“… for me to – simply through Executive Order – ignore those Congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
And yet, President Obama proceeded with his un-constitutional DACA directive anyway.
President Trump has recently rescinded that un-constitutional executive branch directive and in doing so gave the rightful authority back to congress in order to deal with this very difficult issue within the next six months. It is my fervent hope that congress will stop kicking the can down the road and get a fair law passed within this time frame. This should be something that both Democrats and Republicans discuss and come together on to find a solution for the good and safety of America, instead of continuing the partisan politics that have so ensnared this process in recent decades.
Now I certainly don’t blame the children of illegal immigrants that were brought to America and know no other country. Indeed it would be exceptionally cruel to deport them back to their countries of origin at this point. That said, it certainly is not fair that their parents, even with altruistic intentions, violated federal immigration laws and brought them here illegally. There must be consequences for this if we are to remain a nation of laws.
I would make these suggestions to congress as they work to draft a new immigration law: first, the children affected by the rescinding of the DACA order should be allowed to stay in the United States and be granted legal status accordingly, perhaps with even a long term path towards citizenship. However, it is my opinion that all of the parents of these children that violated the law, while they should also be allowed to stay here if their children are minors, should be limited severely in the federal entitlement programs to which they can apply and also they should not ever be granted full voting citizenship rights. I hope that congress will draft just such a law accordingly. I won’t hold my breath.
If there are no consequences for having broken our immigration laws, what is to prevent this from reoccurring? After all, President Reagan signed a law providing amnesty to illegal aliens back in 1986 with the understanding that congress would provide for better immigration and border protections. Obviously those things never materialized, and we are dealing with even greater numbers of people coming to America illegally today.
President Trump laid out the case very well when he rescinded DACA the other week:
"In June of 2012, President Obama bypassed Congress to give work permits, social security numbers, and federal benefits to approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants currently between the ages of 15 and 36. The typical recipients of this executive amnesty, known as DACA, are in their twenties. Legislation offering these same benefits had been introduced in Congress on numerous occasions and rejected each time. . .
The temporary implementation of DACA by the Obama Administration, after Congress repeatedly rejected this amnesty-first approach, also helped spur a humanitarian crisis – the massive surge of unaccompanied minors from Central America including, in some cases, young people who would become members of violent gangs throughout our country, such as MS-13. . .
The decades-long failure of Washington, D.C. to enforce federal immigration law has had both predictable and tragic consequences: lower wages and higher unemployment for American workers, substantial burdens on local schools and hospitals, the illicit entry of dangerous drugs and criminal cartels, and many billions of dollars a year in costs paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Yet few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system. Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers, and jobseekers."
Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan enthusiastically responded to President Trump’s righting of the balance of powers in this matter immediately after the announcement:
"President Obama’s DACA program was a clear abuse of executive authority, an attempt to create law out of thin air. Congress writes laws, not the president, and ending this program fulfills a promise that President Donald J. Trump made to restore the proper role of the executive and legislative branches. Now, the House and Senate, with the president’s leadership, will work to find consensus on a permanent legislative solution on this and many immigration issues, such as border security and interior enforcement."
Congress should indeed work swiftly under the six month guideline that President Trump has provided to finally come up with comprehensive immigration reform. No full amnesty should be given nor path to citizenship provided for those that were adults and knowingly broke our immigration laws when they came to the United States. Those minor and/or dependent children that were brought here by their parents, should be allowed to stay, along with their parents, but with the consequences I have suggested.
It is absolutely unfair to Americans, let alone all of those folks that would like to be Americans whom have respected our laws and asked to come into our country legally to be held to far higher standards than those that have entered illegally. After all, those folks trying to do things the right way – the legal way – are also Dreamers!
49 comments:
Please make this a safe zone free from the hate filled liberal smear poster, Dave Dubya.
Dump the Dubya
Common sense and unlikely to be heeded as it seems, these days, it almost never is.
Mr. Paine,
I commend your compassion for the “dreamers”. The Trump base would have them all dumped over the border into the desert.
I note your references to Obama’s amnesty for children as “unconstitutional”. I take it your opinion is that Reagan’s amnesty was constitutional? The technicalities escape me.
Obama repeatedly requested Congress address immigration issues, but they did nothing of course. As we see with Trump, when Congress does nothing, the president in effect needs to run the government.
I agree with you, and expect more of the same.
While I also don’t see the great “humanitarian crisis” that Trump invokes, I would say the real crisis is what people have fled in their native countries.
Illegal immigration is lower than ever, but that fact gets lost. According to the Migration Policy Institute, apprehensions at the southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.6 million (yearly total) but began a declining trend during the 2008-09 recession that has continued since. Apprehension data is generally used as a metric to measure illegal immigration.
Customs and Border Protection Acting Chief Carla Provost said that of the 250,000 unaccompanied minors apprehended since 2011, only 56 were suspected or confirmed of being affiliated with MS-13. Research suggests migrants are less likely to commit crimes in the U.S.
Also Trump’s invoking, “young people who would become members of violent gangs throughout our country, such as MS-13” should remind us that the gang has been emboldened to further terrorize the immigrant community because victims and families are afraid to report gang crimes out of fear of being arrested and deported. Thus Trump has aggravated a humanitarian crisis for many trying to escape a humanitarian crisis.
Gangs of Mexican descent are also more emboldened in the same way. Unreported crimes have gone way up in their communities. This invisible humanitarian crisis has been aggravated by Trump.
If we offered peaceful undocumented immigrants a better alternative, MS-13 and other gangs would be less dangerous. This mirrors my stand that ending the drug war on drug users by decriminalizing possession and personal use will also reduce gang activity. Drug gangs profit from drugs being illegal, just like the gangs of the prohibition era did with booze.
Thanks for the backup information, Dave. As we've become accustomed to slanted and one-sided narratives, the other side of the story is always welcome.
Speaking of...I'm curious how the Right is going to spin the protests in St. Louis after yet another cop is acquitted of murder. Driving while black is a highly risky endeavor -- anywhere in this nation -- in this era of pugnacious militarized police.
T. Paine: "After all, those folks trying to do things the right way – the legal way – are also Dreamers!"
"There is a higher law than the law of government. That's the law of conscience." ~~Stokely Carmichael
I might add, the real Thomas Paine was of the same opinion.
JG,
We know the drill. Shooting Blacks is not racist. Blacks who protest the shootings are the real racists.
We haven't had a comprehensive immigration bill for years. I agree with your opinion and what you wrote. Maybe Obama was frustrated by the inaction of Congress, but as a Constitutional lawyer he should have known it was not within the presidents authority to make such a decision. Of course I'm not an attorney, so my interpretation of presidential powers could be wrong.
I see Trump's travel ban the same way. It should be Congress's decision, but the courts never ruled the president overstepped his authority, only that the ban as written was unconstitutional. Trump said he had the right given he made the decision for the security of the country, but the numbers say those people traveling from those countries to America are not the terrorists we have to worry about. After a third try the courts approved his travel ban as currently written, so it is law until the Supreme Court says otherwise, and it will be going to the Supreme Court.
Over the decades, there are many presidential proclamations and decisions that were not within the presidents power to decide, or just decree. Lincoln is a great example, even though his reputation is almost sacrilegious to attack. Historians are in agreement that some of Lincoln's were unconstitutional.
Trump himself (in one of his more lucid thoughts) has said it's Congress's job and they have 6 months to do something, or he will act. Again, an action the president should not be acting on alone.
Paul makes some interesting points, which raise additional questions.
I’m not convinced DACA is unconstitutional. DACA is deferred action for childhood arrivals. Prioritizing enforcement would fall under executive authority. Law enforcement often prioritizes enforcement against serious violent crime by what amounts to deferred action against minor victimless crime. Is that unconstitutional?
Does anyone here actually know of any “existing immigration law that was duly passed” that defines those children as criminals? And would that be constitutional? Some may even qualify for asylum. Why should it be a priority to deport them? As Mr. Paine wisely stated, “it would be exceptionally cruel to deport them”.
DACA was implemented to defer such cruelty. Note the term “deferred action”. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.
As we praise Trump’s “constitutional cruelty”, while blaming Obama for his “unconstitutional compassion”, wouldn’t blame be more appropriately placed on Trump and Congress for their respective action and inaction that would allow such cruelty?
" This mirrors my stand that ending the drug war on drug users by decriminalizing possession and personal use will also reduce gang activity. Drug gangs profit from drugs being illegal, just like the gangs of the prohibition era did with booze."
Liberal Group Think...
Making crime legal will reduce crime.
Dump the Dubya.
TP - "...President Obama specifically stated that,
“… for me to – simply through Executive Order – ignore those Congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
And yet, President Obama proceeded with his un-constitutional DACA directive anyway."
At this point the discussion is purely academic, but Obama did not create DACA with an Executive Order, probably because he agreed that he did not have the authority to do it. So, he found a legal way, a way that the courts agreed with.
President Barack Obama announced the policy with a speech in the Rose Garden of the White House on June 15, 2012.[20] The date was chosen as the 30th anniversary of Plyler v. Doe, a Supreme Court decision barring public schools from charging illegal immigrant children tuition. The policy was officially established by a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security titled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children"
"President Obama proceeded with his un-constitutional DACA directive anyway."
At this point the discussion is purely academic.
You see Mr. Paine, Jerry has shown us again the liberal standard, as HRC once said:
"What difference does it matter now anyway?"
Dave Dubya: "As we praise Trump’s 'constitutional cruelty', while blaming Obama for his 'unconstitutional compassion', wouldn’t blame be more appropriately placed on Trump and Congress for their respective action and inaction that would allow such cruelty?"
Yes, but of course the Republican Party would never see it this way.
Reputable polls show Democrats generally make decisions based upon concern for everyone, whereas Republicans, more often than not, make decisions on the basis of concern for Republicans.
Chuck "Majormajor" Morre: "Liberal Group Think...Making crime legal will reduce crime."
Well yes, of course! Once any criminal act is made legal, than it is no longer a crime to partake in it. Hence, "crime" is reduced.
Conservative Group Think: Making actions a crime will reduce the action.
There should be no laws that liberals do not like.
Liberal group think.
"I note your references to Obama’s amnesty for children as “unconstitutional”. I take it your opinion is that Reagan’s amnesty was constitutional? The technicalities escape me." ~ Dubya
Dave, the difference is that President Obama put forth DACA through an administrative directive out of his Homeland Security Department which oversees ICE and other immigration agencies. The executive branch did not have the legal authority to do so, sir. President Reagan's amnesty was the result of signing a bill which came from congress who does have the legal authority over such matters, sir.
"Obama repeatedly requested Congress address immigration issues, but they did nothing of course. As we see with Trump, when Congress does nothing, the president in effect needs to run the government." ~ Dubya
Indeed sir. This is that problem when presidents exceed their constitutional authorities and start creating laws instead of ensuring they are properly executed. I didn't support when Obama did this, and I don't support it now that Trump has done so.
When it comes to DACA though, Trump is right in removing this directive from the executive branch and publicly throwing this back into the lap of congress to finally address this within the next six months.
You do bring up some interesting and disturbing situations regarding gangs, MS-13, and other groups that prey on illegal immigrants because of this. I admittedly had not considered this previously. That said, I think we need to do what we can to protect and enforce our laws regardless, and that includes doing what we can to protect illegals from such criminal elements exploiting and preying on them.
"There is a higher law than the law of government. That's the law of conscience." ~~Stokely Carmichael
In this, I also agree with the real Thomas Paine. Our government has laws on the books today which are unconscionable, in my opinion. Roe v. Wade immediately comes to mind.
TP, I am not aware of what in the constitution makes administrative directives illegal...and the subsequent HSD policy passed the court tests and found it legal. However, I do agree that congress should make it law rather than policy. Calling it unconstitutional and illegal is not supported by the facts, only opinion.
"Maybe Obama was frustrated by the inaction of Congress, but as a Constitutional lawyer he should have known it was not within the presidents authority to make such a decision. Of course I'm not an attorney, so my interpretation of presidential powers could be wrong." ~ Paul
I am quite certain Obama and We The People have been frustrated by the inaction of congress to deal with immigration and other very important issues for a very long time now. As you note though, that doesn't grant the executive branch the right to rule by decree simply because congress is broken. If only We The People would pay attention to our congress and what members are voting in line with the populations they represent and the constitution they are sworn to uphold, perhaps we could move the ball forward some instead of being in this trench warfare we have seen here and on other political blogs in microcosm.
Jerry, you are correct that President Obama did not create DACA through an executive order. I did not say that he did so in my post. What he did was disingenuous, in my opinion, by getting his Homeland Security Department to issue this administrative rule. He thought he could circumvent the process of congressional approval of his wishes and still claim that he didn't technically issue an "executive order" in this manner. It is little more than legal semantics however, and the end result of what he wanted is the same, sir.
It amounts to him usurping authority from congress that the executive branch does not legally have, sir.
This is my comment I posted on the previous article's comments. I wanted to make sure that it was seen so I am reposting it here too.
"JG, in your comment you got to the heart of this whole issue, we are truth seekers and you, I and Dave want to spread the truth to those who are lost in the the very effective war on the Truth. I have tried the confrontational route on the Rant with Chuck and it got me nowhere. I might have even played a part in Tom changing the forum into the mess that it is today. My comment to Dave was that he was losing the ability to communicate with Mr Paine because of his tactics. If he gets banned from this site he will not be spreading anything. This is a very frustrating mission we are on and it requires a lot of patience but looking at Mr Paine as an equal is the first step." ~ Woodenman
Woodenman, I greatly appreciate your sentiments here, sir. It is far easier for us people to tear something down than it is for us to build something good and useful. Dave Dubya, in the past in my opinion has chosen to tear things down. That said, I greatly respect and admire his recent comment in realizing this tone of his. I am hopeful that we can again return to vigorous and civil discussions going forward.
