Gun “Laws” and the Constitution

We the people American Constitution with feather pen

Some states intend to “explore” ways to block those on terror watch lists from buying guns. Already, according to this story, the state of New Jersey blocks people on the list from purchasing guns, something which would seem to be unconstitutional. Consider the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Owning a gun is a Constitutional right, not just a privilege, like driving a car. In addition, the Constitution requires “due process”, which is not something that occurs when someone is added to terror watch lists by anonymous bureaucrats.

As the Huffington Post points out:

  • “[I]rrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable” [enough to place one on the list].
  • [P]ostings on social media sites … should not be discounted” …  Instead, … [anonymous investigators] should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.”
  • [S]omebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.
  • You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.
  • [Y]ou could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.
  • [There’s] a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status.
  • There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual.

According to this story,

Congress may have declined to ban the sale of guns to people on federal terrorism watch lists, but one state — New Jersey — has, at least theoretically, been stopping such purchases since 2013.

… [T]he system could potentially serve as a model for a handful of other states, including New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois and California, where lawmakers have been exploring ways to restrict sales without an act of Congress [and despite the Constitution].

Under a law signed by Gov. Chris Christie, people buying guns or applying for a firearm permit in New Jersey can be blocked as part of the routine criminal history check, conducted through the National Crime Information Center.

In every state, that NCIC review leads to purchases and permits being rejected if it reveals a disqualifying factor under state or federal law. In most states, that means someone who has a felony conviction, is not a U.S. citizen, or is subject to certain court orders.

Buyers in New Jersey, however, also are rejected if the applicant’s name appears on the NCIC’s “known or appropriately suspected terrorist” list, one of several such terror watch lists maintained by U.S. law enforcement.

There’s a new “law” going into effect in California that similarly bans people, at least for 21 days, from “owning” guns if someone believes they’re a threat to themselves or others. The person believed to be a potential threat has his weapons confiscated!

As three new gun laws go into effect Friday in California, gun purveyors worry that the well-meaning efforts of lawmakers will have a detrimental impact on society.

The most groundbreaking of these laws will allow people to obtain a 21-day restraining order barring a family member from owning guns if it is believed that they are in danger of committing a violent act. [How does one determine the credibility of belief? How can the government violate a person’s constitutional rights based upon another person’s alleged belief?]

A person concerned about the mental state of a family member will be able to make a request to police, who after investigating the claim would submit the petition for a temporary restraining order to a court. [So now police will be required to have medical degrees in psychiatry?] If granted, police will require the subject of the order to surrender any guns and ammunition they already have.

After 21 days, the court holds a hearing to determine if a new year-long order should be instituted.

Now I’m no lawyer but I have been tested multiple times on the Constitution in grade school, high school, and college, so I know in my gut that you can’t punish someone or infringe upon his constitutional rights before a trial and a conviction. Yet in California, if the precogs say so, punishment shall ensue (confiscation without a hearing) and then a judge might have a hearing (not a trial) to determine if punishment should continue for a year, and then maybe another year, ad infinitum? A temporary restraining order can result in loss of a constitutional right? Due process? Hardly.

Consider the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I’d like to ask all the progressives in places like Soviet California this question:

Will you also be okay with taking away, without due process, the fundamental Constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly from persons whom someone else “believes” may become violent, based solely upon that belief–punishment first, hearing after 3 weeks, maybe?

Imagine a President Trump who becomes concerned about potential violence that could RECUR at Black Lives Matter protests, pro-abortion rallies, or pro-illegal-immigration demonstrations. Since such potentially violent protests are organized on social media, should ringleaders’ accounts be suspended, when someone decides that their words or plans might become a danger to the public? Should ringleaders, perhaps, be forced to stay inside their homes, wearing ankle bracelets to ensure that they do–incommunicado–until the potentially violent situation blows over? Should we keep them there for 21 days and then maybe hold a hearing to see if they still remain a threat to the public peace?

When protests become violent, as in Ferguson in 2014, should the media be forbidden from reporting upon the violence or from repeating the rhetoric of the protest ringleaders, to ensure public peace and to protect lives and property?  Prior restraint by judicial injunction is traditionally frowned upon, but so what? If a judge can order someone’s weapons and ammo to be seized based upon opinions, if someone can be forbidden to buy guns based upon speculation by nameless bureaucrats, then what’s to protect the media from prior restraint?

