Trump’s Russia Admission Is No Mere Scandal. It’s a Betrayal.

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BLOOMBERG NEWS AGENCY)

 

Trump’s Russia Admission Is No Mere Scandal. It’s a Betrayal.

Accepting help “to get information on an opponent” was an ugly and unpatriotic act.

So much for national loyalty.

Photographer: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

During a presidential campaign, accepting help from Russia “to get information on an opponent” is an ugly and unpatriotic act. It casts contempt on the countless people who have put their lives on the line for our republic and the principles for which it stands.

In 2007 and 2008, I was honored to work with the campaign of Senator Barack Obama as an occasional, informal adviser. I received plenty of ideas from friends, acquaintances and strangers about how to win the presidency.

No offers of help came from anyone associated with a foreign government. But if they had, my only question would have been this: Do I go directly to the FBI, or do I go to people in a higher position in the campaign, and ask them to go directly to the FBI?

Like many millions of Americans (Republicans and Democrats alike), I had long been hoping that the 2016 meeting at the Trump Tower, including Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer connected with the Kremlin, involved issues of adoption policy (as the White House previously told us).

Last weekend, President Donald Trump disclosed, “This was a meeting to get information on an opponent.”

Americans should never forget that the Soviet Union played a heroic and indispensable role in winning World War II. And Trump is right to insist that the United States has a keen interest in maintaining a peaceful, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationship with Russia.

But it should go without saying that the highest loyalty of any candidate, and any president, is to his nation, not to electoral victory. The Russian government has been working to weaken, undermine and destabilize our country.

No candidate for high office, and no presidential campaign, should even think about accepting Russia’s help “to get information on an opponent.”

This conclusion is not merely a matter of common sense. It is linked with the deepest fears of those who founded our nation. Many people are puzzled by the constitutional provision limiting eligibility for the presidency to “natural born” citizens. But it attests to the founders’ desire to ensure something they prized perhaps above all: loyalty.

In the decisive debates over the impeachment clause, James Madison pointed to the risk that a president “might betray his trust to foreign powers.” Focusing on the electoral process itself, George Mason asked, “Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment?”

As far as I am aware, there is as yet no evidence that the meeting at Trump Tower had any effect on the 2016 election, or that the president knew about the meeting at the time. But here is a general principle: Successfully enlisting Russia’s help to procure the presidency would count as a high crime or misdemeanor within the meaning of the impeachment clause – whether or not it’s technically a crime within federal law.

But is it a federal crime? Federal law makes it unlawful “to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation . . . from a foreign national.” A contribution includes “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Lawyers are now discussing, and disputing, whether “information on an opponent” counts as “anything of value.”

Let’s put the legal niceties to one side. In my view, it was reasonable for President Trump to say that as a matter of principle, professional athletes ought to show respect for the American flag and the national anthem. “E pluribus unum” is the motto on the nation’s seal. It dates from the period of the Revolutionary War.

Seeking Russia’s help, to get “information on an opponent,” is worse than a scandal. It is a betrayal.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Cass Sunstein at [email protected]

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Katy Roberts at [email protected]

If Our President Is Found Guilty Of Treason: Then What? Part 1 of 2

 

For those of you who follow this blog I know that you are aware that I am not a fan of Donald Trump or of Mike Pence. You would also know that I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, the Republican Party or of the Democratic Party. I believe that all of the fore mentioned are selfish, self-centered, crooked, ego maniacs who care nothing about America or of the people of this Country. I believe that by definition, they are all guilty of Treason toward the American people and of the Constitution they swore on a Bible to uphold.

 

I looked up the word Treason online to see what Google had to say about the definition of the word and it gave me a couple of responses of which I am going to share with you now.

  1. A violation of allegiance to one’s Sovereign or to one’s State. 2. The betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith, treachery.

In yesterday’s edition of the Washington Post under a column they call their “Truth Checker” it said that since Donald Trump became our President he has averaged telling 7.6 untruths per day. You know something, I really do wish that the American Media Outlets would quit saying “untruths” and simply call them what they are, they are called lies folks. Think about it folks, our own President has averaged lying to you and to me 8 times every day since he took Office. Mr. Trump is averaging lying to us more than 50 per week, every week. How would you feel if your spouse lied to you more than 50 times every week? How about your supervisor at your job? How could you or I be expected to believe a single thing that ever comes out of their mouth? I’m sorry but there is no way I could! I love my wife but if I realized that she was constantly lying to me about basically everything, I would insist she find another place to live, wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t you feel that you had been betrayed? How in the heck is it any difference with our President, shouldn’t ‘we the people’ insist that Mr. Trump find another place to live, like in the basement in Leavenworth Federal Prison?