Majormajor, while we agree on many issues, I would greatly appreciate it if you too would stop with your antagonistic tone. It does nothing to further rational debate. It simply creates a trench warfare environment. I try to approach things like this: If someone whom you are debating chooses to be nasty and hyper-confrontational, it is best to remember who you are and not lower yourself to that same least common denominator. While we do seek common ground in finding the truth, we don't want to find common ground by both being at the bottom of a cesspool. And yes, I have been guilty of this in the past and will work even harder not to fall into that trap again going forward. I think that you have many great things to contribute, it just needs to be done without that assumption that "the other side" is the enemy. If that is what you think, why waste your time? They won't be able to hear a thing you say. That attitude just chases others away or makes them entrench further into their own positions, as Woodenman said.
Ok Mr. Paine,
I'll give it a shot as you've out lined.
As I understand the issue, the Left gave Obama's ex orders a pass because they went around the GOP controlled Congress, not because they were Constitutional. That being being the case President Trump has every legal authority to undo them.
It appears to me that everything is political to liberals or needs to be made into a political issue. That is why it is so difficult for me to be "reasonable" towards them.
Example would be liberals wanting more gun control, ignoring the fact that the strict gun control laws in Chicago have not reduced the rate of gun violence there. More gun control laws are a political issue for liberals, not the reduction of gun violence. If a reduction in gun violence was the true goal they would reevaluate what is the source of gun violence and address that.
Another example would be this head line on http://www.snopes.com/do-police-kill-more-whites-than-black-people/
"More white people are killed in police shootings than black Americans, but overall white people are statistically less likely to be killed by police than black people."
Again Liberals look at the problem through political glasses and say that Black Americans are being killed by police for no other reason than the
police are racist, therefore more local police depts. must be put under the control of the Federal Govt. to prevent this racism. Never thinking that there could be OTHER reasons for this fact.
Why? I believe it is because as long as Liberals can sell the lie that it is ONLY racism that is preventing Blacks from excelling, they will be able to count on the Black vote by promising to end racism. A promise I question if they want to really fulfill.
So when liberals, like as Dave, JG and to a lesser extent Woody, claim they will always strike back at what they call lies, they are by doing so preventing the rational exchange of ideas and solutions because for them to not do so would take away the political aspect of the problem and solution and therefore might allow a non political solution.
Less we forget, politics is power and power is control.
I said,
"Trump himself (in one of his more lucid thoughts) has said it's Congress's job and they have 6 months to do something, or he will act. Again, an action the president should not be acting on alone."
That's Trump making the same mistake Obama did. Making a presidential proclamation on an issue that is not his to decide. Republicans making the same mistakes as Democrats (and vise versa) is part of the reason we have this government ineptness. There is no reason to think the Congress will come to a compromise, or bi-partisan bill in six months. What will Trump decide to do?
Mr. Paine,
I appreciate your suggestion for Majormajor to tone it down too. I hope he doesn’t feel threatened or angry about my take on a few of his points.
Again Liberals look at the problem through political glasses and say that Black Americans are being killed by police for no other reason than the police are racist
I am unaware of any liberal spokesman making this claim. In fact I have always said poor training and low standards for who becomes a cop are also factors. Racist or not, there are too many hot-headed cops who should never be officers. And, yes, racism is a factor. Ask any Black motorist. “DWB” is real. Anyone who says there are no racist cops is willfully wrong. The racist/hot-headed cops who shoot people in the back only make the good cops look bad, and end up costing their department and community millions of dollars in settlements for the bereaved families.
Two suggestions: Better screening and better training.
More gun control laws are a political issue for liberals, not the reduction of gun violence. If a reduction in gun violence was the true goal they would reevaluate what is the source of gun violence and address that.
Again, I am unaware of any liberal spokesman making this claim. All gun violence is from guns. The more guns there are, the more people will be killed. That has been the story in the US.
I made the suggestion that ending the war on drug users would reduce crime. I was mocked for that, probably because of ignorance that the idea has been implemented and really works. Nixon authorized a study that recommended decriminalizing cannabis. He opted for the social control and suppression of a drug war instead.
As noted, politics is power and power is control.
Not all liberals want gun confiscation. In fact, it’s probably a minority that do. But when the NRA is the loudest voice, all others are shut out.
it is ONLY racism that is preventing Blacks from excelling.
Again, I am unaware of any liberal spokesman making this claim.
they will always strike back at what they call lies, they are by doing so preventing the rational exchange of ideas and solutions
There can be no rational exchange of ideas when someone lies. Remember that one about Democrats “sitting stone-faced” ignoring a war widow?
Yes that is a lie, among many. It was never retracted and never acknowledged as false. That is how a rational exchange of ideas becomes impossible. “Alternative facts” have no place in rational discussion.
To illustrate the danger in this type of dishonesty, I will offer two remarks that address that pattern of spreading lies.