I began writing this post before doing any research to see what’s already been written and said about this issue, which is a very serious issue, given Obama’s intent to go full speed ahead in his final-year effort to “fundamentally transform” our country. I subsequently found a story that repeats much of what I said above, but which says it better, I think. An excerpt:

By now, you’ve heard and read about the schemes proposed by everyone from President Barack Obama to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would ban firearms sales to anyone on the so-called “Terror Watch List.”

And as you probably already know, Republican leaders—and some, but not enough, Democrats—oppose this reckless and dangerous policy, because it violates:

  • the principle of due process under the law, a foundation of American jurisprudence;
  • the notion of “innocent until proven guilty;”
  • the right to hear any charges and confront any witnesses against you;
  • the right to an open trial by a jury of your peers; and
  • the very rule of law upon which this nation was founded.

What you may not know is just how profoundly this scheme endangers not just your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but also the fundamental premise of freedom that’s woven through every fiber in the fabric of the Bill of Rights.

Because if government can deny your Second Amendment rights on nothing more than rumors, suspicions, anonymous accusers and unspecified charges—it can deny every right we enjoy as Americans.

During a Dec. 10 hearing before Congress, U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., questioned Kelli Ann Burriesci, deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, on this very issue.

“What process is afforded a U.S. citizen before they go on that [terror watch] list?” Gowdy asked, to which Burriesci answered, “I’m sorry, um, there’s not a process afforded the citizen prior to getting on the list …”

Gowdy continued, … My question is, can you name another constitutional right that we have that is chilled until you find out it’s chilled, and then you have to petition government to get it back?

How about the First [Amendment]? How about we not let them set up a website or a Google account? How about we not let ‘em join the church until they can petition government to get off the list? … How about the Sixth Amendment? How ‘bout you can’t get a lawyer until you petition the government to get off the list? Or my favorite, how about the Eighth Amendment? We’re gonna subject you to cruel and unusual punishment until you petition the government to get off the list. Is there another constitutional right that we treat the same way for American citizens that we do the Second Amendment?

California has already gone one step further, allowing for the confiscation of currently legally owned guns upon the opinion of “family members” who “believe” someone might become violent.

It seems, despite the Constitution and current law, some states intend to “nudge” everyone towards a progressive utopia–a gun-free country, except for criminals–in the same way that some states, notably California, and some cities, such as St. Louis, ignored the Constitution and current law by proceeding with “gay marriage”, anyway, illegally and unconstitutionally.

Hey, it worked once, why not go for another bite of the apple?

This is the Obama method, being copied by progressives across the  nation: Ignore the law and the Constitution. Do what you want and dare your opponents to take you to court. Then delay, delay, delay, all the while implementing your unconstitutional and illegal executive “actions” until, you hope, it’s impossible to roll them back.

Until it’s impossible for us to get our country and our freedoms back.

Recently, Saudi Arabia executed (beheaded) 47 prisoners en masse, one of whom was a Shiite cleric who had protested the (Sunni) Saudi government. He’d been accused of “terrorism” and “violence”, charges which he denied. The Saudi “war on terror” was the rationale for his execution (which has led to violent protests throughout the Middle East).

In 2015, at least 157 people were executed in Saudi Arabia, where defendants aren’t provided public defenders, nor are they provided translators, if they can’t speak the language. A person can be executed in that country for drug trafficking, rape, murder, terrorism, violent rhetoric, being a “threat to security,” sometimes only upon the discretion of a judge. Thus, it’s relatively easy in Saudi Arabia to do away with pesky political opponents by accusing them of terrorism or of being a threat to the security of the state.

Kill first; adjudicate later. Even if some court eventually decides that the cleric shouldn’t have been executed, nevertheless, he’s no longer around to hinder the Saudis. Is he?

Are we  now on our way to becoming another Saudi Arabia?

Eternal vigilance!

Evil NEVER sleeps!


143 responses to “Gun “Laws” and the Constitution

  1. ~ Roland Sorenson ·
    Owner at Self-employed
    Let’s get two things straight, OBAMA!

