Since chain emails (particularly those that are tongue in cheek) cannot be trusted, I did some research.
I tried to track down both a rebel flag and an ISIS flag on EBAY. As of now, EBAY seems to exclude both.
Not sure what ADT charges, but it cannot beat free.
The reference to burkas? Since that obviously refers to profiling….
So would it work? Well, if Hillary Clinton gets elected, I suppose this is what I might have to do after I retire. Got save money on a fixed income, but I will have to run the idea of wearing his and her burkas by my wife.
At A REPLY TO NOVADEMOCRAT, I got a very worthwhile comment from plainandsimplecatholicism. I hope you will agree that it warrants your consideration. I believe ‘s comment provides an excellent springboard for a debate on immigration. Hence I have included my reply to comment and invite others, pro and con, to add their own thoughts to the comment thread.
plainandsimplecatholicism
I really don’t think it is appropriate to recreate my entire blog on this one post. It is a public blog and you are encouraged to read it.
The immigration issue is not one being properly addressed by either party. One side wishes to violate national sovereignty and the other wises to violate natural rights.
The key is to balance both interests without immense prejudice on one or the other. The boarder needs security. But even a militarized boarder–as East Germany and North Korea prove–are not a deterrent to the desperate. It requires a look at the root causes for the migrations. The root causes are a lack of authentic human development in impoverished nations south of us. The solutions thus far presented are to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. (Or you support “fair and free elections” in El Salvador which gives legitimacy to the military dictator oppressing everyone. http://www.latinorebels.com/2016/02/11/why-hillary-clinton-doesnt-deserve-the-latino-vote2/)
You may ask why should we care about the banana republics and their problems. The answer is simple: Solidarity. Like it or not, we are all connected by our humanity. It was never the design of the creator that we be divided. Though we may not be united now in common worship of the Almighty due to our various misconceptions of the same, we can perceive our common humanity and the inherent dignity therein. It was Jefferson who immortalized in American philosophy the founding principle that ALL men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. When any human is denied these rights, we as humans have a duty to them inherent in the rights we share as humans.
You sort of explained what you think is wrong with both of the political party’s positions on immigration, but I wonder if you clearly explain your own. I believe you think that immigration is some sort of natural right, that it is unstoppable. I believe neither of those assertions is true. Moreover, The Declaration of Independence does not support a natural right to immigrate. If we are willing to do so, we have the capacity to control our borders. We just have to elect people who will do it.
Should we defer to the opinions of our Creator? Yes. Should we recognize each others natural rights? Yes. Should we recognize the natural rights of other Peoples? Yes.
Nevertheless, borders have significance. Without borders OUR GOVERNMENT cannot protect OUR natural rights. Why? Every country tends to have a distinct culture and its own ways. Our belief that we have God-given rights is part of OUR culture. It is not part of the culture of other Peoples.
The United States the home of the People of the United States. We, The People of the United States, have a distinct identity. For the sake of our children, we have a duty, an obligation, to protect that identity. We have a duty keep our country, our home, safe for OUR distinct culture, to preserve the blessings of our beliefs as a gift to our children. To maintain our own culture and to protect the security of our home, we have an obligation to properly control who enters our home.
So what about our solidarity with the Peoples of other nations? What about our common humanity? We love as individuals, not as nations. Individuals care, not governments. As individuals we can work to assist the poor in other nations through private charities.
Does our government have a role? Yes, but government rarely works well. Government is designed to exert force, not to persuade. Therefore, when we resort to government, we should do so in desperation. Otherwise, we are more likely to create bigger problems.
Because it exists to either make people do things they do not want to do or to keep people from doing things they want to do, government is powerful. However, government is organized as a committee of committees. So government is terribly awkward. Imagine trying to drive home a thumbtack with a huge sledge hammer. Doable but usually far more abusive than helpful.
Why have I focused so much on this issue? Trump launched his candidacy with the attention he brought to the issue. Consider the angry nature of the debate. Consider that this issue could decide the election.
We can debate what Khizer Khan said at the Democratic Party’s National Convention until Dooms Day, but that won’t resolve the immigration debate. To intelligently resolve immigration debate, we have to talk about the ethics of immigration. Instead, we have one side beating the other over the head as bigots. At the same time, the so-called bigots are calling the name callers “politically correct”. Such a discussion is unlikely to produce good results.
What has done is calmly addressed the ethics of the matter, and I hope that strikes everyone as much more constructive place to start the discussion.
Why am I going to vote for Donald Trump? If you check earlier posts on my blog you will find I once supported Senator Ted Cruz. Since Trump and Cruz parted with bad feelings, I am not happy with Trump. I think Trump has a problem with keeping his ego in check, and he gets very nasty when he doesn’t. That said, Trump’s problems ego problems look to be of the ordinary variety. He is not a political pro, and the stresses of running a political campaign are extraordinary. So there is not much reason to expect him to handle those stresses like a pro. Hopefully, he is learning. After you needlessly insult someone, it can be difficult to patch things up.
Still, I have a problem. Like every other voter I have to figure out who to vote for. The two candidate with a serious possibility of winning are either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and I vastly prefer what Donald Trump has promised to do.
But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare. (from here)
Trump has also promised to work to replace Obamacare. I am not sure I will like what he and Congress cook up. Nonetheless, he promises to work for a system that uses free market principles.
Trump will fight for a simpler tax system and to eliminate the death tax.