 

I have heard several people say that “they just can’t believe that someone has not shot him (Mr. Trump) yet.” I have told them that I believe a much better response by the American people and legal system would be if that whole Trump crew were impeached, imprisoned for life and to have all of their earthly possessions stripper from them, sold to the highest bidder with all of the money being used to pay down the National Debt. I believe that would hurt them much more than lets say, a firing squad. Obviously I believe that President Trump is guilty of several impeachable crimes, including treason against America and our people. Honestly I believe that a Country, any Country, is their people, not their government. I believe that every single day since Mr. Trump became a viable/possible Presidential contender during his Campaign up until this moment that he and several members of his direct family and staff have been committing treason against us, the American people.

 

Folks, now comes the basic question of this letter to you. If the Republican Party, and my glorious Senator Mitch McConnell (Senate majority leader) grows a set, what is next? I know quite a few folks from Indiana including family members who have lived there for decades who have told me over and over again that they believe that Vice President Mike Pence is even more dangerous to the American people than Donald Trump is.  Until Mr. Pence became a VP Candidate I honestly didn’t know a lot about him but what I have seen of him since then has given me no confidence at all in him as a Leader. By the American legal code set up in the U.S. Constitution if Mr. Trump is impeached then Mr. Pence becomes our President. Will that mean that with him America will get “back on track?” Honestly I don’t believe that Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party will do anything toward impeaching Mr. Trump until after the elections this November. I believe that the Republican Party has decided to ‘throw their hat’ in with the President for the Elections this fall. I believe that they will live or die with him until then. Personally I believe that in November the Republicans will lose the House by a large margin, the Senate is the main question. The biggest question will be if the Democrats can pick up two Senate Seats to take over the Leadership of the Senate. If this were to happen I believe that Mr. Trump will be impeached by the Senate. This November only 5 Republican ‘at risk’ Senate Seats are on the Ballot, in the 2020 Presidential Elections more than 20 of these Republican Seats ‘will be at risk.’ If the Republicans lose both Houses this November they will not want to go into that election in 2020 with Mr. Trump in the White House. This is what I believe it will take for the Republicans to vote for impeachment. I also believe that if Mr. Trump is impeached that Mr. Pence, as our new President, will pull a ‘Gerald Ford’ and Pardon him as his first official act as President to ‘help America start to heal.” Question is, can we the American people ever really heal with either the Republicans or the Democrats at the Helm of Our Ship?

Court Rules Trump Sanctuary City Order Unconstitutional

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE USA TODAY NEWS)

 

Federal appeals court rules Trump sanctuary city order unconstitutional

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority when he threatened to withhold funds from “sanctuary cities” that do not fully cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Trump’s January 2017 executive order, cutting off federal funds to sanctuary cities, was unconstitutional. But the court also ruled that a lower court went too far when it blocked the order nationwide.

“Absent congressional authorization, the administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals,” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority.

Our view: Both sides mischaracterize sanctuary cities

Oakland: Why we’re a sanctuary city

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley said the executive order was a legal use of the president’s power. He called the 9th Circuit’s decision a victory for “criminal aliens in California, who can continue to commit crimes knowing that the state’s leadership will protect them from federal immigration officers whose job it is to hold them accountable and remove them from the country.”

“The Justice Department remains committed to the rule of law, to protecting public safety, and to keeping criminal aliens off the streets,” he said.

Trump signed the executive order on Jan. 25, 2017, just five days after taking office, calling undocumented immigration a “clear and present danger” to national security. But U.S. District Judge William Orrick called the threat “coercive” and said spending powers belonged to the legislative, not executive, branch of government.

Orrick’s ruling was the result of lawsuits filed by two California counties – San Francisco and Santa Clara. His decision cited statements from Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which indicated that the order could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. The government argued that the order only applied to three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants that would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara and possibly no money for San Francisco.

Justice Department attorney Chad Readler told the 9th Circuit judges that the order was limited in scope and that public statements from Trump or other administration officials should not be given too much weight.

“When a president overreaches and tries to assert authority he doesn’t have under the Constitution, there needs to be a check on that power grab,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement Wednesday. “The courts did that today, which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.”

The administration’s fight against sanctuary cities also suffered a setback last week, when a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the city of Chicago’s lawsuit over Sessions’ efforts to force cooperation with federal immigration enforcement officers.

In September, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued an injunction against Sessions’ order that required police to cooperate with federal agents or risk losing federal law enforcement grants. Session wanted to require local police to tell the government before releasing undocumented immigrants from custody, to allow federal immigration agents into city jails and to share people’s immigration status with federal officials.

