - and liberals, too - love to claim that a law is "unconstitutional".  A magical six syllable word that apparently means, "Ignore it as you please."  It would be claimed, and with a straight face, that no, they aren't advocating lawlessness, but that the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", and takes precedence.

And rather than wait to be affirmed in this by the Supreme Court, they feel it's okay to start ignoring that "unconstitutional" law now.

Understand, I actually have no problem with that.  I'm an armchair anarchist, of course I have no problem with that!  But what I find annoying is that these same Constitutional scholars can NEVER point out where in the Constitution the People delegated to Congress, the Courts or the Presidency the right to regulate the free passage of people in and out of the Republic, or to be able to decide who I will and will not marry from a foreign land, or who I will or will not hire from elsewhere!

And yeah, when you forbid an immigrant from coming here, it is MY rights you are trampling upon as well as theirs!  Who is anyone to say who I marry, who I hire and who I feed or clothe or shelter?

In other words, the "law" that those immigrants who ignore it are perfectly well understanding are the laws that are literally "unconstitutional" by any plain reading of the document.  And any conservative who doesn't get that is then free to "yes, sir" any government stooge who might ever - by law - come for any gun of theirs!

Thirdly, we come to the example of the parents of our Lord and Savior Jesus.  A couple who were ordered by their lawful government to take their less than two year old boy child to King Herod.  But instead of complying with the laws of their nation, they willfully violated those laws and escaped - with no papers or permission - into the neighboring nation of Egypt.

Without even checking with Pharaoh!  Without getting permission from King Herod!  Without doing it "legally"!

But...but...but...I hear it sputtered already.  But they were fleeing a danger!  The Christ child was to be murdered!  Obviously that is an exception!

Of course it is.  I'd never deny it.  What a pity then that the conservatives deny this exception to everyone else.  But that is a conservative.  There's not a one of them who doesn't claim that they'd have marched arm in arm with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  And not a one who doesn't whine about BLM adding ten minutes to a commute.

There are people in other lands in danger.  A danger as great, and as real, as the danger that faced Jesus Christ.  Those refugees - and their parents if they are minors - are guilty of only one crime.

The crime of wanting to live.  And to this end they willfully and with desperate hope aforethought, look towards America and see a glimpse of a giant Statue of Liberty holding an invitation.  An invitation specifically for them.

Inviting these "huddled masses", beckoning to the "wretched refuse" of all the "teeming shores" to come over and be free.

They heed that invitation.  They come, because to not come is to die.  To not come is for their children to die.

And no sooner do they do so then a Trump supporter who'd be the first to claim that he'd carry Christ's cross, hide a Jew from Hitler, help a runaway slave escape, leaps to his feet to baaa, baaa, baaa about "What part of 'illegal' don't they get!?" and "I love all of them, I just want them to come in legally!"

There is no love.  Not of the immigrants who trust the invite here, and not of the Law.  Conservatives have no more or less love for the law than any liberal.  Which is to say that they love it when it agrees with their mood or their feelings, and otherwise ignore it.  Same as liberals do, same as everyone does.

Would that they did love immigrants.  Would that they did love mercy.  Would that they did love aiding those as Christ commanded we aid them.

Then they'd be quick enough to be smuggling the refugees across the border.  They'd be clamoring, "Mr. Trump, tear down this wall!".  They'd be feeding the poor refugee, clothing the poor refugee, sheltering the poor refugee, knowing that these were part of the "least of these my brothers" that Christ spoke of.

Instead, they fear the foreigners, as the Levi and Pharisee feared the injured man on the road to Jericho.  They hurry along the other side of that dusty road, aiding not, and excusing their lack of charity by going on about the dangers, the disease the this and the that.

They fear job competition.  Or bird flu.  Or terrorism.  So many different reasons cited, but as any who have raised teens know, if several different reasons are given you, you may be sure that the real reason is being hid.

Try and explain that if the workers are legalized, that they'd have a harder time competing - it won't make an impression.  Explain how if they are in no fear of arrest, they'd go to a doctor to avoid disease - it won't make an impression.  Explain how the 9/11 terrorists came in "legally" - it won't make an impression.

