1) from TeaPartyC.C.: ‘UNREAL: What I’m witnessing here in Dallas right now is absolutely APPALLING’ - posted by Marilyn Calkins - February 9/10 (orig. posted at/by allenbwest.com - February 9)
(The Dallas County Commissioners have just passed a ‘Welcoming Communities’ resolution (symbolic; not legally binding) saying that unauthorized immigrants - i.e., illegal aliens - are “integral members to our community”. It calls for local law enforcement to ”end nonessential collaborations” with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). ‘Bye ‘bye, the Spirit of The Alamo…)
..
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 2 seconds ago (February 10)
Dear Commissioner Garcia,
"Immigrants" - Yes. Illegal 'immigrants' - No.
What part of breaking the laws of this country don't you understand??
—
2) from activistpost.com: ’Politicians Are Now Making Plans In Case The Public Turns Against Them Violently’ - James Holbrooks - February 10
(The conversation in the Comments thread started to get heated, and about the founding of the country, and why the federal republic was ‘truly’ created, and who has what power, in front of and behind the scenes…)
..
Looks like the snowflake censors at nonactivist post are at it again. So, here's another attempt.
Are you aware of the the true history of the constitution? Or, are you basing your beliefs on the lies that they told you in school? Here's a couple of things for you to consider. Nobody ever had the right to declare themselves to be government. The only legitimate function of government is the protection of the individual's right to tend to their own needs. Anything more than that is mob rule. The authors of the constitution voted against the bill of rights unanimously, 10-0, when the motion for inclusion was put forth by Elbridge Gerry, and seconded by Edmund Randolph. The states insisted on the bill of rights as a condition of ratification. North Carolina, alone, proposed 74 amendments. Only 55 delegates of 70 attended the convention. Patrick Henry refused to attend, saying, "I smelt a rat". Rhode Island sent no delegates. Thirteen attendees left the proceedings. Two from New York wrote letters of complaint to the governor. Only 39 of the 55 attendees signed the document.
garynorth dot com / philadelphia.pdf
thetruthaboutthelaw dot com
1
•
Reply
kibitzer3 Arcanek • a few seconds ago (February 10)
Um...
* The Constitution was dutifully ratified by the requisite number of states.
* The point about the Bill of Rights: It was pointed out at the time by some thoughtful souls that such a thing could become misleading, since the Constitution was not creating any such power for the federal government to NEED to be hemmed in further by such an addition (than the terms of the contract itself; which gave to the federal govt. only LIMITED and DELEGATED powers - "few and defined," in the rather authoritative words of the man to become known as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison); which addition, perversely, could lead some to believe that the new federal govt. COULD DO those sorts of things if it weren't FOR such a specific counter to federal power (the Bill of Rights being just an EXAMPLE of powers and rights retained by "the States, or the people;" see the 9th and 10th catch-all Amendments). But others did not trust such a political contract without the well-known addition of a Bill of Rights; and the latter attitude prevailed. And some would say, 'More's the pity' because the advice of the former 'voice' of the people has proven to be correct. We have been done in by shyster lawyer types.
It's time to set things right in this country. And live by the true rule of- law - to say, the Constitution itself. Not the wet noodle that it has been
- turned into.
—
3) from thecommonsenseshow.com: ‘Does One Size Fit All? The Immigration Case of Garcia de Rayos’ - Dave Hodges - February 9/10
(An illegal alien who was brought into this country by her parents at the age of 14 and now has two underage children born here, is being held subject to deportation, by a bit overzealous ICE authorities in Phoenix. One wonders about the real reason for their overzealousness…
Hodges is torn; on the one hand, he knows what the law says, and on the other, he knows that this case will be used by the Left as a poster case, to cause more mayhem; asks his readers what they think. My two cents' worth; on the other hand from no. 1 above:)
..
Stan February 10, 2017 at 11:36 pm
(Your comment is awaiting moderation.)
1) Pure Law cannot in all good conscience be applied in such a case because the person has been allowed to be in this country, and have children here, under false pretenses by ‘the authorities,’ who hold some measure of responsibility and accountability in this matter (and similar ones). Said authorities allowed such people (i.e, her parents) to be seduced into coming into this country under the mistaken belief that their children born here would be American citizens. THEY ARE NOT. They are the citizens of the country of origin of their parents. The 14th Amendment does NOT APPLY to people here illegally or merely visiting; only to those who fall “under the jurisdiction of” our states and laws, rather than of their home countries. So we need to clean up the mistaken business about ‘anchor babies’ and fast, and throw not a few shyster lawyers and judges into jail, for their gross misbehavior in this regard.
2) Set up priorities: All those illegal aliens who have broken various other laws while in this country – out first. And be seen to be.
3) Sanctuary cities and states – Deprived of federal monies, and sued.
As I say: Set up decent priorities. And then The People can respond to that approach to this messy matter. Not giving in to emotional blackmail. Just allowing for common sense to prevail.
--
Let Truth prevail. And Justice.
Tempered with Mercy.
To say: Common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment