Friday, June 16, 2017

Sanctuary Has Become a Euphemism for Unlawful Activity

The Unitarian Universalist Church is looking more and more like a mob of racketeers.  They are heavily engaged in harboring illegal aliens, as well as aiding and abetting them to enter and remain in the United States in defiance of federal laws.  It bears little resemblance to a conventional “religion” as we perceive them, for they admit they have no creed, and, essentially, “anything goes.” Atheists are welcome as members.

The charade of the mobsters in the UU are using America’s historical Constitutional freedom and protection of religion as an abusive maneuver to justify their trafficking in illegal immigration--by calling it a “sanctuary movement.”  In fact, its members’ motive is similar to that of many other pseudo religions in the U.S. today that try to build up their membership and their political and economic power by increasing their numbers through illegal immigration. They are part of the radical left-wing political movement in this country that has no loyalty to our Constitution, our country’s sovereignty, or to its future as a free nation. Pseudo religion is becoming an unprecedented danger to our continued existence as a free nation. At present, the UU is reportedly, boldly planning defiance of immigration law enforcement in Colorado under the guise of a so-called “sanctuary movement.”
For the record, “church sanctuary” ended as an international legal practice in 1806 with the end of the Holy Roman Empire.  For a thousand years (from Charlemagne to Napoleon), the Roman Catholic Church enjoyed immunity from all political leaders of the HRE while engaging in the practice of harboring fugitives from justice.  


Needless to say, there were, and still are, dangers in harboring fugitives from justice. The practice of sanctuary involves secrecy. We never know what other atrocities these felons commit when we allow them to pick and choose what national laws they wish to obey. If we recognize their self-described “sanctuary,” we recognize their autonomy as a microcosm, or enclave, of a government.  Obviously, it is in the best interest of pseudo religions to cover up what goes on in a sanctuary.  David Koresh covered up his evil doings for a long time before the Government finally mustered the courage to call his hand. So did Warren Jeffs and so do many other charlatans presently engaging in pseudo-religion. No church has the ability to vet applicants for sanctuary and protect themselves from the liability and dangers of harboring real and potential felons.  Nor do they really want to protect themselves; often criminals are behind the movement and they may engage in it to satisfy their own perverted interests—as did the “Reverend” Jim Jones before the massacre at Jonestown, Guyana.  Engaging in perversion is what distinguishes these de facto governmental separatists from bona fide religions. If they were on the up and up, they would have nothing to hide (as the word “sanctuary” implies); but too often what they are trying to conceal is criminal activity behind a screen of pseudo religion. As shown by the above examples, religion, particularly one engaged in illegal “sanctuary” is often a shield for criminal activities as well as political activism.  

Monday, June 12, 2017

Trump is the Embodiment of Disloyalty

How can Trump talk about "loyalty," when he has just stabbed his conservative base in the back?  When he granted his executive amnesty to nearly a million illegal aliens called "Dreamers," it wa the epitome of disloyalty. Those million  aliens are already anchors to at least five million more in their extended families who are already joining them. So, add six million more to the 20 million non-dreamers already here waiting for amnesty. Do not believe that Congress will soon pass a law (along with the coming amnesty)  barring amnesty beneficiaries, including Dreamers, from becoming citizens.  That is contrary to existing immigration law and probably unconstitutional, recalling the old "indentured servitude" laws by which many Europeans paid their passage to the British colonies in the 17th century. Indentured servitude was closely akin to slavery.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

The Farcical, Democrat James Comey Hearings

The so-called "Comey Hearing" began today with a hostile opening statement by the extremely biased Senator Mark Warner, He proceeded by making statements concluding with a condemnation of President Trump.  Warner twisted his remarks into questions that called for Comey to agree with him with a simple "yes," or "no,|" Warner appears to be an attorney representing James Comey in what is essentially an act of reprisal for his dismissal as head of the FBI. In a court of law, Warner would not get by with these leading statements, containing predicated conclusions disguised as "questions." He was simply using Comey as a mouthpiece to agree with his own hostile opinions. 

I am very troubled by the fact that the "evidence" that Senator Warner believes justifies bringing about this hearing are James Comey's "personal memos," meaning personal notes that Comey admits he made after each meeting with President Trump. At the hearing a few minutes ago, Comey admitted that he did not make notes after meetings with President George Bush (43), or after meetings with President Obama.

I have a serious problem with evidence that originated with the primary witness in allegations of "inappropriate conduct" by President Trump. This hearing centers upon the former FBI Director, James Comey's credibility.  Neither personal notes, nor memos written by anyone involved in an investigation, can hardly be considered probative evidence in an adversarial public airing of a conflict of political views. The Democrat members of the Senate Intelligence Committee lavished praise upon James Come's impeccable credentials, but those are highly subjective evaluations of Comey's credibility.  It goes to Democrat motivation: they see  Comey as a possible tool in their goal of destroying Trump. After all, Comey was the Democrats' ace-in-the hole in saving the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton--with his dubious act of “clearing” her for gross negligence in handling national security information. He did it by misinterpreting or misapplying the law, intentionally or otherwise. 

Those of us not afflicted with Democrat-type selective amnesia will remember that James Comey discovered serious breaches and gross negligence in Hillary Clinton's handling of highly sensitive classified information.  She did it through use of her illegal, personal email server when she was Secretary of State. After his investigation of Hillary Clinton, James Comey went so far as to say that the former Secretary of State would not be eligible for a security clearance that would entitle her to have access to classified information. However, Comey displayed his sympathy with Hillary Clinton by saying he found that she was not prosecutable because of  her"lack of intent" in blatant breaches in handling documents of national security.  This does not speak well for America's method of selecting its Government officials. We must ask how someone ineligible for a security clearance can achieve one of the highest offices in the land and be second in line for succession to the Presidency.  The State Department is the agency that handles the most serious information of a classified nature--such as handling foreign relations where the agency is instrumental in collecting most of our foreign intelligence.

After completely condemning Hillary Clinton's lack of competency and lack of qualification to handle classified information, Comey said that he did not prosecute her because the element of "intent" was missing in her mental state while compromising our national security,  Right there is where James Comey completely destroyed his own credibility.  If the Head of the FBI does not know what the essential elements of building a case of gross negligence in handling national security, he is either a liar or completely incompetent. That flies in the face of Democrat Senator Warner and Risch's glowing description of Comey's credibility. Intent is not an essential element in prosecuting a case of breach of security. This writer, and possibly others, believe that Comey's real motive in clearing Hillary Clinton was that he believed that she would be his boss after Presidential Inauguration Day on January.21, 2017.  The media's election polls certainly indicated that.