“To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.” - Yale history professor Timothy Snyder
“Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism. This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four,’ when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”- HRC the better qualified candidate most Americans wanted for president.
Dave,
does this mean that Blue Matter as well?
"I am unaware of any liberal spokesman making this claim."
Guess when I provide you examples you will ignore them?
"The more guns there are, the more people will be killed."
Not to mock you, but since Chicago is a gun free zone, how can there be so many gun killings there?
"I made the suggestion that ending the war on drug users would reduce crime. I was mocked for that, probably because of ignorance that the idea has been implemented and really works. "
And I was mocking you when I asked if the same theory of decriminalization of other crimes would also reduce crime. I fear you may be a bit thin skinned.
"it is ONLY racism that is preventing Blacks from excelling.
Again, I am unaware of any liberal spokesman making this claim."
Then why are Blacks not excelling?
"HRC the better qualified candidate most Americans wanted for president."
So many things I could say about this claim, but in the new spirit that Mr. Paine requested, I'll let that claim just swing in the wind as a great example of Liberal Group Think.
...better qualified candidate most Americans wanted for president..."a great example of Liberal Group Think."
I was wondering what it was. So "Liberal Group Think" is fact-based and held by a majority.
Then why are Blacks not excelling?
Maybe it is for the same reason more than five million American Indians living on reservations are doing so poorly.
Dave, I lost my telepathic link with you, maybe you can call tech support again.
Majormajor, I greatly appreciate your willingness to change the tone and not make any comments so personally derogatory or condemning. That said, by all means voice your opinions, present your data, and make your case. I want everyone to do so, just without going around looking to be intentionally antagonistic by poking the bear! :)
"As I understand the issue, the Left gave Obama's ex orders a pass because they went around the GOP controlled Congress, not because they were Constitutional. That being being the case President Trump has every legal authority to undo them." ~ Majormajor
I understand frustration that congress didn't/couldn't get immigration legislation passed. That said, President Obama did do an end-run around the GOP-controlled congress by allowing a department in his executive branch to put forth an administrative directive. In doing so, they usurped authority from congress that did not belong to them. President Obama thought this was a way around the situation without him "technically" issuing an executive order. In doing so, President Trump not only has every right, but an obligation to rescind this rule. For that matter, he should be doing so with other rules that were issued by the executive branch departments beyond their constitutional authority rights. The pernicious HHS mandate comes to mind here.
As for police shooting black people, or white people, or Asian people etc., if they are justified in using deadly force, then they should be protected by the law and the public. If they are found to be shooting anyone, regardless of color, without justifiable reasons, then that officer should be stripped of his badge and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It is particularly egregious when an officer, who is an authority figure, abuses his power and especially so when he causes physical harm or death to those he is supposed to protect. I honestly believe that a vast majority of officers are good and honest folks though. Sadly, like in most cases, it is the bad ones that brings shame to all of the good ones.
That said, when folks like the "gentle giant" Mike Brown gets shot because he tried to wrestle the cop's gun from him, then everybody, especially people of color need to also condemn this. The officer had witnesses, even of color that supported the officer's story. That is why he was justifiably acquitted of any wrong doing.
I am not familiar with the case in St. Louis, so I won't offer a comment on the innocence or guilt on the acquitted officer there. I assume and hope that the jury got it right based on the evidence of the case. Regardless, those few folks that turned otherwise peaceful protests into riots after the verdict should similarly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
To me, there is not a black and white issue involved. It is a law and order issue. Regardless if the perpetrator is an antifa rioter or an officer abusing his power. Both of the former are wrong and should be punished according to the law.
"I appreciate you support those kind of measures, but the Republican party does not and has not for decades. Doing nothing and denying reality is making the problem worse." ~ Paul
Well, sir, I am not a Republican. I am a conservative and try to look at each issue based on its merits, not on its DNC or RNC talking points. Frankly, I am even more disgusted with the GOP then I am the Democrats. The Democrats at least try to do what they espouse. I don't agree with them most of the time but they are at least honest in their foolishness. The Republicans, on the other hand, proclaim one thing and then refuse to follow through; whether that is in cutting spending, immigration reform, repealing Obamacare, or what have you. And sadly, the worst offender is probably that worthless and corrupt Mitch McConnell.
Again, when it comes to protecting our environment, I am absolutely for reasonable laws to protect our air, water, and land that would probably fall in line with many Democrats' wishes. I do not go so far as to believing in anthropogenic global warming however.
I think a little common sense can go a long way with environmental regulations. Years ago a rancher was fined because he cleared the brush near his barn because it was discovered that some sort of endangered rodent lived in the brush. When the brush grew again, it got caught up in one of California's wild fires and destroyed his barn accordingly. Now I am all for protecting endangered species, but I honestly don't think clearing some private land around his barn would cause their extinction.