Leinenweber’s injunction was initially nationwide, but in June the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals restricted it to Chicago, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. The full appeals court will decide whether or not that injunction should be nationwide in September.

Contributing: Alan Gomez, Aamer Madhani, Richard Wolf,USA TODAY Network; The Associated Press 

More: Appeals court deals another blow to Trump effort to withhold funds from sanctuary cities

Treason = Impeachment = Hang Them High?

 

This article to you today is simply my attempt to get you to think about some very serious issues with our (the U.S.) government that does effect every person in this country as well as in many other Nations.  I’m writing this article in the form of ‘what if’s’. What if President Trump really isn’t the legitimate President and that ends up being proven beyond any reasonable doubt? Pretty much everyone on earth except Donald Trump knows and understands that the Russian government with orders from their President attacked the voting computers of 21 states during the 2016 U.S. elections. It is only logical that being if in deed Mr. Putin wanted Mr. Trump to win that election he would only target states that were expected to be somewhat close. If the Russian hackers had been ignorant they would have targeted states like New York and California where Hillary was going to win by huge amounts. If they had done that then everyone would have known that the machines had been compromised. Swinging a states numbers that were very close, say 52% to 48% for Hillary to a 52-48 for Trump would be believable. If this is what did happen and it can be proven, now what folks?

 

If Mr. Mueller and his team can prove that Mr. Trump along with members of his family and staff colluded with the Russian government to steal the election, is this treason? Personally I believe that it is, also personally I then believe that everything that Mr. Trump and the Congress has signed into law since January 20th of 2017 would have to be removed. Without a doubt this would really be a mess like this Nation has never had happen to us. For those of you who do not know me, do not get me wrong, I personally can’t stand the lying witch Hillary either and no, I did not vote for her, nor did I vote for Mr. Trump, I voted for Gary Johnson. There are some things that I believed about Hillary and Donald before the election in November of 2016 and nothing has changed my beliefs on these two since then. First, I believed that both people are total egomaniacs and both are totally habitual liars who will do anything for money or to win. Now the difference that I see in the two is that in my opinion Hillary is totally evil but she is also very smart, on the other hand Donald is very evil but he is about as ignorant of a person that I have ever come across. So, for President, should I have voted for a smart evil person or a dumb ass evil person? Which one would be the least evil for the American people? I thought Hillary would win and I do believe that she did, so I voted for a person that I knew very well was not going to garner more than a couple of percentage points.

 

Okay, I have made my point that I believe that Donald Trump, members of his immediate family and members of his personal staff are guilty of treason against the American people. Now I wont you to consider another issue please and this is the Republican Congress and the Republican Senate. Unless a person is clueless to reality it is very obvious that the majority of the Republicans in the Congress and the Senate can not stand Donald Trump as a person, yet they have in almost all issues sided with Mr. Trump on programs that Mr. Trump has wanted to make into law. The reason is simple folks, the Republicans realize that with a Republican in the White House they are able to get some of their own personal agenda passed into law, things like the new tax law and getting more Republicans onto the Supreme Court. This sickening display of cowardliness and treason by the Republican leaders like Senator McConnell is enough to make an Independent puke at the sight of their face and unfortunately he is my home state Senator so I see his face often. In the past I have voted for Republicans and Democrats at about a 50/50 clip but because of the disgusting display of Republicans kissing the ass of this dangerous un-genius stupid ass I will never ever vote for another Republican for any office at any level of government. Here is another slap of reality though, I totally believe that if Hillary was the current President the Democrats in the Congress and the Senate would be doing the exact same dirty tricks for her. Neither one of these ‘Parties’ gives a damn about the United States or of our people, they only care about their selves.

 

Now, what should ‘We The People’ do about it when Mr. Mueller and his team prove that these people have committed treason against us? Should we insist that those in Office be impeached as once? Should we insist that all of those folks be put into a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives and have all of their assets stripped from them and sold to the highest bidder with the proceeds put toward the National Debt? Should people in the Congress and the Senate like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell suffer the same fate as those in the Executive Branch? Should they all be made an example of like being shot by a firing squad, or better yet, hung from the Statue Of Liberty for defiling Our Constitution and of ‘We The People’ of OUR NATION? What do you think should be done to these people if they are proven to be the Criminals that they all appear to be?

Trump must resist temptation to pardon Manafort for real crimes

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF ‘THE HILL’ NEWSPAPER AND THE WEBSITE OF JONATHAN TURLEY)

 

Trump must resist temptation to pardon Manafort for real crimes

Trump must resist temptation to pardon Manafort for real crimes
© Greg Nash

After a few weeks on the job, President Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani is beginning to sound like the Vince Shlomi of constitutional law. Shlomi became a household name for his mesmerizing low-grade “ShamWow” commercials promising a towel that “holds 20 times its weight” and “doesn’t drip, doesn’t make a mess.” He would ask, “Why do you want to work twice as hard?” when you could just pull out a ShamWow.