    1. Banning guns does not reduce crime. Crime goes UP when the law abiding citizen is disarmed.

    2. The Second amendment is not about hunting and it’s not about target shooting. It’s about giving the government good reason to leave the citizen alone.

    Regardless, gun grabs are coming if the clown in office has his way.

    Obama is the biggest threat to the American way of life…Obama Hates Americans, the Constitution, & free market capitalism. He destroyed our economy with measures like the A C A & immigration amnesty. The “Affordable” Care Act has been nothing short of a disaster. My health insurance bill is up to $450/month. (Compare this to my $25/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda or my $10/month renters insurance… both private enterprise!) Keep your hands off us!

    The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, & religion are extremely important but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. Every person should have the right to bear arms. Leave your hands off my guns!

  2. Shamless FAKE …. TRICKS & WORSE …A grown MAN ?

  3. ~ mn3169 • ….^^^
    So, he sheds tears when trying to deflect from his unconstitutional over reach, but nary a Tear shed for those maimed or killed at the Boston Marathon, those souls lost in Benghazi, or those lost to radical Islamists. Disingenuous narcissistic p.o.s. I see you Obama. You will go Down in History as the Worst president in History. Hopefully some day you will end up Behind Bars for Treason. ….!!!!!!!!

    ~ Marc mn3169 •
    From your keyboard to G-d’s ears…”behind bars for treason”. Amen!

  4. ~ Keith Davidson • & more friends below… … ^^^

    And STILL nowhere does he mention Kate Steinle.
    The tears are fake, y’all.
    Menthol on the fingertip can make you cry

    From his Newport cigarettes.

    would EX-plain why he was ‘Crying’ out of ONE …. EYE!

    OR have Onions on your hand! And ONLY ONE tear?

    OR keep from blinking till eyes water up. Old acting technique.

    Hot pepper sauce on the fingertips will create “tears”….This liar
    Couldn’t cry Real tears because HE has NO …. Heart OR Soul.

    • The sniffing beforehand was a dead giveaway. He sniffed something to make him cry. The video didn’t show much before, so hard to tell when he sniffed it or how. Maybe it was in his pocket?

    SAID …. ZERO …. WHY? OBAMA? an ILLEGAL did IT?

    • You know what my local paper cited? Some study showing that in interviews PRISON INMATES said they didn’t go through background checks to get the guns they used. A vast majority did NOT go through background checks. From THAT statistic they inferred (or wanted readers to infer) that it was a flaw or loophole in the background check laws, which allowed the felons to buy guns at gun shows without a background check, AS IF criminals BUY guns anywhere. What they deliberately did not ask or did not cite was the number of people who STOLE THE GUNS OR GOT THEM FROM SOMEONE WHO STOLE THEM. These criminals do NOT get guns LEGALLY. They steal them or buy stolen goods.

      In addition, surely the progs want “smart gun” technology because if THAT’S mandated, then (just like with our communications and the Internet) when they want to they can TURN THEM ALL OFF. Right? Even if they tell us that type of technology won’t come to pass, would anyone believe it? They tell us that they DON’T spy on our phone conversations or even use current technology in laptops, desktops, phones, CARS, or televisions to spy on us. Do you believe it? Who would? They can and do spy on us, Snowden and others have proven. Put a “smart lock” on guns and they will disable them when they want to. In fact, the NRA is onto them:

      “Gun control supporters advocate laws to prohibit the sale of firearms that do not possess “smart” technology, as a way to prohibit the manufacture of traditional handguns, raise the price of handguns that would be allowed to be sold and, presumably, to imbed into handguns a device that would allow guns to be disabled remotely.”

      I was extrapolating from what I know of progressives and heretofore did NOT know that they actually DO want to be able to REMOTELY DISABLE guns! OMG. Their mendacity knows no bounds.

    • excellent article. Not too long ago I had a brief emergency hospital visit. Upon entry, while the nurse does her spill, taking my temp,blood pressure,etc., she asks the usual medical questions, along with questions like: Do you feel safe at home, do you have a good relationship with your husband(while he’s sitting there) and a couple other questions like this. I was expecting the next question to be: “Do you or anyone in your family own a gun. However she stopped asking anything further when I told her it was none of her business and what did her questions have to do with why I was there(fainting and low blood pressure). Wish I had thought to ask her if she felt she was violating my 5th amendment and why was she willing to do a background check on me before I could become a patient there. This article above just rang a bell with me about this.

      • Excellent! Thank you.

        Was it your vagus nerve? That happens to me sometimes.

        • Doc thought it was my vagus nerve…but they had no test really for that…..turns out my thyroid was freaking out. I’m much better now,thank you.
          Happy New Year, by the way. I’m just getting back home and haven’t been following you all. I’m playing catch up with everything. I did see the news a couple of times and those fake “tears” of the “clown” . Made me sick and yet so glad he’s not got much longer . Still sooner(like impeachment) gone would be better.

      • Be well and stay well, alfy. I’m familiar with vasovagal syncope episdoes. Amazingly scary, even if “benign”, unless a person falls and hit his head on the sidewalk.

        Good for you telling that nurse where to get off, except she probably put in your chart: potential problem with authority (ODD) or at least that you’re a “difficult” patient. 🙂

  6. & ALSO … “Just keep Taking CHUNKS & CHUNKS OUT of the Second Amendment” .. just in CASE U MISSED THAT part … ha go Trump!

  7. I said it would happen,

    Team Obama says Cruz doesn’t meet the eligibility requirement of being a naturally born American and cannot be President.

    For once, Obama is right,
    Cruz is not eligible and neither is Rubio.
    This one was as obvious as a freight train in a tunnel comin’ straight at ya.
    Did anyone think Obama would keep his head down because he has the same problem?

  8. Veterans !!!! The Secret Code on Discharge Form – DD214 !!!! Must See !!!!

    • What is this in a nutshell? I don’t have time today to watch this whole thing.

      • In a nutshell. Upon being discharged of the military a coded system identifies numerous attributes that may or in many cases not be true of the individual. The code can determine whether or not the veteran can receive benefits or employment or medical care. The veteran being interviewed discovered the system and began an investigation into the code assigned to all veterans without their knowledge. Turns out the gov’t is using the code to funnel monies entitled to the veterans using falsely created identities to the tune of billions annually !!!! You’ll only need to watch 10 minutes or so to understand the crime they’ve been caught at.

        • Thanks, James. I’ll watch the first part.

          Click to access SPN_Codes.pdf

          Click to access spd_codes.pdf

          (These could be out of date.)

          Sounds like your typical “civil service” run-around, with regard to employment. Happens everywhere where there are supposed to be rules but the powers-that-be find a way to get around one way or another. In lieu of “patronage”, they find ways to rig the system. Wouldn’t be surprised at all if they “blacklisted” as many whites as possible. Know what I’m sayin’?

          The FRAUD part is outrageous. Haven’t heard the whole thing but wonder if anybody is investigating this?

  9. ~ moderation_stinks ….
    This guy can’t even do what I, as a Florida citizen, voted for him to do – show up and vote conservative!
    ~ CatB
    Gang of “8” .. He lied directly to we the voters ..I will never forget.
    ~ MisterSarcastic
    Didn’t bother reading the article since there’s no way in heII I’d vote for Rubihaho. Bottom line is that it doesn’t matter how you play the game. What matters is who has the most Points in the end. Points 4 TRUMP!
    ~ normbal
    Trumps an executive, not a policy wonk. He’ll gather the best and the brightest to advise him. NO Valerie Jarrett insider Mole for the Trumpster,
    no sir. Rubio? Go back to your gang of ocho normbal
    ~ crackerone
    Just getting started in Burlington Vt. Another over-flow crowd for Trump.

    ~ SDFFT
    Hey Marco, another thing that Trump does NOT .. DO is support amnesty, unlike YOU….. So go away.

  10. leading NOT from BE-HIND ….BUTT’ FRONT & CENTER STAGE
    + check the chart out ….

  11. WOW … HILLARY ..CLINTON ….. what’s really going on? WOW
    60 DAYS & COUNTING ? ~ WTPOTUS R so READY …2 hold HER
    FEET 2 the FIRE…were SICK
    & O’ SO TIRED of this CRAP ~ DUMP the TRASH ..bring ON TRUMP!

  12. love these ladies!! 😀

    • I could totally see them believing they could foist Mooch on us when Hill goes down (no disgusting pun intended).