The same is true a few years back regarding the Klamath Lake in Southern Oregon. The ranchers and farmers there use the water for irrigation for their crops and livestock; however, the lower water levels in drought years were seen as a threat to an endangered species of fish, so they were no longer allowed to irrigate from the lake. Many folks lost their livelihoods and their property due to bankruptcy. I think a better and more sustainable balance could have been struck. I think this is the area where Rain lives, and I'd imagine she could probably give you some first hand accounts of this.
We need to ensure the chemicals and pesticides are not polluting our rivers and aquifers. We need to ensure that we are not polluting our air with industry and such. But we need to also realize, that humanity is also a part of nature and not a disease to be eradicated along with the pollutants.
"Trump himself (in one of his more lucid thoughts) has said it's Congress's job and they have 6 months to do something, or he will act. Again, an action the president should not be acting on alone... That's Trump making the same mistake Obama did. Making a presidential proclamation on an issue that is not his to decide. Republicans making the same mistakes as Democrats (and vise versa) is part of the reason we have this government ineptness. There is no reason to think the Congress will come to a compromise, or bi-partisan bill in six months. What will Trump decide to do?"
Well said, Paul. If Trump decides to act through executive over-reach, then he loses what credibility he has when he condemns Obama for doing so. If congress doesn't act, I am not sure what Trump will do. The fact of the matter is that it is not his place to "create" the laws. It is his place only to execute and enforce them. If he does act through executive action in six months, I will be at the front of the line condemning his actions on this. And it won't matter a single bit what I do. It will only matter if hundreds of thousands and millions of us voice our discontent.
Mr. Dubya, I am very thankful to you for your modified tone. I will endeavor to respond in kind, sir.
"Better screening and better training." ~ Dubya
Absolutely! As I said before, anyone that is not a mature and reasonable person with no preconceived bigotry or hate should not be allowed to become an officer. I cannot imagine the rigors of doing the job as an officer must entail. We need to ensure that the best among us are the ones given such authority as police officers. By the same token, we need to support them and not immediately jump to conclusions in condemning an officer that uses deadly force until we know the facts of the case. Racist cops should be fired. Those folks that assume every cop is out to shoot black people are also a big part of the problem.
"The more guns there are, the more people will be killed. That has been the story in the US." ~ Dubya
Respectfully, I don't buy this, sir. Switzerland requires that every adult citizen in the entire country that is not a felon own a firearm. Their murder rate and gun violence is exceptionally low. I would submit to you that more guns being prevalent in areas where we have a break down in families and society in general is the major contributing factor. In my state, gun ownership is very high, and yet gun violence is quite low. There also exists a strong sense of family values and community which is particularly fostered through the predominant Mormon faith of the state. That said, a gun is simply a tool. It is the person that wields it that determines the right or wrong in the use of that instrument.
"The more guns there are, the more people will be killed. That has been the story in the US." ~ Dubya
Correct. The US is less civilized than Switzerland, and even Canada, where they have relatively higher gun ownership than most countries.
Here is the story on Switzerland:
http://factmyth.com/factoids/switzerland-requires-citizens-to-own-guns/
Does Switzerland Require Everyone to Own a Gun? – Mandatory Military Service and Gun Rights in Switzerland
Switzerland doesn’t require its citizens to own guns. In Switzerland, guns are regulated in three classes and there is mandatory military service for able-bodied men.[1][2][3][4]
Meanwhile,
Women may volunteer for military service (and will thus have access to training in a state-issued firearm).
Those declared unfit for service are exempt from service (and an exemption is easy to get).
Those who do go into the service are issued a weapon. They can choose to buy the firearm after their service (this is the closest thing to “everyone being required to own a gun” that exists in Switzerland).
Hunting weapons, self-defense weapons, and “more lethal” weapons are treated differently (each “class of weapons” is treated differently).
Background checks are required.
And, many other rules apply including: the banning of high-powered weapons (part of a banned class of guns for civilians), an ability to disarm citizens, bans of immigrants and criminals owning guns, and other general restrictions and regulations. See more rules below.
The result is, that while gun ownership is not mandatory in Switzerland, both ownership and training are common. The Swiss therefore can be said to have a gun culture focused on responsible gun ownership and collective gun rights for qualifying citizens.
T. Paine: "I am not familiar with the case in St. Louis, so I won't offer a comment on the innocence or guilt on the acquitted officer there. I assume and hope that the jury got it right based on the evidence of the case."
Here's some background: "In a court document submitted by the St. Louis circuit attorney, the investigator on the case said Stockley and another officer had been chasing Smith at speeds up to 80 mph when Stockley said he was 'going to kill this motherf‑‑‑er, don't you know it' and told the officer to drive into Smith's slowing car.