Asked about the jailing of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort for witness tampering, Giuliani declared, “Things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons.” The only thing missing to complete the Shlomi comparison was a picture of a pardon soaking up a bowlful of special counsel Robert Mueller’s indictments.

The pardon power is not a ShamWow for presidents to clean up scandals. True, the Constitution gives a president total discretion in the granting of pardons and commutations. However, it was not designed, and should not be used, to protect figures like Manafort or Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen. Shortly after Manafort was thrown into jail pending trial, Trump lamented, “Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the mob.”In waving around the pardon power, Giuliani essentially offered a Shlomiesque, “Not wow, Mr. President, ShamWow!” The problem is that Manafort would be the least compelling pardon recipient since President Clinton pardoned his own half brother and Marc Rich, a fugitive Democratic donor. It is true that Manafort is not “the head of the mob,” but he is facing compelling allegations of an array of criminal acts running the gamut of the criminal code. Indeed, the list of indictments would have made mob boss John Gotti blush.

For months, I have written about Manafort’s longstanding reputation for being reckless. It was the reason some observers expressed surprise when he was chosen as Trump’s campaign chairman. He is now accused, however, of an act of sheer stupidity that is truly breathtaking: A grand jury indicted him on additional charges of witness tampering after he allegedly tried to coach witnesses over the telephone while under the continual monitoring of a house arrest.

Trump has complained that Manafort is being prosecuted for things that happened “12 years ago.” However, that is why a pardon would be so problematic. Most independent observers view the charges against Manafort as exceptionally strong. Trump would need to pardon him for crimes ranging from fraud to conspiracy and witness tampering to money laundering and tax violations to false statements.

The same is true with Michael Cohen. This pardon talk notably got louder when reports surfaced that Cohen had fired his lawyers and was considering “flipping” as a cooperating witness. However, he also faces a long list of criminal allegations, ranging from business fraud to tax violations to lobbying violations to false statements. The vast majority deal with dubious business practices unrelated to the Trump campaign.

While it is true that none of these alleged crimes might have been identified had Manafort and Cohen not assumed such visible positions, that does not mean they are not criminals or should not be punished for their crimes. In the end, pardons could certainly keep associates loyal and uncooperative with prosecutors, but a pardon may not be quite as legally absorbent as Giuliani suggests. A president cannot pardon away future crimes. Thus, Manafort and Cohen could be called to testify under oath and could be charged with any new acts of perjury or other crimes. A pardon would make it more difficult for the men to refuse to testify under their privilege against self-incrimination.

Finally, a presidential pardon does not protect against state crimes, which, for Cohen, is a particular concern. Giuliani noted that a potpourri of pardons could come “when the whole thing is over.” It is not clear what that time frame might mean. Ironically, if Mueller is slow-walking the investigation, Giuliani’s words would encourage him to reduce that to a glacial pace. Yet, if it comes too early, they could still be forced to testify and require a daisy chain of pardons for any new false statements or criminal acts. The pardons would also have to cover not only the alleged crimes being investigated by Mueller but alleged crimes uncovered by career prosecutors in the Southern District of New York.

Presidential pardons were meant to address manifest injustices. No matter how you feel about the original basis of the special counsel investigation, it is hard to say that the prosecution of Manafort or Cohen would be an injustice to any degree. Indeed, using this power to relieve them of any accountability for crimes worth tens of millions of dollars would be a manifest injustice. They agreed to take high-profile positions and, when one does so, one accepts greater scrutiny. Hence the old expression, “One day on the cover of Time, next day doing time.”

Trump is correct that he and his campaign had nothing to do with these crimes. That is the point: Just as Manafort and Cohen should not be accused of crimes simply because of their connection to Trump, they should not be excused for prior crimes on the same basis. If Trump is going to grant immunity for any crime of any kind at any time, all of the ShamWows in the world won’t absorb the stain that would be left behind.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Trump’s legal memo to Robert Mueller is a recipe for tyranny

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF VOX NEWS)

 

Trump’s legal memo to Robert Mueller is a recipe for tyranny

A clear and present danger to the rule of law

Photo by Olivier Douliery-Pool/Getty Images

Essentially all presidents sooner or later end up commissioning lawyers to put forward an expansive view of presidential power, but those lawyers take pains to argue that they are notmaking the case for a totally unchecked executive whose existence would pose a fundamental threat to American values.

Donald Trump, however, is a different kind of president.