When the income tax was first introduced, just one percent of Americans had to pay it. It was never intended as a tax most Americans would pay. The Trump plan eliminates the income tax for over 73 million households. 42 million households that currently file complex forms to determine they don’t owe any income taxes will now file a one page form saving them time, stress, uncertainty and an average of $110 in preparation costs. Over 31 million households get the same simplification and keep on average nearly $1,000 of their hard-earned money. (from here)
We should get rid of the income tax. As the paragraph above indicates, the people who advocated the 16th Amendment to our Constitution, created a monster that has funded the excessive growth of our government. Note that Trump’s tax reform does not address Social Security or Medicare, a major part of that 16th Amendment monster.
Trump’s plan includes tax relief for corporations and small business. That would help keep businesses from fleeing our country. Trump would also eliminate the Death Tax. That would also be a boon for small business and increase competition.
Therefore, what Trump proposes is progress. How do we get rid of the 16th Amendment. I expect that would take a Convention of the States.
This issue is the one that kicked off Trump’s campaign. I am not a big fan of the wall or Mexico paying for it. I just want to vet immigrants BEFORE they come into our country.
So we know each people coming into the United States is not a security threat.
Can speak English fluently.
Has a job or some means of support.
Currently, our welfare system is a draw to both legal and illegal immigrants. That’s stupid. We don’t need a welfare system so the Democratic Party can import voters.
In addition, we are allowing terrorists into the country. Instead of trying to help refugees as close to their homeland as possible, we are bringing them here, and we are not separating out the terrorists. There is no good excuse for that.
Trump is running on securing the border and securing our country again. I am happy with that.
School Choice
School Choice is my main issue. Unless we put education back under parental control, civil servants posing as teachers will continue to indoctrinate children. Am I trying to say I hate teachers? No. Of course not.
When government runs the schools, teachers are civil servants. That is a literal fact. As civil servants, teachers must teach what politicians who pay their salaries want them to teach. What politicians want children to learn very often not good for children. Politicians don’t necessarily love our children, but all them are tempted by power and prestige.
The Washington Post is not my favorite paper. I don’t buy it any more. However, when a commenter (here) left a link to this article, Trump supporters’ false claim that Trump U judge is a member of a pro-immigrant group, I had to chuckle. In spite of title of the article, the content of the article proves that Trump supporters claim that the Trump U judge is a member of a pro-immigrant group is altogether true.
The standard politician avoids tagging anyone except white guys as racists. Supposedly, only white guys can be racists. That proposition is, of course, racist, but the almighty news media enforces it ruthlessly. Why? The Democratic Party wants to use the government to reward its supporters based upon race. In fact, the Democratic Party wants to use the government to reward its supporters based upon race (non-white), sex (female), gender preference (anything except straight), religion (secular or non-Christian), disability (disabled), age (old and greedy or young and gullible), wealth (poor or filthy rich), and so forth. Therefore, the Democrats seem bent upon transforming America into a third world country. The world has an abundance of poor non-white people, and their votes are cheaply bought.
You think that is absurd claim? Then consider that Washington Post article carefully. That article affirms that the Trump U judge is a member of a race conscious organization that awarded a scholarship to an illegal alien. Yet it accuses the people who say that of being liars. The Washington Post reports the facts and then seeks to explain them all away. Here are a couple of examples.
“La Raza” which means “The Race” is supposedly an innocuous expression Latinos use to describe themselves. Really? Try googling the term before the controversy over the Trump U judge. Here is a handy link, “la raza”. And don’t forget the obvious. When whites start organizing based upon racial identity, everyone calls it evil. Other than skin color, what is the difference?
When the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Scholarship Fund gave a scholarship to an illegal immigrant applicant they did not know the student was here illegally. Their excuse? They did not ask. Since California is a sanctuary state, we really have no idea how many illegal immigrants the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association Scholarship Fund provided scholarships. One could be a low estimate.
Do Liberal Democrat news media outfits care about the truth, or do they care about winning on their issues? Consider again the fact California is a sanctuary state and why. It is about power. Think about the fact that judge is an Obama appointee. Does anybody seriously believe Obama is going to let the Constitution get between him and what he wants. The Constitution has not stopped Obama with respect to illegal immigration. Would it stop his appointees?
The Constitution has not stopped the Democrats in California with respect to illegal immigration. California is a sanctuary state. Yet Obama and those Democrat politicians in California swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Does The Washington Post have any interest in holding them accountable? No.
So what should we make of The Washington Post award of Four Pinocchios? Hypocrites!
I got the following from a friend in an email.
Since chain emails (particularly those that are tongue in cheek) cannot be trusted, I did some research.
plainandsimplecatholicism. I hope you will agree that it warrants your consideration. I believe 
I really don’t think it is appropriate to recreate my entire blog on this one post. It is a public blog and you are encouraged to read it.
The immigration issue is not one being properly addressed by either party. One side wishes to violate national sovereignty and the other wises to violate natural rights.
The key is to balance both interests without immense prejudice on one or the other. The boarder needs security. But even a militarized boarder–as East Germany and North Korea prove–are not a deterrent to the desperate. It requires a look at the root causes for the migrations. The root causes are a lack of authentic human development in impoverished nations south of us. The solutions thus far presented are to throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. (Or you support “fair and free elections” in El Salvador which gives legitimacy to the military dictator oppressing everyone. http://www.latinorebels.com/2016/02/11/why-hillary-clinton-doesnt-deserve-the-latino-vote2/)
You may ask why should we care about the banana republics and their problems. The answer is simple: Solidarity. Like it or not, we are all connected by our humanity. It was never the design of the creator that we be divided. Though we may not be united now in common worship of the Almighty due to our various misconceptions of the same, we can perceive our common humanity and the inherent dignity therein. It was Jefferson who immortalized in American philosophy the founding principle that ALL men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. When any human is denied these rights, we as humans have a duty to them inherent in the rights we share as humans.
August 8, 2016 at 9:56 am