Wednesday, June 05, 2013

The DOJ and it's effort's on social engineering.





The above photo is my grandfather, he served in the Korean War. My father was in the Navy. My baby brother was a marine in Desert Storm. Another brother was in the Army. My nephew currently serves in the Army and I was in the Air Force. My stepfather a Marine is a world war 2 veteran and still living is now almost 88 years old. I have at least one known ancestor who served in the revolutionary war and a couple who were in the civil war.

I said all that to say this.

I come from a long line of people  who care about this country, our rights and it's religious freedoms.

We care about free speech and ALL the civil liberties our constitution and it's bill of rights guarantee. That we should be able to enjoy them without worry that our own government will take those rights away from us.

In fact, the forefathers wanted to guarantee that IF the government officials in office ever got 'too big for their britches' that we ordinary common Americans would have the means and ability to over throw that same government - and take it back down a notch to where it belongs.


Thus they included a amendment that guaranteed the right of ALL citizens to bear arms so that they could have a well maintained militia. Now a militia is a citizen operated group of military persons that is not a government controlled ARMY.

So it should be very obvious to anyone with common sense that the intent in the constitution exists that no President, Vice President, Secretary of State or any other government official or agency should ever be able to circumvent the ability of the people to hold the civil rights guaranteed to them.



 We do not create selective civil rights - the point of a civil right is that it applies to ALL of us. Regardless of age, or race, ethnicity or religious views.

 Civil rights are not to take away or restrict but to prevent the government from taking away or restricting certain activities.


Recently someone from the DOJ (Department Of Justice) released a statement and I'll just quote it below 
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.
“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian said Internet postings that violate civil rights are subject to federal jurisdiction.
“That’s what everybody needs to understand,” he said.

For more on this see http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/05/31/doj-warns-muslim-bashing-on-social-media-may-be-federal-offense-73629/comment-page-9#comment-77483

My response to the article and link cited above is pasted below:

Lynna Lunsford says:
"The DOJ representative who made this statement or released this publication obviously does not know the law.
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.


OBVIOUSLY – the ONLY way they could pursue criminal action against someone who criticized ISLAM would be to make ISLAM a state religion or make free speech a crime period.


IF you go the avenue of saying its against a particular religion or ethnic group then you are going to have a MASSIVE influx of lawsuits filed on behalf of Christians, Jews and every other religion.


ISLAM does not over ride the U.S. Constitution. It does not deserve special treatment and is legally subject to the laws of the United States of America just like every other religious group / organization or ethnic group.


SPEECH / or publicizing opinions, ideals for or against a religion or ethnic group is NOT a crime.


A crime is when you do physical harm to someone.

Hitting someone, assaulting someone is a crime.

However, Saying ‘I don’t like you’, is NOT a crime.

Saying ‘I don’t believe in your religion’ is not a crime.


Vandalizing a building is a crime.

Exploding a bomb is a crime.

Beheading a person is a crime.


So if you want to pursue criminals ‘DOJ’, look for the ones bombing and beheading people and leave ordinary citizens alone.
Regards."



Okay, I'd like to share a few additional thoughts on this. 

1. The Supreme court has the jurisdiction of deciding what IS and what is NOT constitutional. 
NOT the Department Of Justice. 

2. The department of justice can not legally start targeting people who make statements opposing or criticizing of a person or group who is engaging in illegal activity. 

That would be the DOJ defending the criminal. (Last time I checked beheading people was still illegal in this country. Last time I checked bombing was still illegal in the United States and it's territories. )


Generally speaking the persons who have been perpetrating these bombings, be-headings, Anti - Christian graffiti, insults, and harassment have pretty much 100 % of the time identified themselves as being Islamic, or some branch of the Islamic / Muslim religion. ALSO they often state PUBLICALLY that we are infidels and the reason they are doing these things against non muslims is to destroy, get rid of, punish, or kill the 'infidel'.
Anyone who is not of the muslim faith by their own definitions is included as a infidel.

So while I realize that not every Muslim / Islamic person is running about streets with bombs and machete's beheading and blowing people up - the fact is that there are a good number of them that do, do those sorts of things and then publicize videos announcing that yes they did it and they will continue to do it to all non Islamic people or those who side with Israel.

If I say that the majority of people or groups who have attacked, killed, or mutilated Americans are Muslims we are not picking on the Muslims, we're making observations of facts and stating opinions. 
How many times have you seen a Christian religious organization go on TV or internet claiming responsibility for some bombing or attack on a US embassy? How often are we seeing random citizens of non Islamic faith go out and grab some Muslims and behead them ? 

But yet, we're not supposed to notice when a lot of the people claiming responsibility for the attacks on Americans, Christians, Jews and any non Muslim religion or faith claim that they are indeed Muslims ?

SOOO, 
IF you are a MUSLIM, IF you consider yourself to be Islamic and you object to the actions of other's who identify themselves as Muslim / Islamic do then PLEASE speak up and say so. 