The document said Stockley then approached Smith's window and fired five times into the car, hitting Smith 'with each shot' and killing him. In addition, prosecutors accused the officer of planting a gun on the victim: There was a gun found in Smith's car, but it was later determined to have DNA only from Stockley.
Judge Timothy Wilson, the circuit judge who heard the case in a bench trial, acquitted Stockley on the murder charge as well as a charge of armed criminal action in a 30-page order released Friday morning.
Wilson wrote that he was 'simply not firmly convinced' of Stockley's guilt, saying that 'agonizingly,' he went over the case's evidence repeatedly. Ultimately, Wilson said, he was not convinced that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Stockley 'did not act in self-defense.'"
There wasn't a jury. Stockley's acquittal was the result of a bench trial.
This appears to be cold-blooded murder -- complete with planted evidence -- and a crooked judge exonerating the homicidal officer.
When there's no justice for one, there's no justice for any.
Mr. Paine, based upon your Switzerland claim, and Mr. Dubya's response, it appears you were caught in a...ummm, let's just call it an "untruth". ;-)
"Maybe it is for the same reason more than five million American Indians living on reservations are doing so poorly." ~ Woodenman
I think you are probably right, sir, but perhaps not in the manner in which you meant.
Years ago, when I was in the Navy, I had the great privilege to meet a gentleman that served in the same unit I did who was a full-blooded American Indian. He told me that he joined the Navy to escape the poverty and hopelessness of the reservation where his family lived. His father had left and drank himself to death. There was alcoholism and drug abuse rampant everywhere on the reservation and most people did not work. He said it was a soul-crushing existence and he saw the Navy as a way out of that misery.
Decades later after I became a father, my youngest daughter's church youth group did several summer mission trips to the Pine Ridge Indian reservation in South Dakota. (There are no casinos to support these folks here.) Those same conditions of squalor, addictions, and hopelessness were a daily part of most of these once proud people's lives there. The traditions and history of these people were often lost as each succeeding generation lost themselves in alcohol and drugs. No meaningful work was often at hand on these reservations and the family units broke down. It became a slow cultural death for these people.
I think the same is true for many inner-city people of color. The breakdown of the family no longer providing loving guidance and the hopelessness of not having meaningful work and purpose of life causes too many people to lose themselves in using and selling drugs.
Perhaps if everyone, Indian, Black, and White, could return to a strong sense of family, purpose, work ethic, and valuing of education, perhaps we could reverse this horrible trend.
To be fair, JG, I'm sure it was just something T.Paine heard once and never looked into too thoroughly. To be honest, I hadn't heard his claim before and I started doing digging myself.
I found it interesting that he would use the Swiss as a counter-example, considering the level of permitting required and regulations on firearms that occur in Switzerland.
Dave, thank you for the information clarifying and correcting my statement. All of that said, it doesn't really change my main point of contention that a nation having lots of guns does not necessarily result in having higher gun violence rates. It is a matter of how we look at guns and ownership that matter.
Like you, I think responsible gun ownership for those that are not criminals, mentally ill, or have domestic violence issues is indeed a protected second amendment right. I realize you would further restrict the classes of guns one can own, but the principle of RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is one in which we both agree.
JG, if the facts of the case for this St. Louis officer are as this article suggests, I wonder what gave the judge cause for reasonable doubt in acquitting the officer? Unless there is something critical missing with exculpating evidence, than I absolutely understand the reasons for the protests. Indeed, I think a case should be made for removing the judge from the bench, if these are the only pertinent facts of the case.
That said, this still does not excuse some people to resort to vandalism and rioting. That simply takes a just grievance and dilutes it with their stupidity. It only adds to the injustice of the situation.
"Mr. Paine, based upon your Switzerland claim, and Mr. Dubya's response, it appears you were caught in a...ummm, let's just call it an 'untruth'. ;-) " ~ JG
JG, your "politely" unstated implication is that I lied. A lie is when someone knowingly tells an untruth. I did not knowingly do so. Indeed, I thanked Dave for correcting my statement, sir. I then pointed out that it did not change the overall point of my statement, JG.
JG.
The alternative fact about the Swiss has been long repeated by the NRA. But the Swiss are more sane than to mandate gun ownership.
To Mr. Paine’s credit, he points to an “alternative fact” from the Left. We have often repeated the “97% Climate Scientist” line. This is not an accurate statistic. That figure was from a study of published climate articles that took a side on AGW. The survey is based on “climate experts”, and some may not be scientists. Still the consensus and evidence is clear that the planet is warming and human produced greenhouse gasses are a factor.
Perhaps if everyone, Indian, Black, and White, could return to a strong sense of family, purpose, work ethic, and valuing of education, perhaps we could reverse this horrible trend.
I agree with Mr. Paine’s suggestion that we need “a strong sense of family, purpose, work ethic, and valuing of education”, but poverty still happens to people with those values. Lack of jobs and opportunity, mental illness, addiction, aging, facing Illness and disability without adequate healthcare, and possible resultant bankruptcy from medical costs are also powerful factors.
We can cut inheritance and income taxes to zero for the wealthy and corporations, and none of these issues would be addressed. Tax cuts are not the cure. Eliminating Obamacare is not the cure. Unemployment compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, all targets of the Right, help those in poverty and even lift many out of it.
And I agree that there are those who abuse our safety nets, but punishing the needy along with them is a cruel solution.
I may not be smart enough to have all the answers, but I know from history what doesn’t work.
Dave, you are absolutely correct that too many folks will still suffer even if we do espouse and work for a return to a strong sense of family, purpose, work ethic, and valuing of education. As I am sure you will agree though, the number of those folks will be far far less.
As for tax cuts, I can see where they can help spur economic growth, IF they are done properly. That said, it will solve nothing if we don't make some massive spending cuts in wasteful, inefficient, duplicated, and foolish government spending, as Paul has suggested. I would add that many of those departments and programs that are not a part of the federal government's purview should be eliminated or rolled back to the states.
All of that said, we should do a REAL revamping of health care that works to serve Americans instead of enriching some insurance companies as others and health care exchanges under Obamacare go broke. Further, I don't advocate eliminating social safety nets at all. I simply think we need to do a better job of reducing fraud and waste in with those programs. And no, I am not certain how to go about doing that well.
Mr. Paine,
It is plain as the nose on JG's face, that it was racism that drove the shooting and court action in St Louis.
In other news, it was interesting to watch the radical left dis. the most liberal of either party regarding DACA, Nancy Pelosi, over God knows what.
You would think knowing her record they would be there to thank her. But liberals rarely if ever, thank the people who support them.
Finally, remember when President Trump made the claim that his phone had been hacked? Remember how liberals and their leaders, the mainstream media MOCKED him? Turns out he was right, again, per the reporting of CNN. Under the Obama administration Trump was wire taped, the NSA wire taped American citizens and the IRS was used against the opposition of the Obama agenda.
Banana Republic under Obama, but it was the Russian's who cheated HRC out her turn at being President? LOL!!
Are we to believe Majormajor now trusts CNN? I thought they were fake news? Which is it?
Trump whined, ”Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower and “How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process”.
It was Russian ally Manifort’s phone. It was a FISA warrant, and not “Obama’s orders”.
From these facts, one cannot jump to conclude Trump was correct.
And how is collaboration with Putin part of “a very sacred election process”?
Where does CNN say Trump’s phones were tapped? Just asking.
He and his cronies LIED repeatedly about Russian contacts. The bottom line is Crooked Don is more crooked than Crooked Hillary.
Oh those that refuse to believe, must be a cult they belong to...Take it up with CNN Dave, I just quoted them.
P.S.
How low will you go to protect Obama, the NSA taping, the IRS?
CNN is either fake news or it isn’t. Still can’t decide?
How low will you go to protect Obama, the NSA taping, the IRS?
So, I’m “protecting” Obama, the NSA taping, the IRS? You endow me with great power. Thank you sir.
The real question is how low will Republicans go to protect Trump from his obstruction of justice and collusion by his Russian agents.
Epic deflection is required, isn’t it?
Mr. Paine,
Note how Dave has throw the bomb, mocking the source of CNN>
Dump the Dubya!
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/09/18/cnn-report-u-s-government-wiretapped-former-trump-campaign-manager-paul-manafort/
CNN Report: U.S. Government Wiretapped Former Trump Campaign Manager Paul Manafort…
Posted on September 18, 2017 by sundance
There will be much discussion and speculation about a recent “leaked” FBI FISA warrant surrounding former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. However, the interesting aspect always falls upon the timeline, not necessarily the wiretapping itself per se’.
According to the CNN report the wiretapping and surveillance of Manafort started sometime in 2014 and then was discontinued after nothing of criminal value or significance was gained. [NOTE: FISA warrants must be updated in 90 day increments; continued surveillance involving U.S. persons must be justified; if nothing exists the court orders the surveillance to cease the warrant is no longer valid.] However, according to the same leaked source reporting from CNN the wiretapping began again in 2016.
The July/August 2016 time frame is interesting because that coincides with the surfacing of the ridiculous opposition research “Steele Dossier” on Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. Further recently revealed information about the “steele dossier”, interestingly surrounds the James Comey FBI paying for the information contained therein.
Majormajor, please don't go poking the bear again, sir. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from using the "Dump the Dubya" tagline.
All ya'll need to play nice now, ya' hear! :)
Post a Comment