In a 20-page memo written by Trump’s legal team and delivered to Robert Mueller, as reported by the New York Time’s this weekend, they make an unusually frank case for a tyrannical interpretation of presidential power.

Trump’s lawyers say he has unlimited power over criminal justice

The key passage in the memo is one in which Trump’s lawyers argue that not only was there nothing shady going on when FBI Director James Comey got fired there isn’t even any potentialshadiness to investigate because the president is allowed to be as shady as he wants to be when it comes to overseeing federal law enforcement. He can fire whoever he wants. Shut down any investigation or open up a new one.

Indeed, the President not only has unfettered statutory and Constitutional authority to terminate the FBI Director, he also has Constitutional authority to direct the Justice Department to open or close an investigation, and, of course, the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation and/or conviction. Put simply, the Constitution leaves no question that the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations.

This is a particularly extreme version of the “unitary executive” doctrine that conservative legal scholars sometimes appeal to (especially when there’s a Republican president), drawing on the notion that the executive branch of government — including the federal police agencies and federal prosecutors — are a single entity personified by the president.

But to push that logic into this terrain would not only give the president carte blanche to persecute his enemies but essentially vitiate the idea that there are any enforceable laws at all.

Donald Trump’s impunity store

Consider that if the memo is correct, there would be nothing wrong with Trump setting up a booth somewhere in Washington, DC where wealthy individuals could hand checks to Trump, and in exchange Trump would make whatever federal legal trouble they are in go it away. You could call it “The Trump Hotel” or maybe bundle a room to stay in along with the legal impunity.

Having cut your check, you’d then have carte blanche to commit bank fraud or dump toxic waste in violation of the Clean Water Act or whatever else you want to do. Tony Soprano could get the feds off his case, and so could the perpetrators of the next Enron fraud or whatever else.

Perhaps most egregiously, since Washington DC isn’t a state all criminal law here is federal criminal law, so the president could have his staff murder opposition party senators or inconvenient judges and then block any investigation into what’s happening.

Of course, as the memo notes, to an extent this kind of power to undermine the rule of law already exists in the form of the essentially unlimited pardon power. This power has never been a good idea and it has been abused in the past by George H.W. Bush to kill the Iran-Contra investigation and by Bill Clinton to win his wife votes in a New York Senate race. Trump has started using the power abusively and capriciously early in his tenure in office in a disturbing way, but has not yet tried to pardon his way out of the Russia investigation in part because there is one important limit on the pardon power — you have to do it in public. The only check on pardons is political, but the political check is quite real (which is why both Bush and Clinton did their mischievous pardons as lame ducks) and the new theory that Trump can simply make whole investigations vanish would eliminate it.

This issue is bigger than Comey or Mueller

Much of the argument about Trump and the rule of law has focused rather narrowly on the particular case of Comey’s firing and the potential future dismissal of Robert Mueller.

These are important questions, in the sense that an FBI Director is an important person and a special counsel investigation is an important matter, but the memo is a reminder that they offer much too narrow a view of what the real extent of the problem is here.

One of the main purposes of the government is to protect the weak from exploitation at the hands of the strong by making certain forms of misconduct illegal. Trump’s assertion that he can simply waive-away investigations into misconduct because he is worried that the investigation might end badly for his friends or family members is toxic to that entire scheme. Trump, like most presidents, has plenty of rich and powerful friends and a much longer list of rich and powerful people who would like to be his friends.

If he really does have the power to just make anyone’s legal trouble go away because he happens to feel like it, then we’re all in a world of trouble.

Violent Protest Toward Others

Violent Protest Toward Others

(FIRST PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 8th, 2014)

When we as humans disagree with a decision of a court or of a politician we here in America do have the Constitutional right to peacefully protest those decisions. Peacefully, fully peacefully, we can demonstrate yell and holler till our lungs explode if we so wish. We of course can also use the ballot box to get rid of the politicians we are mad at, or we can even run for that office ourselves if we wish.

Now I would like to mention a few things that we should not do, that we have no right at all to do. This is in reference to today’s article in a San Francisco newspaper about protesters being violent in Berkeley. The folks are protesting their dislike of legal decisions made about other people, who are also somewhere else. They have the right to protest, but they do not have any right to be violent to some innocent person or their property, no one has that right. Turn this equation on its head for a moment, reverse the situation. For example say I am a person who sitting home watching College Football and protesters come marching down my street overturning or burning cars, looting homes and beating some of the residents, is that fair to me, what did I do? Or if I am the one protesting and I come down your street and start doing those same things, have you and your family not been violated?