Because those reasons aren't the real reason.  The real reason they oppose open borders is the same reason that anyone opposes anything good or harmless - their own petty personal prejudices.  The conservative just doesn't want the foreigner here.

The conservative doesn't want other faiths, other languages, other ways of doing things, right in his backyard.  Understand, liberals have their own equal idiocies, their own petty personal prejudices, but this one is the conservatives.

And as surely as a liberal reacts like a scalded cat to any suggestion of a person having to "earn" something, so does a conservative react to hearing that "different" might be coming.

It's sad.  It's un-Christ-like.  And it needs to stop.

(And no, this isn't just a conservative problem.  That "liberal" still in office, President Obama, could normalize the status of all 12 million "illegals" right now.  Remember that if and when President Trump tries to round them up - the Democrats had it in their power to stop that.  If such are to be rounded up, it will be the fault of liberals and conservatives alike.)

Sharia Law

I've traveled far and wide in my life. Visited many places, seen many sites, spent 10 years in Alaska, flew over to Berlin when the Wall came down and chipped away some of it to sell, seen six countries and two continents.

You come across odd things. I was in a place that had not just regular courts like any place would have, but religious courts.

These were "courts" where you could be falsely accused, have your accuser sit in judgment over you, have no jury, no advocate, no right of cross examination and no real appeals process. Your guilt, instead of being proved beyond a reasonable doubt, was assumed from the start and your only chance at even some mercy was to confess at once.

Why? Because it being a religious court, the presumption was that the judges were all divinely appointed and divinely inspired, such that they'd hardly call anyone before them unless they were already divinely inspired to know of their guilt!

"Confess that ye be a witch, and be saved!"

Such tribunals would mete out punishments ranging from loss of status and privileges and rights to even internal or external exile. And if any disagreed with these courts or their rulings, they were said to have turned against the Prophet, the Faith and the Creator!

Sound like hell? I thought so. Sound like why some of you don't want Sharia Law to have any place in the United States?

Well, surprise, because that place I described was Springfield, Illinois and the "religious court" was not Islamic, but from a Christian church I attended. How did I escape it's theocratic judgment?

By resigning. Because, oh yeah, freedom of religion. Which is what gave that church the right to have it's own courts, and me - and anyone else - the right to accept or deny it's jurisdiction.

That's the good news. That no one in the U.S. is required to submit to Sharia Law, Catholic Law, Methodist Law, or the Hearing I was once threatened with. Each of us is free to accept the justice of any of those courts, or to make our own personal judgment call as to the fairness of any of those courts.

Which is why I don't think Mayors and Town Councils should ban such religious courts the way they did in Irving, Texas. I don't think States should. And I sure don't think the Federal government should. It's an infringement on the 1st amendment rights of any who care to submit to such courts.

People forget - other courts, religious or otherwise - are perfectly legal. As long as they still are submissive to the over-riding authority of the United States. As long as one is not compelled to attend under threat of loss of liberty, limb or life.

You've all done it. If you've ever gone to arbitration over a contract or labor dispute. Or been to a college "Honor Court". Or accepted a write up from your boss. Or appealed to a zoning board or unemployment review. Or ran to your Dad to have him decide whether you or your brother was the biggest idiot in whatever your latest dispute was.

All these things - and dozens of more ways of conflict resolution - are "courts" in a sense. Some more than others, obviously, but all serve the same purpose. To resolve issues between two or more people.

Religious courts are legally unique in one way, because technically, though this is largely ignored nowadays, they are Constitutionally protected. The 1st Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law..." about religion, not "some laws about their means of conflict resolution".

Thus the Catholics are able to have their Ecclesiastical Courts. And the Methodists can judge their members based upon their scarily titled "Book of Discipline". And any church can excommunicate - after a court room trial by U.S. judges and juries? Nope, after their own trial done by any rules they care to have.

The court I was to be tried in, without advocate or jury or even the allowance of truth as a defense, was perfectly legal. And no Mayor or Governor would dare to try to forbid it. Because of it being one of the Christian faiths. It wouldn't even occur to them to try to forbid it.