Being silent is what makes it appear that you are in agreement with the hateful cruel and illegal actions of certain individuals towards Americans who are not islamic. 

Again, it is not Christians making Islam look bad, it is Muslims behaving criminally that make the rest of the Muslim religion look bad. Our being silent, looking the other way or pretending otherwise just to spare your feelings doesn't help anyone. You as a Islamic person need to be as upset and angry about the extremist radical behavior of your Muslim brothers / sisters and do what you can to stop it.

If you are as they say not part of the solution, then yes, you are part of the problem.


Stop attacking the religious freedom, liberties of the people who have different religious views. 

True religion is in the heart of the person - not outward appearance. 

You can control the outward appearance of a person forcefully but you can never control their mind, thoughts, feelings. 

So bottom line - If you're running to the government wanting them to spank the Christians or Jewish people because you don't like what they say about your religion, just remember one day the tables may be turned - and the government may turn on you.

To you government and political types I say this.
You need to take one serious look if you want to get in to a police state. Because you have a LOT of people in the United States of America who not only have fought in the past for the liberty's we hold dear in the USA. BUT many who are willing to stand up and fight today if it so be required.
This socialist agenda crapola that has been bandied about by our government and major media of late is going to come back and bite you all in the derriere.

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by our constitution and bill of rights.
Religious Liberty is also guaranteed by the same.
IF you start protecting ONE religion / faith and censoring or prosecuting people for speaking their mind against it what you have done is create a 'STATE RELIGION'.

And my friends, as we say in the south 'That dog ain't gonna hunt'.

You'd better back up, have yourself one of those line dance meetings at tax payers expense and agree to keep out of our religious liberties - before you find yourself in a small room with iron bars on the windows.

Regards,
LJL
American Citizen
















Monday, June 03, 2013

WikiTree - Free Geneology Web Site



Most genealogy sites charge for software and membership dues. However I found one that does not and is a very good site - http://www.wikitree.com

So if you have been wanting to research you family tree or join with other family members to share the information and photo's that you each have I recommend http://www.wikitree.com !


Sunday, June 02, 2013

Attack On Civil Rights?

Everyone is buzzing over civil rights. 

  Your rights, my rights, their rights. 

  What exactly are civil rights? 




Well the dictionary at http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights defines civil rights as follows.

 "pl.n.

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

adj. or civ·il-rights (sĭv'əl-rīts')
  1. Of or relating to such rights or privileges: civil rights legislation.
  2. Of or relating to a political movement, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, devoted to securing equal opportunity and treatment for members of minority groups.
So let me point out a few of things that I personally note from that definition and on the subject of 'civil rights'.

1. Civil rights are something that is guaranteed by CITIZENSHIP. 

2. The U.S. Constitution & CONGRESS determines what is or is not a civil right.

Particularly when in the United States we are referring to certain rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitutions particularly Amendments 13 and 14 and other subsequent acts of CONGRESS (includes the bill of rights).

The president does not determine what civil rights consist of or to whom they are guaranteed. The Department Of Justice (DOJ) also is not the branch of government which determines what is or is not a civil right, or to whom it is guaranteed. So to declare a legal right to 'civil right's' one MUST believe in the legal validity of our constitution as a legal document which dictates what the government and it's agencies can or can not do, require or perform in regard to it's CITIZENS.

So what are our civil rights as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?




 Amendment 13 - No Slavery.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865.

Read more on the 13th Amendment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution 

Amendment 14 - No discrimination of citizenship status based on race.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States. 

[1] Read more on the 14th Amendment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

3. To be a citizen you can not be subject to any foreign power.

The 14th amendment consists of a citizenship clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause  

 “not subject to any foreign power”

Note: The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States "not subject to any foreign power."

4. Citizens are guaranteed 'due process' as a civil right.

It also consists of a due process clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_Process_Clause  

The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. Take note certain government agencies like  the IRS, DHS, DOJ have been under scrutiny lately for overstepping their authority and depriving citizens of 'due process' which is a violation of civil rights. Some have also been accused of targeting persons or groups based on their political belief's affiliation and or religion.

The recent scandals in the news about the IRS targeting individuals based on their religious and or political beliefs or associations is most certainly a violation of the 14th amendment due process clause. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/irs-apologizes-targeting-conservative-groups Recently articles have been published on the Internet and through various media that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated that making any statement on social media could be a violation of Civil Rights of those persons.   http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/holder-trashing-muslims-may-violate-civil-rights


5. Citizenship once attained may be lost by only two methods.

1. Voluntary renouncing of one's citizenship.
2. If it is proven that applicant committed fraud in the application for citizenship.

Loss of 14th-Amendment-based U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:[23]
  • Fraud in the naturalization process. Technically this is not loss of citizenship, but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a U.S. citizen.
  • Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions (e.g., treason) which demonstrate an intention to give up U.S. citizenship.[24] Such an act of expatriation must be accompanied by an intent to terminate United States citizenship.[25]   


Is it legal for the government or any of it's agencies to selectively promote or protect a religion above others while not giving all other religions the same equitable due process or protections?  No.



Why ?  

Because Amendment 1 states: 
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.

The government can not make any law controlling the establishment of any religion.
The government can not make any law prohibiting free exercise of religion.
The government can not make any law prohibiting free speech
The government can not make any law prohibiting the press (to publish) news and or information.
The government can not make any law or to prohibit peaceful assembly of the people 
The government can not make any law to stop the people from petitioning the government (complaining and seeking) a 'redress of grievances'. 



So the department of justice (DOJ) is completely out of line when they state that it violates the civil rights of some persons for other persons to post items on the internet objecting, complaining or ridiculing that person's beliefs.

Those offended can 1. ignore the other person's opinions. or 2 Post their own opinions defending, explaining or accusing the other person or party. So long as their is not a physical attack on the persons actual body, or their real property to damage that then there is no criminal activity but instead it is the exercise of one's civil rights.

Read more about the bill of rights and U.S. Constitution at the following sites.

BILL OF RIGHTS - transcript
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

BILL OF RIGHTS
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

US Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

Cornell University of Law School
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_law








Some may say that recent articles published about possible prosecution of persons posting about the Muslim religion ( or Islam) could possibly be prosecuted as a violation of their civil rights. I disagree.

 http://americanjihaddefense.com/2013/05/31/doj-says-speaking-out-against-islam-could-violate-civil-rights/

The only law that I believe might even come close to that would be the federal hate crime laws. 


ABOUT Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.

Before that would apply a CRIME has to be committed.
SPEECH or Publication of thoughts (press) online or otherwise is not a crime and is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

IF a actual crime is committed though such as a beheading, bombing or some other crime perpetrated upon a person or persons because of the victims religious views, race, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation it would then be a HATE CRIME.

However, if this is so then in order not to violate the civil rights of other citizens this would have to be applied fairly and across the board to all persons regardless of race, gender, or religion. You can not selectively protect or persecute persons who criticize Islam or Muslims if you do not protect Christians or Jews or any group from criticism or slander in a equal manner. 


Immigration Reform - Amnesty



 My thoughts on Immigration, Amnesty & Border Security.

We are a nation of immigrants. Many of us have immigrated here from nations around the world to pursue a ideal, a way of life, a hope. Some of us have parent's or grandparents who immigrated here and some of us have been here awhile longer or may be descendant from the original inhabitants the native American Indians.

We can work together despite our differences and keep our ethnicity and culture but we must be able to compromise in order to live together in a peaceful society.

One can not come to the United States of America with the mentality that they will live here in the same exact way they did in their homeland. Especially, if they have come here from a intolerant society ruled by extremist  or religious zealots.

In America religion is a personal belief and practice you can share with other's so long as you do so in a peaceful and reasonable manner. To talk and discuss reasonably, not to use intimidation or violence to force other's to agree to or live according to your views religious or other wise.

If you choose to come to America - the legal method can be daunting to apply properly, and wait for response and comply with necessary rules, regulations and laws.

I don't argue that immigration probably does need some reform - in that the process should be simplified on ways to apply LEGALLY.

Though I do believe that all immigrants should be fingerprinted, photographed (must have a legal identification) and a background check done to investigate if there is a criminal history. This should be part of the process which includes a legal valid ID for the purposes of employment, voting, banking, and anything else which requires proof of identification.



When one desires citizenship they must renounce their loyalty to other nations. They must not be in a position where they must choose what loyalty they have when or if a war would break out between the United States and their country of origin. Dual citizenship or fighting in any war against the United States of America should warrant an automatic revocation of citizenship rights and benefits and a investigation & prosecution same person for crimes against the United States of America.


This is a 'no brain-er' at least for most of us. Learning basic English should be required for the benefit of all concerned a common language is productive and less costly in regard to legal matters and daily life in the United States. Having a common language allows a person to feel more a part of the society rather than isolated in a ethnic community.


Am I in favor of amnesty for those who are already in the United States of America? No, I am not. Any nation when opening their doors to immigrants would be foolish to invite criminals or those who have already proven their disdain for that nations laws and the legal process.

Person's who respect the nations immigration laws and who make every attempt to provide the necessary documentation and complete required training or education should be given top priority.

Those who have show disdain and disrespect for the American Legal system by coming here in a illegal manner or overstaying visa's should be deported immediately without exception.

By comparison - Lie to a judge in a court of law once, that persons credibility is then no longer trusted in said court. IF we already know that certain persons will not obey American laws of immigration then how can anyone believe that the same person's would suddenly become law abiding citizens if they were given legal citizenship status? Their credibility has already been damaged.
So, no I am not in favor of amnesty. If you are here illegally, understand its a matter of honor and respect. IF you do not respect our laws nor have the honor to apply for legal status through or immigration system then you can not expect Americans to trust you to obey our other laws.