Why does the human brain make it possible to choose to act like trash? O yes, free choice! And this is how we decide to use that free choice, pathetic. Anyone with a grain of decency about themselves as a person does not commit violence on innocent people or their property. If you are doing such things and you consider yourself to be a decent person, you are lying to yourself for you are showing the world not so much your anger, but your ignorance. If we confess to be a Christian and we are doing these things, please stop and repent, these kind of actions are not okay for any of us to do. If people know us as a Christian we all let our little light shine whether we are wanting it to or not by the actions we do, not just by our words. All people, not just people of faith must reign in such ignorance if we are going to be able to withstand the direct attacks against our Nation and our way of life. There are thousands at our borders each year who desperately wish to be allowed in, most of these people have knows poverty and violence beyond our nightmares. Most just want a peaceful place to live, work, play and to raise their children, we have that any yet we seem hell-bent on destroying it.

 

If we say that we honor the memory and the man who Doctor Martin Luther King was then we are not among those who are committing any of the violence. If we say we are followers of Jesus Christ but we burn crosses and walk around in white sheets we know nothing of the love or character of Christ. There are those who use any such excuses for the five-finger discounts for Christmas presents, do we honestly believe that Jesus would do that? I have one last question for you as I close this comment today. When these people are destroying other people’s property, when they are stealing other people’s property, when they are beating people who had nothing to do with the event that you are protesting about, are we really doing what we are doing in someones memory? Or are we displaying all the characteristics of a diseased wild animal that shows all the signs that we can not be trusted to safely be among the human race and must be locked away from a peace-loving society?

America The Lost

America The Lost

When I write something via free thought I am a person who for the most part needs a title first so that I can write to it. I settled on this title because it is unfortunately true in so many ways. By no means am I anti-American, I am not anti any country. As most people in our country probably know, our country is very sick and I do believe it is now to the point where it is terminal. I completely believe that the only chance our country has of survival is if the vast majority of our population (and our leaders) turns back to God our creator with all our hearts, minds, and souls. To be totally honest with you I just don’t see that happening. I believe that the three biggest pieces of cancer in our country are where the three main media centers are located, Hollywood, NYC, and DC. The pretty Lady with the Torch and all of Her land to Her west is crumbling all around Her and us. Also, these so-called Political Parties who always sell themselves to the highest bidders is destroying all of the fiber which our Country was created on and either it stops very soon or our country will not be in existence for our kids and grand-kids.

There are people in our country who want to get rid of the second amendment (the people’s right to have the means to protect ourselves and our families) all together. I believe that most of the people who wish this to happen are filled with good intentions, it is my contention that these folks are a good bit unrealistic in their thoughts though. Even to this date with all of the revelations shown to us by Mr. Snowden along with the IRS flaws and the so-called Patriot Act which burnt the Constitution, some people still think that our government is only filled with good intentions. Many people do not realize that our Country’s founding Fathers had seen first hand how a country where it’s people could not defend themselves were treated by the government. The Founding Fathers very much intended for it to be where We The People could defend ourselves from a government that oppresses its own people. They plainly wanted the people to be able to revolt if necessary. Do you remember your history classes about how the governments of Europe made it illegal for the people to possess arms and then how the Governments oppressed it’s people, where the people with no means to defend themselves simply became servants to the ruling class? How many lessons did you learn from what happened at Ruby Ridge where the government agents orders were “if it breathes, kill it”. Or do you remember the mass murdering of almost all of the men women and children at Waco? Do you honestly think that your best interest is what our government has on its daily agenda?

Now before you get to thinking that I am some right-wing gun-toting Militia member grand-pappy whose agenda is chaos you could not be further from the truth. I am not an anti gun person at all, and I do own a couple myself. I do believe that everyone has the God-given right to be able to protect themselves and their family. Just like I am not a hunter yet I believe people have the right to hunt if they want to. I am not a vegetarian, I do buy and eat meat from the grocery store, one can not say they are anti hunting if they are not a vegetarian, they would be what is  called a hypocrite. O by the way in case you wanted to pigeon-hole my political association  as being a Republican or as a Democrat, I am neither, I am a long time registered Independent.

Enough now about weapons and people’s concerns of them. I would now like to turn my attention on the economics problems as they are many. If my education was in economics I and many of you could probably write a book on our countries economic issues. I am just an old guy who is speaking from the school of lessons learned from a lifetime of paying attention. O in case you wondered about it, my degrees are in Sociology and in Anthropology but I did study some economics classes while in school. A few months ago I wrote an article in this blog called “It’s Called Trickle Up Economics”, if you would, please spend a few moments reading it. In it I discussed my irritation on how the so-called Stimulus Package money was used. What I wrote (in my opinion) in that blog post spells out my anger without me basically rewriting it here today.