The Islamic churches should have the same rights. To have their Sharia courts, hearings, and what not. Not to force women into hijabs or burkhas against their will. Not to insist that once a Muslim, you must forever be one.

But to aid in the disputes unique to them, involving property and marital issues in which all concerned are voluntarily accepting the judgment of their religious authorities and any are free to decline to accept such judgments if they do not find them fair.

And yes, it is perfectly acceptable and proper for secular judges to take religious law into account on things like divorce and family issues. One obvious example would be judging the validity of a marriage contract from an Islamic nation when the couple is in the U.S. and seek divorce.

This all has worked good for nearly 250 years, and without anyone being stoned for adultery or having had their hands cut off for theft.

I'm sure it can still work now.

The Danger of Sharia

So now it's not just Donald Trump.  Here is what Newt Gingrich recently said:

“Let me be as blunt and direct as I can be. Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door.”

When asked how we could know if they had given that up, he replied:

“The first step is you have to ask them the questions. The second step is you have to monitor what they’re doing on the Internet. The third step is, let me be very clear, you have to monitor the mosques. I mean, if you’re not prepared to monitor the mosques, this whole thing is a joke. Where do you think the primary source of recruitment is? Where do you think the primary place of indoctrination is? You’ve got to look at the madrassas - if you’re a school which is teaching Sharia, you want to expel it from the country.”

Before debating his goal, let's be clear on what's being called for.

A repeal of the 1st amendment.  Because now religious tests would have to be gave to all citizens, they'd have to describe their deeply personal views to a government examiner, and be quizzed over whether any aspect of their faith was "incompatible" with our "civilization".  Which means a tossing out of the 5th amendment, too.  You know, the person's right against self-incrimination.

Our free speech would have to be monitored and overseen to make sure we were not speaking or writing in a way to suggest that we were holding "wrong" thoughts.  So I guess that's the 4th amendment tossed out, too.

Back to the 1st amendment, though also the 4th, Churches would be places where surveillance, either audio/video recorders, paid agents or both would be there to insure nothing improper was being preached from the pulpit. 

Private religious schools would also have that treatment, to make sure nothing was being taught inappropriately.

Now.  There's the price.  What's the goal?  What do we get for that rather high price?

To apparently keep the minute percent of Islamic citizens from taking over our nation, and re-writing all our cherished laws so that we could not speak or worship in privacy!  To make sure that they didn't set up some system where there was no protection against search and seizures and self-incrimination!  To avoid living in some Islamic hell where we would be required to give up our Constitutional rights!

Hmm.

Apparently then Newt Gingrich is worried about our rights being murdered, so proposes we commit suicide on those rights first!  If we kill ourselves, the Islamic folk can't murder us!  If we give up all our rights now, then a Caliphate can't take them away later!

No, thank you.

I know - some of you may honestly believe that some here are shooting for a Caliphate, and you worry about that. That's fine. But we must all surely agree that however we combat that potential danger, that we do not vote ourselves into a certain danger in the meanwhile!

Our nation of 330,000,000 being taken over such few Muslims are here - around 3.3 million - is highly unlikely. Mormons, who make up 2% of the population, or between 6 and 7 million, once tried a war of virtual secession (The Utah War) and lost. So it's just improbable to the point of impossibility to assume the Muslims can succeed not in simply seceding some where, but in taking over the whole of the nation!

So we are being asked by Newt to 100% give up our freedom - to avoid the infinitesimally small chance of the Muslims taking our freedoms later!

That's a poor bet. And expressed as a bet, it would be like Newt asking you to pay him $1,000 now - to protect you from any small infant who may in the future try to rob you of...$1,000! Or paying an insurance company $100,000 so that if your $100,000 house is hit by a meteorite, they'll give you a $100,000 house!

It's a suckers bet, and the man offering it is not stupid, but only hoping you are. He wants your freedoms - because that means he has more power. He wants you to be scared enough to give up those freedoms, so he can exact his authority over a group he does not like. Men like Newt don't always hold specific office, but they are always in the corridors of power.

It is NOT the case that he simply wishes to save us from tyranny - or he'd not have proposed tyranny as the solution!