Democrats party of the little guy?

It is illegal for non-citizens to vote in America. That includes permanent residents with a green card. Federal law also provides that a non-citizens found to have either registered to vote or actually voted are to be deported to the country of origin.

A recent case from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick v. Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of the United States, is interesting. Here are the court’s own words explaining why Ms. Fitzpatrick will be deported back to her home country of Peru after living in the United States for the past 16 year:

After discovering that Fitzpatrick had voted in a federal election, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings. An Immigration Judge and then the Board of Immigration Appeals (initially and when deny ing reconsideration) decided that she must indeed leave the United States, even though she has led a productive and otherwise unblemished life in this country, is married to a U.S. citizen, and has three U.S. citizen children. Her children were born in Peru and naturalized after arrival. Her own 2007 application for citizenship is what brought her 2006 voting to light, when response to questions asked of all applicants she honestly described her voting history.

This may seem harsh to some. It is, however, the law. It is not hard for aliens to know the law because all sorts of warnings are given on just about every voter registration form. So what explains Ms. Fitzpatrick getting caught up in this web? The answer lies in the question who stands to benefit from illegal voting, and the answer to that question is common knowledge. It is the Democrat party that gains the most, perhaps the all, from illegal voting. Does anyone think they care about what can happen to the legals who become illegals when the Democrats rally them to the voting booths? Democrats know most illegals will vote Democrat and that’s all they care about. They encourage illegals to mistakenly believe the Democrats can or will save them from deportation. They are made to think the Democrats are their friends and the Republicans are their enemy. There are many stories of other aliens who could have continued to live and prosper in America if the Democrat party had just left them alone, as do the Republicans. Which party is their real friend and which is their real enemy now?

Legal resident aliens who value their life in America and want to keep it should be warned to stay away from Democrats. They’re dangerous. Mrs. Fitzpatrick can never legally return to the United States, not even for a brief visit with her sons and husband. She will only see them when they visit her in Peru. Once deported, returning to the U.S. is a felony. She traded all that she had here, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, to cast a vote for a lousy bunch of sleezebags who, except for the loss of her vote in future, could not care less.

It’s not revealed in the opinion in this case that Ms. Fitzpatrick voted for Democrats when she voted. But it would silly to believe otherwise. If she had not been beguiled by Democrats she’d be a U.S. citizen by now and she could be legally voting for the sleezebags to her heart’s content.

Very Few Out of Very Many

We are told that only a very few of the very many Muslims in the world are terrorists. The counter argument is that since there are very many Muslims in the world even a small percentage of 1% to 2% will be equal very many terrorists. We found out on 9/11 how even a very few can kill very many in a very short time.

A friend has introduced me to the “Jelly Bean” theory of terrorism. Say you have a giant bowl filled with 100,000 jelly beans of all colors. Now say 2 of the 100,000 jelly beans are laced with cyanide and will kill you instantly if eaten.

How many jelly beans will you let your children eat?

27 MIllion Guns Sold in 2016 — Thank You Obama!!

This time I’m not being sarcastic when I thank Obama. I should add a thank you to Hillary Rodham Clinton with the same sincerity. These two are the greatest gun salesman the world has ever known.

Liz Sheld:

I’ve long held that President Obama was a gift to the firearms industry and now we can quantify that theory. In 2016 there were 27,583,673 FBI background checks, an increase of 4 million checks from 2015 and double what we saw during Obama’s first term.

Why the increase? A combination of factors including domestic terror attacks like San Bernardino and Orlando, increased agitating for gun control from the anti-Second Amendment crowd including a possible Hillary Clinton presidency, and social unrest and riots in cities around America.

Following Trump’s election, gun sales have slightly slowed.

Will Democrats realize they’re selling guns and stop their anti-gun agenda? Ha! Not a chance.

Sanctuary Cities Are Sanctuaries of Crime

From Truth Revolt, Sanctuary Cities Cave in Face of Trumps’s Funding Threats:

Many have caved, many still resisting:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also vowed to resist Trump’s sanctuary city-busting. “I want to be clear: We’re going to stay a sanctuary city,” Emanuel said. “There is no stranger among us… you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American dream.”

What a pompous joke. Chicago’s version of the American Dream is “staying alive through the weekend,” which is becoming increasingly difficult in Emanuel’s strictly gun-controlled murder-topia where gun violence is off the charts. As if crime weren’t enough of a scourge there, he wants to harbor criminal aliens.

Democrats are soft on crime, both their own crimes and other peoples’ crimes. We knew that, but we didn’t know they were so lax on criminals they wanted to import more of them.

The “No-Trump Clause” in housing ads

A recent story in the New York Times by Katie Rogers referred to a housing ad that offered a room in a home for $500/month. The ad was placed by a married couple who described themselves as “open minded” and liberal and included this: “If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic or a Trump supporter please don’t respond. We won’t get along.”

Kevin Williamson writing at National Review sees this as a form of totalitarianism just short of wanting to build prison camps for those who disagree with their political stance:

One of the less understood criticisms of progressivism is that it is totalitarian, not in the sense that kale-eating Brooklynites want to build prison camps for political nonconformists (except for the ones who want to lock up global-warming skeptics) but in the sense that it assumes that there is no life outside of politics, that there is no separate sphere of private life, and that church, family, art, and much else properly resides within that sphere.

My reaction is that Kevin Williamson is correct in how he characterizes such people, but that this couple is also correct when they say we wouldn’t get along. I’d never respond to such an ad for that very reason. I’d be grateful for their disclosure because it would save me a lot of frustration. Imagine if I moved in with them and then found them hating me when I let slip that I voted for and am a supporter of Donald Trump.

Some self examination ensued as I thought more about this. Would I want to share my home with an Obama supporter? There are a few million men in America who think pretty much like me and who are married to wives who not only voted twice for Obama but also for Hillary last November. I don’t know if that bothers them, perhaps not. It would bother me because I question the sanity of anyone who voted twice for Obama and recently for Hillary. Maybe it’s not their sanity, maybe it’s just ignorance. At least that can be corrected, although it seldom is.

Of course, the wives I describe apparently are nothing like the hopeful landlords who placed that ad in New York. As far as I know massive divorces are not occurring over different political preferences. Somehow the politically polar opposite couples are finding marital bliss in other ways. That would indicate that not all dumbbells Obama/Hillary voters are fascist totalitarians.

If I were seeking to rent out a room in my home, would I want someone I believed to be a three-time political idiot? No, I would not. Does that make me totalitarian every bit as much as those New Yorkers?

I’m desperately trying to think the answer is no, I’m different. But, really? In my defense all I can offer is that some of my wife’s close friends are extremely liberal Democrat progs and I would be willing to bet a large sum that they are proud Obama/Hillary voters. They are also very nice people whose company I can enjoy so long as we don’t discuss politics, which we never do. They seem to sense the situation the same as I, it would not be productive.

If that doesn’t exonerate me from being a totalitarian, I have another, stronger defense to the charge. Unlike the New York couple, I do not accuse those whose politics I find antithetical of being racist, sexist and homophobic with no evidence except how they vote.

Kevin Williamson’s article at National Review is very good, and I recommended it heartily.

A Breathtaking Overreach in the Federal Courts over Trump’s Temporary Travel Ban

Until a few days ago it would have been hard to imagine how one court in one case could turn so much established law on its head. That is what has happened in a Federal District Court in Washington State and in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Amazingly, this was done with little mention of the long-established legal doctrines that were upended and dumped into the trash bin.

There is no apparent reason why this was necessary. None of the Judges involved expressly addressed the laws, statutes, and doctrines they were killing. They simply pretended they don’t exist. There are three main legal doctrines that the court eviserated in issuing and then upholding a preliminary  injunction on Trump’s temporary travel ban. They are (1) the requirement of standing, (2) the requirement of irreparable harm and the likelihood the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of the suit as a perquisite to the imposition of an injunction, and (3) the well established plenary power of the President in the conduct of foreign affairs and the making of policy in national security matters.

The legal concept of standing in the federal courts has as its purpose preventing frivolous suits by requiring that a plaintiff litigant be the actual person in interest who has suffered actual harm. The law of standing has its roots in the U.S. Constitution’s Article III which limits federal court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies.” In other words, judges are not supposed to decide poltical questions. Political questions and issues do not present justiciable issues which a court may hear or rule upon. The U.S. Supreme Court has established a three-part test for standing.

The “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” requires the plaintiff to establish an injury in fact, an invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent. It may not be conjectural or hypothetical. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of that is traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court. Third, it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

To obtain an injunction the plaintiff cannot rely merely on its standing to sue, it must establish that the harm complained of be irreparable such that mere compensation in money damages will not suffice to satisfy justice between the parties. The only harm alleged by the plaintiff, the University of Washington, was that it might lose the registration of a few foreign students from Somalia and Yemen who would be prevented from entering the United States during the temporary ban. This is so laughable it completely validates Trump’s claim that both the Federal District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in this case were purely political and not judicial.

Had it been Obama and not Trump issuing this executive order it would never have been challenged in court, and if it had it would have been summarily dismissed by the judges.

The implied plenary power of the Office of the President of the United States is not expressly stated in the Constitution but has always been assumed and was expressly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, in Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in the Youngstown Steel case of 1952. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just usurped the power of the President and claimed it for themselves. The Constitution does not give them this power. They are wholly unqualified to hold such power and they should be told as much by the U.S. Surpeme Court at the earliest possible opportunity.

The courts have traditionally relied not merely upon sheriffs and marshals to carry out their orders, but also upon the respect of the people. If we are entering an era where judges begin to act like banana republic dictators they are on the path to losing that respect.

That loss of respect for judges and courts has already begun: The Show Trials of the Ninth Circuit.

 

“We the People”on Trumps Travel Ban and Sanctuary City Plans

It appears that while Democrats and Judges fume, We The People overwhelmingly approve of Trump’s travel ban and plan to deny Federal funding to sanctuary cites.

The U.S. Constitution’s preamble starts with “We The People.” It does not say “We The Judges” and it does not say “We The Lawyers.”

You have to read the British newspapers to get the news the U.S. legacy media doesn’t want you to see.