Folks, I love this Country and I love the people who make up the fiber of this Country, for a country is it’s people, not their government. I don’t like the governments of several countries on this Globe but disliking a country’s government doesn’t mean I dislike the people. It is like in our country, I do not like the direction our Country is being led into but I would still give my life to protect our people. It really bothers me when I see how crooked and inept our Government has become and it is only we the people who can change it before we all are led straight into the belly of Hell by this inept evil leadership. I am not mad at how things are, I am just very sad at how blind our country has become and how evil our leaders are.

Waivers of Gun Rights: A New Shot at Gun Repression

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE NRA-ILA)

 

Waivers of Gun Rights: A New Shot at Gun Repression

Back to Top

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2018

Waivers of Gun Rights: A New Shot at Gun Repression

Lawmakers in California must have temporarily exhausted their store of ideas for legislating against law-abiding gun enthusiasts. After years of padding the bureaucracy with ever more complicated rules, restrictions and bans for people who legally own and enjoy guns, lawmakers are now considering a measure to strike a preemptive declaration against gun ownership.

The California bill, AB 1927, introduced by Assembly Member Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, directs the state’s Department of Justice to “develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add his or her own name to the California Do Not Sell List.” This list would be uploaded to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), meaning the system would affect a person’s ability to acquire a firearm not just in California, but anywhere in the country.

On registering, a person has the option of providing the state with the names and email addresses of up to five contacts, who have the right to be notified as soon as the registrant seeks a restoration of the right to acquire guns. The bill makes it a crime to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to a person on the list (and a licensed gun dealer is liable to lose their dealer’s license, too). “Receipt” of a firearm is “unlawful” for anyone on the list, although the bill specifies that mere possession is not prohibited (“possession after the moment of receipt is not unlawful and the fact of possession may not be relied upon to prove a violation” of the law).

While getting on the Do Not Sell List may be as simple as a few clicks of a mouse, getting off the list is challenging different matter entirely. The registrant must file a petition with a court to have his or her name removed. All persons on the registrant’s contact list are entitled to advance notice of the date, time, and location of the court hearing. And although a person may register on the list for any reason (or no reason at all), a court is authorized to remove a registrant off the list only after he or she establishes, by a “preponderance of the evidence that he or she is not at elevated risk of suicide.” The evidence needed to satisfy this standard isn’t specified, but it’s safe to assume that a mental health evaluation and testimony from a mental health professional will be required. Once a court grants the order, the state must remove the person from the NICS Index and expunge all records related to the person’s registration on the list.

A similarly inspired bill to allow a “voluntary waiver of firearm rights” is pending in Washington State.  S.B. 5553allows anyone to file a waiver document with the court, and to include the name of a “person to be contacted” if a voluntary waiver is later revoked. All waivers are fed into a state police database used to determine eligibility to purchase a handgun. The person is free to revoke the waiver at a later date, but the waiver must stay in effect for a minimum of two weeks (seven days, plus another week in which the police must delete the waiver from the database). The bill makes it a felony to provide a gun to a person where there is reasonable cause to believe the person is subject to an active waiver, and a licensed dealer is prohibited from selling or transferring a gun to such persons.

The apparent rationale behind these bills is to provide those at risk of suicide with a way to declare themselves “prohibited persons” for the purposes of future gun purchases. Assemblyman Bonta describes his bill as giving “people the power to create a potentially life-saving barrier,” and the summary on the Washington proposal claims it will prevent suicide by helping “people in crisis maintain their autonomy while saving their lives.”

Overlooking several practical issues, the bills’ effectiveness isn’t likely to match the declared sentiment of advocates.

The California bill requires that the “Internet-based platform” for the list “credibly verif[y]” the identity of those who sign up online. Neither bill, though, has a corrective procedure to remove anyone included because they share a name and birthdate with someone properly listed, or because of some other error. The only way the bill provides for getting de-listed on California’s registry is convincing a court not that there’s been a mistake, but that the registrant has a non-elevated risk of suicide.

Waivers of constitutional rights “must be voluntary and must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” In Washington State, persons contemplating a waiver should be aware that the waiver remains effective even after it is revoked because the police have a week to process the revocation, with ensuing legal consequences. Because of the time lag between actual revocation and the update to the police database, a person who seeks to obtain a gun after revocation but during that period is liable to be reported to a separate police database of people who attempt to acquire guns while prohibited under state or federal law.

The most distressing thing about these bills is the focus on the method while bypassing the underlying, core problem of the person’s suicidal impulses, depression, or other mental health emergency. Experts estimate that the vast majority of persons who commit suicide suffer from a mental illness at the time of their death. The same mindset impelled “gun violence restraining order” laws in California and Washington State, aimed specifically at disarming persons at risk of harming themselves (but only with a gun). Regardless, Assemblyman Bonta, resorting to the favorite catchphrase of the gun control movement, describes his bill as “a common-sense measure” to allow people to “self-restrict their ability to purchase a firearm.”