      • My bet is on Elizabeth Warren so she escape scrutiny of a campaign run.

        • I think so, too. I cannot stand her, not only because she’s a faux “Indian” a la the faux African-American Dolezal, but also because she’s another “annointed one”. And, like Obama, she will be Teflon. The media will do nothing but praise her. I wonder how many people even remember the controversy over her stealing a scholarship designated for a true descendant of some Indian tribe? Oh, well. We live in a self-defined world, so if Dolezal can be black, she can be red. And Jenner can be a she. BUT, heaven forbid, if anyone OTHERS decide is “white” declare himself or herself NOT a recipient of “white privilege” and NOT a natural born bigot. Oh, they do believe in the concept of natural born, just so long as it applies to “whites” and being born racist.

    • Well, they’re pinning his NBC claim on the fact that his mother was a NBC of the USA, and that, allegedly, makes him a U.S. citizen at birth even though born in Canada. He likely was a Canadian citizen and also probably a Cuban citizen, based upon his father’s citizenship. Now I believe he’s a U.S. citizen only because some law was passed by Congress making it so, not specifically for him but in general. It’s so long since we researched the nuances. However, if he’s a citizen of the U.S. only on account of some law passed by Congress, then he’s not natural born because to be natural born is obvious and you don’t need any law to make it so. It traditionally was that a kid got the citizenship of his FATHER, in which case Cruz would be a Cuban and a Canadian, but since he was born in the late 20th century, after women got recognition of the rights they always had (from God), then probably if challenged they’re going to make a women’s rights/war against women/emancipation of women/equal protection under the law/civil rights claim that it’s unconstitutional to only pass citizenship through the father. Nevertheless, it doesn’t defeat the argument that he is not a NATURAL citizen, that in essence he’s a naturalized one, OR, especially, that he has/had allegiance to two countries other than the USA. I’ll admit that at this point in time, I don’t really give a rat’s patoot. It’s likely that if the SCOTUS ever does get involved, they’re going to overturn what WE think the correct definition is. Otherwise, if Congress redefines it, the SCOTUS will punt and say it’s a “political” question and so they’ll just let it go. It’s true that we get the potus we deserve. In Barry’s case, despite ALL THE RED FLAGS, the people (arguably, considering vote fraud) elected and then re-elected him, despite his questionable loyalties.

      The thing about Cruz’s mother being on the 1974 voter list for CANADA is quite interesting, if unexplained. Did she ever vote? DID she become a Canadian citizen? They say not, but it raises the question: Did she LOSE her U.S. citizenship even without gaining Canadian citizenship by VOTING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AS IF SHE’S CANADIAN? When did this happen, if it did? I believe his father did become a Canadian citizen, or am I mis-remembering?

      IF she voted as a Canadian or became a Canadian before 1970, then he’s not even a U.S. citizen. They claim she couldn’t have been a Canadian in 1970 because she didn’t qualify for citizenship there: she hadn’t met the residency requirements by 1970, BUT perhaps if his dad was considered a “refugee” from evil Cuba, might she, as his wife, also have been given some kind of expedited process or maybe even automatic citizenship, as was sometimes done for wives of newly naturalized citizens? If so, then if she accepted said citizenship and voted as a Canadian, would that mean her children born in Canada were NOT U.S. citizens at all?

      • Its impossible for a Cuban-American born in Canada to be eligible for Commander In Chief of our Military.

        Use any variables with “American” as hyphenate. We’re being usurped gently because many Canadians speak English. Push. Then Shove.

        The next term bending will eventually be so he’s Chinese! He was born in California and has been here for 14 years and he is 35, for God’s sake! It won’t even matter if he is a biologically a she as it comes around the bend.

        • I think the reason why Rubio AND Cruz are put forward as the most likely but for Trump IS EXACTLY BECAUSE they, too, are ineligible. By promoting them, they hope to legitimate, after the fact, the Obama “presidency”. IMHO. We may already have a biologically male first lady, so …

    • Oh, yes, it cun.

      Over here, we have the “Knockout Game” that the media cover up. Over there, it’s apparently the “Feelup Game”. Same politically correct response.

      You know, I’ve been a victim of similar behavior before, and the dudes probably haven’t ever forgotten me. Have these women never heard of FIGHTING BACK? How many of these a-holes were slugged? Women over there are (still) too meek. Let them try this in the USA. A good kick in the crotch will put them down. FIGHT BACK.

      There are a number of “refugees” who shop at a store that I frequent. They’re families from muslim countries, not necessarily the Middle East, but majority muslim countries. These people ARE muslims. The men chaperon the women to the store and then stand around smoking (yes, against store policy), eyeing American women, and giving them dirty looks if they think they’re not dressed appropriately (or for whatever reason it is that makes them stare disapprovingly). You ought to see their reaction when I stare them down. They’re like Barry. Unaccustomed to being defied, or even looked in the eye, by a female. It’s really fun because they’re flummoxed. There’s really not much they can do. I find it enormously satisfying to welcome them to the USA in my own special way–just trying to help them assimilate to their new REALITY.

  13. My 2007 Prediction is seeing the light:

    American Presidential Campaign World Tour ring a bell?

    “The American Presidency is merely a stepping stone”

  14. The Ladies. 😀

  15. HILLARY ? & the “ACT-ING STUPIDLY JUDGE” …. really DO get IT!
    they just “play STUPID” ? which PUTS WTPOTUS in HARMS WAY!

  16. ~ art johnson
    I’m 68 and have watched every Trump speech. Trump isn’t a Republican or a Democrat, he’s a AMERICAN, and as much as I have been fooled over the years I do believe in Trump. He’s not a politician, he’s a business man, and in case your not aware of it the U.S.A. is a corporation. Trump is extremely smart, he’s knows construction, he’s knows building cost, he knows how to make deals, he knows banking, and I think his heart is as big as his balls. Our country is ready to pop in a bad way, we must have a strong, smart, leader now, I wish he could take over tomorrow. It changes day to day and usually for the worse in our country. On top of all that he’s self funding, this is huge, he’ll be working for the American people not some lobbyist. Trump is the man, I just hope it’s not to late. ~ Art. Las Vegas
    Show less

  17. ~ Deb Curlette ….^^^
    TRUMP 2016!
    I have four degrees and I can write a sentence so let’s dispel this uneducated follower nonsense. Every citizen with an ounce of common sense and patriotism is for the Donald.
    Trump cannot be bought. He is THE ONLY candidate with integrity.
    Trump WILL Make America Great Again. FINALLY!

  18. Trump …… Could Win It All !!!!! …^^^

    A new survey shows a sizable number of Democrats ready to defect from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.

  19. BRING ON the G O L D !!! ~ HEAVEN SENT …. 4 SURE!!!
    TRUMP RULES over the slime-BALLS 24 / 7 !!!

  20. ~ Rubicon • ….^^^
    The MSM, RINO’s, Donor Class, Dems are all still in Denial. All these groups don’t care about America or Americans, they just care about themSelves and the people that Fund them. While they’re put US 20
    Trillion in Debt, Open Borders, Bad Trade Deals, Bad foreign policy deals, unnecessary wars….To Fund Their Corruption.

    It’s Time We The People Take Back What’s Ours …. Vote Trump!

    • Not long ago I read an article where someone reported that “journalists” in the media have decided that they need to band together to get Trump. This is probably part of that effort. Only, as usual, it’s going to backfire on them.

    • All these people talk about is non-existent “islamophobia” and the non-existent “backlash” and prejudice against muslim terrorism. Why don’t the same people, especially the media, talk about the stereotyping and prejudice against “infidels” by muslims? They talk about the threats of violence against muslims–again, non-existent threats. But why don’t they decry not only the threats of violence against non-muslims by muslims but also the ACTUAL VIOLENCE committed against non-muslims by muslims EVERY DAY and EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY?

    • btw, look at the woman and her companion. Look how she’s dressed, the badges, the t-shirt message. SO, don’t they have to give Trump kudos for not only letting her into his PRIVATE EVENT but also allowing her to stand right behind him? Would Barry or Hillary let Tea Partiers, for example, do the same? How about someone with a Gadsden flag on her shirt saying “don’t tread on me” who’s wearing a pro-Trump button? Would the person get into an Obama “town hall” or a Hillary rally, much less be allowed close to the precious snowflakes?

  21. ~ JJ January 9, 2016
    LC gets it–NBC= blood AND soil

    ~ drkate January 9, 2016
    And the birth certificate of his mother doesn’t negate the fact that he was

    born in Canada. Even Breitbart is avoiding the issue directly trying to deflect

  22. drkate January 9, 2016

    Thank you LC–Cruz

    heather January 9, 2016

    Cruz should be arrested, LC is right, Cruz being a lawyer should know his own citizenship status disqualifies him for potus and veep and the same goes for Rubio. Although Rubio is not a dual citizen he is still an anchor baby as both of his parents were illegal immigrants when he was born in America. They were not American citizens until well after Rubio was born.

    Both of these liars need to be thrown off the campaign and be held accountable for being imposters, frauds, liars, fakes. They both knew they were ineligible for potus and ran anyway hoping no one would notice they weren’t NBC. Same goes for Bobby Jindal.

  23. Wouldn’t it be lovely if Donald Trump became POTUS and on his first day he would proffer an “Executive Order” stating No one except a full blooded American citizen is eligible to be a candidate for the office of the presidency, thus Commander of our military in light of the foreign infiltration of illegal aliens in our Country… ? just sayin’. We could all move along and live out our golden years concentrating on the domestic issues at hand interfering with our birthrights to be free and live free…

  24. Funny that they call people “birthers” when the issue is about “natural born”.
    They too, are “birthers”, in that sense, or are they “unbirthers”?

    • It really doesn’t matter what they call us because they deliberately misrepresent out point of view, anyway. They equate “birther” with someone who believes he was born in KENYA. Well, we’ve NEVER said that nor has anybody else they call a “birther”. What we believe is that it IS solely a matter of BELIEF because there’s no EVIDENCE upon which to determine WHERE he was born. We don’t and can’t say Kenya because NOBODY KNOWS without EVIDENCE. When you have no EVIDENCE, then all you do have is BELIEF, which is what the people who call US birthers rely upon–belief. Only belief in what he TELLS THEM. Not what he SHOWS THEM because he’s still NEVER produced any evidence concerning where he was born. No three-dimensional paper birth certificate. Only an online “abstract” and papers that were printed out FROM that online digital abstract which is NOT a legitimate legal document that would pass muster in court. THEY’RE the idiots, not us. We can recognize when we don’t KNOW something because we cannot state anything definitively without evidence to prove it. They’re the ones who DO state unequivocally, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, that he was born in Hawaii. People who believe something without evidence are irrational beings.

      • I hear ya! I remember back in 2007 learning his father was a Kenyan and that’s all it took for me as I didn’t yet hear about the rumors of where he may have been born. I remember telling Maureen Dowd that it wouldn’t matter if he had been born in the Lincoln Bedroom as he does not have 2 American citizen parents. The mystery of where he was born is just a double whammy for me. I believe 2 Americans on vacation could birth their child in France and that would never make that person French or a French citizen. In my opinion, that infant is an American born in France.

        • The last scenario is a puzzler. The kid born in France to two U.S. citizens would be a U.S. citizen, but a natural born one? That scenario makes me rethink things. The kid would not be, what’s the term, jus soli? Hardly seems fair if that child would be precluded from running for POTUS just because maybe Mom was on vacation when labor began. It’s all about allegiance, though, so somebody who does have a foreigner as one parent and foreign citizenship at birth should not be able to be POTUS. Does France give French citizenship to a child in that circumstance?

          • This is a shocking turnabout:

            According to Geraldo (!!): “Donald Trump is right about Ted Cruz’s citizenship. USC 8 Section 1401 only defines “citizen” not “natural born citizen.” The Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed natural born citizen status from children born over seas to U.S. citizen parents and replaced it with just “citizen” status.”

            And he is so correct. And the reason they repealed it is because, first of all, the Congress cannot make someone a “natural born” citizen by passing a law, and second, they realized the risk of having some kid born and maybe raised his whole life in another country, coming back here to run for president, when his entire allegiance is to the land of his birth. MOST liberals, when addressing Barry’s case, refer to the 1790 law but fail to emphasize that five years later it was REPEALED.

  25. O’ …HEAR HEAR!!! O’ just great getting OUT of DODGE???

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s