While lawmakers continue to look for new ways to restrict gun rights, people seeking help may find there’s a lot of talk about promoting health through “innovative” prevention strategies for at-risk individuals, without much in the way of actual help.

America The Lost

America The Lost

(I wrote this article on 2-16-2014)

When I write something via free thought I am a person who for the most part needs a title first so that I can write to it. I settled on this title because it is unfortunately true in so many ways. By no means am I anti-American, I am not anti any country. As most people in our country probably know, our country is very sick and I do believe it is now to the point where it is terminal. I completely believe that the only chance our country has of survival is if the vast majority of our population (and our leaders) turns back to God our creator with all our hearts, minds, and souls. To be totally honest with you I just don’t see that happening. I believe that the three biggest pieces of cancer in our country are where the three main media centers are located, Hollywood, NYC, and DC. The pretty Lady with the Torch and all of Her land to Her west is crumbling all around Her and us. Also, these so-called Political Parties who always sell themselves to the highest bidders is destroying all of the fiber which our Country was created on and either it stops very soon or our country will not be in existence for our kids and grandkids.

 

There are people in our country who want to get rid of the second amendment (the people’s right to have the means to protect ourselves and our families) all together. I believe that most of the people who wish this to happen are filled with good intentions, it is my contention that these folks are a good bit unrealistic in their thought patterns. Even to this date with all of the revelations shown to us my Mr Snowden along with the IRS flaws and the so-called Patriot Act which burnt the Constitution, some people still think that our government is only filled with good intentions. Many people do not realize that our Country’s founding Fathers had seen first hand how a country where it’s people could not defend themselves were treated by the government. The Founding Fathers very much intended for it to be where We The People could defend ourselves from a government that oppresses its own people. They plainly wanted the people to be able to revolt if necessary. Do you remember your history classes about how the governments of Europe made it illegal for the people to possess arms and then how the Governments oppressed it’s people, where the people with no means to defend themselves simply became servants to the ruling class? How many lessons did you learn from what happened at Ruby Ridge where the government agents orders were “if it breathes, kill it”. Or do you remember the mass murdering of almost all of the men women and children at Waco? Do you honestly think that your best interest is what our government has on its daily agenda?

 

Now before you get to thinking that I am some right-wing gun-toting Militia member Grandpa whose agenda is chaos you could not be further from the truth. I am not an anti gun person at all, even though I do not own one at this time. I do believe that everyone has the God-given right to be able to protect themselves and their family. Just like I am not a hunter yet I believe people have the right to hunt if they want to. I am not a vegetarian, I do buy and eat meat from the grocery store, one can not say they are anti hunting if they are not a vegetarian, they would be what is called a hypocrite. O by the way in case you wanted to pigeon-hole my political association as being a Republican or as a Democrat, I am neither, I am a long time registered Independent.

 

Enough now about weapons and people’s rights concerning them. I would now like to turn my attention on the economics problems as they are many. If my education was in economics I and many of you could probably write a book on our country’s economic issues. I am just an old guy who is speaking from the school of lessons learned from a lifetime of paying attention. O in case you wondered about it, my degrees are in Sociology and in Anthropology but I did study some economic classes while in school. A few months ago I wrote an article in this blog called “It’s Called Trickle Up Economics”, if you would, please spend a few moments reading it. In it I discussed my irritation on how the so-called Stimulus Package money was used. What I wrote (in my opinion) in that blog post spells out my anger without me basically rewriting it here today.

 

Folks, I love this Country and I love the people who make up the fiber of this Country, for a country is it’s people, not their government. I don’t like the governments of several countries on this Globe but disliking a country’s government doesn’t mean I dislike the people. It is like in our country, I do not like the direction our Country is being led into but I would still give my life to protect our people. It really bothers me when I see how crooked and inept our Government has become and it is only we the people who can change it before we all are led straight into the belly of Hell by this inept evil leadership. I am not mad at how things are, I am just very sad at how blind our country has become and how evil our leaders are.

Penny Wilson Writes

A Bit of Me in Every Key Stroke

Short Prose

short prose, fiction, poetry

A Word Of Substance

"Object Relations"

Prospero's Island

Usurpation, murderous plots, a beautiful island...

AIWA! NO! Then press~~

Crimson Tazvinzwa: "We Read. We Discuss. We Review.."

blackornamental's Blog

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

Further Approximation to Original Thought

An Experimental World View Blog

Un paso a la vez

Temas variados

%d bloggers like this: