Armed Forces Members,Veterans Use #iwillprotectyou After Muslim Child Says She's Afraid

[5.56NATO]

Veterans and current service members are using social media to reassure Muslim Americans that they will fight for their rights as citizens.

On Facebook and Twitter, military service members and veterans have started using the hashtag #iwillprotectyou after one mother's post went viral about her daughter's fear of being kicked out of the country.

Melissa Chance Yassini posted about her daughter's reaction to hearing proposals by Donald Trump to ban Muslims from entering the country.

"She had began collecting all her favorite things in a bag in case the army came to remove us from our homes," Yassini wrote on Facebook about her daughter Sofia. "She checked the locks on the door 3-4 times. This is terrorism. No child in America deserves to feel that way."
https://gma.yahoo.com/armed-forces-m...opstories.html


Terrorism? This is terrorism;
Muslims Steal Seven Year Old Girls And Sells Them For Ten Cigarettes Each
http://shoebat.com/2015/12/12/89278/

Another California Muslim chases terrified Christian neighbor with sword yelling: “I would die and kill for Allah!”
http://shoebat.com/2015/12/10/anothe...ill-for-allah/

LONDON SUBWAY KNIFE ATTACK! Muslim Terrorist screaming “This is for Syria” tasered by police after slashing man’s throat
http://shoebat.com/2015/12/07/london...g-mans-throat/

[FunkyPertwee]

Preventing the government from rounding up innocent civilians into internment camps is an excellent use of the second amendment.

[ltorlo64]

I know of no one who is doing this. They give as examples one CG third class petty officer and one guy who got out of the AF reserves in 1991, if they had any substantial support behind this they would have used officers and senior enlisted as their examples.

As for what they said, I have no problem with it, as long as the person is here legally or is a citizen. What most people are doing wrong in this situation is applying the protections and rights of citizens to non-citizens. I know it sounds strange to say that US citizens have different rights than non-US citizens, and they should not have different rights. The difference being that we have fought for and secured our rights, people outside our country have not. They allow tyrants, despots, and illegitimate governments take their rights and then try to come here. In order for us to protect our hard fought rights we have to ensure that people who would put our rights at risk do not come here. If people were taught anything about our history and the history of the Constitution, why we have it, and what it took to achieve our freedom and liberty what Trump said would not be an issue. We may debate if it is alright for certain refugees to come, but thinking that we are violating the Constitution in denying them access to our country would not be part of the discussion.

[ltorlo64]

Preventing the government from rounding up innocent civilians into internment camps is an excellent use of the second amendment.

When has this been discussed by anyone, other than possibly our current President. But, in his defense, even if he talked about it he has made not movement to do it (most likely due to our being armed!).

[5.56NATO]

Preventing the government from rounding up innocent civilians into internment camps is an excellent use of the second amendment.

Innocent like levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort?

[FunkyPertwee]

When has this been discussed by anyone, other than possibly our current President. But, in his defense, even if he talked about it he has made not movement to do it (most likely due to our being armed!).

Whether or not anyone is currently advocating for internment of Muslims doesn't change the fact that preventing the government from rounding up innocent civilians into internment camps is an excellent use of the second amendment.

I was responding to .223's post in a very broad, generic sense. My comments should not be taken as either a support of or an attack on any party or politician. I know as well as you do that that was a bullshit article, but I also know that the OP's response to it is ridiculous, which you seem to recognize as well.

[FunkyPertwee]

Innocent like levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort?

Innocent as in not convicted of a crime in a court of law.

[FunkyPertwee]

We may debate if it is alright for certain refugees to come, but thinking that we are violating the Constitution in denying them access to our country would not be part of the discussion.

Can deviations between modern constitutional law and the enlightenment principals in which the country was founded be a part of the discussion?

[ltorlo64]

Whether or not anyone is currently advocating for internment of Muslims doesn't change the fact that preventing the government from rounding up innocent civilians into internment camps is an excellent use of the second amendment.

I was responding to .223's post in a very broad, generic sense. My comments should not be taken as either a support of or an attack on any party or politician. I know as well as you do that that was a bullshit article, but I also know that the OP's response to it is ridiculous, which you seem to recognize as well.

Understand.

[5.56NATO]

Whether or not anyone is currently advocating for internment of Muslims doesn't change the fact that preventing the government from rounding up innocent civilians into internment camps is an excellent use of the second amendment.

I was responding to .223's post in a very broad, generic sense. My comments should not be taken as either a support of or an attack on any party or politician. I know as well as you do that that was a bullshit article, but I also know that the OP's response to it is ridiculous, which you seem to recognize as well.

I don't know if I'd call a group of people with the stated aim of taking over the world and beheading those who resist to be innocent, but you can if you want to, it's a free country.

[FunkyPertwee]

I don't know if I'd call a group of people with the stated aim of taking over the world and beheading those who resist to be innocent, but you can if you want to, it's a free country.

I have never called a group of people with the stated aim of taking over the world and beheading those who resist innocent.

However, if the war on terror has convinced you to abandon the constitutional and enlightenment value of judging people as individuals, you can if you want to, it's a free country.

[imanaknut]

Too bad the poor girl can't read. Trump doesn't want to kick her out of the country, he just wants to make sure there is a system in place that could do a little better than the nothing now in determining a true refugee from an intended terrorist.

Add to that she can't read Trump's statements but she does read the wonderful news media that is doing a great job in scaring people into giving up their rights.

[FunkyPertwee]

Too bad the poor girl can't read. Trump doesn't want to kick her out of the country, he just wants to make sure there is a system in place that could do a little better than the nothing now in determining a true refugee from an intended terrorist.

Add to that she can't read Trump's statements but she does read the wonderful news media that is doing a great job in scaring people into giving up their rights.

Its hard to blame a little girl for having a hard time keeping track of what Trump wants to do with each minority group, but if I'm not mistaken, internment and deportation is only for illegal immigrants, while Muslims have a moratorium put on immigration and have their internet shut off.

Please read this article in regards to the danger of Syrian refugees and the current system in place to select appropriate refugees for resettlement in the United States. Cato institute does not produce BS liberal propaganda. They were founded by the one of Koch's, FYI, so I'm sure some of our tin-foil wearing friends will be happy to dismiss this, but everyone else should take seriously their data even if you disagree with their public policy recommendations. http://www.cato.org/blog/syrian-refu...ecurity-threat (I'm opposed to the use of public funding for immigration and refugee systems, FYI)

In regards to legality of Trumps ban on immigration based upon religions, check out what Judge Napolitano has to say. Again, this isn't BS liberal propaganda.



I would say that it would probably be a good idea to take steps to reduce immigration from countries that we are currently dropping bombs on, but that is really a separate issue than banning immigration on the basis of religion. And as we all know, it is only sinful for Christians to deny their faith. Muslims are perfectly justified according to their beliefs in denying their faith under certain circumstances, and I'm sure the jihadis would view the "check here if you are a muslim" box on the immigration form as a situation in which it would be justified for them to lie.

[ltorlo64]

Can deviations between modern constitutional law and the enlightenment principals in which the country was founded be a part of the discussion?

Most definitely. Most of the problems currently in our government can be traced to disregarding the principles (and the meaning of the words used in 179X) used to write our Constitution and replacing them with "modern constitutional law". "Modern constitutional law" meaning the usurpation of our liberty and freedom vice the original intent of protecting our liberty and freedom.

[ltorlo64]

As for the constitutional question, there are other lawyers out there who think this is perfectly constitutional.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...onstitutional/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3369765/posts

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/0...onstitutional/

Though I am not a World Net Daily fan, they actually have a pretty good break down of this.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/experts-t...onstitutional/

The thing is, our Constitution applies to our government and the protection of our citizens (and those people here legally). If other countries would like our liberty and freedom they need to fight for it, and fight to keep them, as we have done. Allowing unchecked (in any form) immigration into our country by people who want our privileges but do not understand or value freedom and liberty will cause us to lose what we hold dear.

[FunkyPertwee]

As for the constitutional question, there are other lawyers out there who think this is perfectly constitutional.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...onstitutional/

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3369765/posts

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/12/0...onstitutional/

Though I am not a World Net Daily fan, they actually have a pretty good break down of this.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/experts-t...onstitutional/

The thing is, our Constitution applies to our government and the protection of our citizens (and those people here legally). If other countries would like our liberty and freedom they need to fight for it, and fight to keep them, as we have done. Allowing unchecked (in any form) immigration into our country by people who want our privileges but do not understand or value freedom and liberty will cause us to lose what we hold dear.

It may very well be constitutional. I'm not a lawyer, and like you, the best I can do is read commentary from lawyers and judges (and I do trust Judge Andrew Napolitano). However, the argument breitbart gives for denying certain rights to foreigners seems to be in contradiction with the enlightenment values expressed in the declaration of independence that human beings are born with their rights intact. I'm unaware of any moral or ethical foundation for the concept of communal land ownership granted on the basis of geographic region of origin that would give me the authority to deny another person from traveling on public land on the basis of their geographic region of origin. I also don't have the authority to prevent someone not convicted of a crime from entering into private contracts for food, water, shelter, or anything else. The government has the authority to extract trespassers from my private property and myself from the property of others because I granted them that right via my participation in representative government. However, I don't have any authority over public property to grant to the government. The government's use of our tax dollars does not grant us ownership and authority over the things that the government pays for, it merely makes us the victims of extortion.

Why is escaping a war zone less honorable than fighting in a war zone? Unless they've been indoctrinated with concepts like nationalism or manifest destiny, preserving human freedoms within a certain geographic zone has no more importance than securing freedom for their own person and/or family in another location. No one here would Support Krupski attacking anti-gun politicians in New York when has the financial means to move to another state. The loss of his family in the resulting SWAT raid would not be justified by New York's magazine ban.

In regards to privileges, the privileges associated with citizenship are morally and ethically wrong and should not exist for anyone. Using guns to extract money involuntarily from private individuals is wrong regardless of who they give it too. Forcing anybody to pay for anybody else's healthcare is wrong no matter where that person was born. Being born in the United States does not give a man the authority to send police to extract money from you in order to pay for their health care or anything else.

What I would like more than anything is to trade my "privileges" back in for the rights I was born with. Obamacare, publicly funded roads, government security, and endless pointless foreign conflicts aren't worth the ongoing extortion and limitations on personal freedom. If Americans would like to keep foreigners out, the government should step back and allow us to exercise our freedom of association to refuse any business transaction with any person we choose. If the system is so far gone that we cannot count on regaining our freedom of association, then our system doesn't deserve to continue functioning. Without the enlightenment values that the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution to a lesser extent, are based upon, I have no purpose for our current system. I would rather have to purchase the services provided by a government from the private market than continue to go down the rabbit hole of growing the government and decreasing human freedom for the purpose of solving government created problems.

So to conclude, the use of public land is a human right, not a constitutional one, and the way to keep people out of it that we don't like is to increase human freedom, not increase government authority.

I believe I have addressed your three main points: constitutional rights vs natural rights, foreigners should fight instead of flee/voting with your feet is dishonorable, immigration threatens privileges. Let me know where you think I'm wrong.

BTW, I'm enjoying some Christmas off time so don't think my increased level of participation is somehow indicative of this issue being more important to me than other issues. I'm just enjoying friendly discussion on this nasty rainy day. I'm actually far more concerned with the removal of hispanic families than I am the stopping if immigration from countries that don't really fill any market demand. The labor market in the United States is demanding low-wage unskilled labor at prices forbidden by the federal government, but it is my opinion that the free market is better at determining the allocation of resources including human labor than the government is and that the government's prohibition on hiring illegal immigrants is not only a violation of the constitutional and human rights of citizens to engage in private contacts and the human right of immigrants to travel on public land and sell their labor, but also reduces the productive capacity of the United States and the material well-being of the people living here.

[5.56NATO]

Yes, the founders were so enlightened and egalitarian that the first foreign war America fought was against islam.

"The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitanian War and the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two Barbary Wars between the United States and the four North African Muslim states known collectively as the "Barbary States""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

As expected, islam attacked American shipping unprovoked, taking ships and making slaves of the crew and passengers. Supposedly, Jefferson bought a quran to try to understand where these men got their mindset from and how they justified their crimes.


"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
- Omar Ahmad
Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

[FunkyPertwee]

Yes, the founders were so enlightened and egalitarian that the first foreign war America fought was against islam.

"The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitanian War and the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two Barbary Wars between the United States and the four North African Muslim states known collectively as the "Barbary States""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

As expected, islam attacked American shipping unprovoked, taking ships and making slaves of the crew and passengers. Supposedly, Jefferson bought a quran to try to understand where these men got their mindset from and how they justified their crimes.


"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
- Omar Ahmad
Founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

So did they fail to destroy Islam, or are you purposefully misrepresenting history?

[ltorlo64]

It may very well be constitutional. I'm not a lawyer, and like you, the best I can do is read commentary from lawyers and judges (and I do trust Judge Andrew Napolitano). However, the argument breitbart gives for denying certain rights to foreigners seems to be in contradiction with the enlightenment values expressed in the declaration of independence that human beings are born with their rights intact. I'm unaware of any moral or ethical foundation for the concept of communal land ownership granted on the basis of geographic region of origin that would give me the authority to deny another person from traveling on public land on the basis of their geographic region of origin. I also don't have the authority to prevent someone not convicted of a crime from entering into private contracts for food, water, shelter, or anything else. The government has the authority to extract trespassers from my private property and myself from the property of others because I granted them that right via my participation in representative government. However, I don't have any authority over public property to grant to the government. The government's use of our tax dollars does not grant us ownership and authority over the things that the government pays for, it merely makes us the victims of extortion.

You are hitting on a couple of things here, but I am going to stay on the immigration question and on who has natural rights. The enlightenment values expressed in the Declaration, that all men are created equal and have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, is not violated by restricting immigration. The Declaration also states that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. This, insinuates that there are other governments that exist that exercise unjust powers and that other people belong to them. The Declaration then goes on to state that when a government becomes unjust it is a right (another right) of the people to abolish the unjust government. It is not listed as a right for the people to go somewhere else, though obviously they may do so. The contention of people who are saying that restricting immigration is lawful and constitutional is that in order to maintain a just government we have to have people who desire a just government. If they do not want a just government then these same people have the right to establish a government that best suits them. They do not have an inherent right to go to another country and attempt to change the government of another country.

Why is escaping a war zone less honorable than fighting in a war zone? Unless they've been indoctrinated with concepts like nationalism or manifest destiny, preserving human freedoms within a certain geographic zone has no more importance than securing freedom for their own person and/or family in another location. No one here would Support Krupski attacking anti-gun politicians in New York when has the financial means to move to another state. The loss of his family in the resulting SWAT raid would not be justified by New York's magazine ban.

It depends on why you leave or stay. I consider our founders to have been very honorable. They were treated unjustly and they fought to be treated justly. I do not think I have been indoctrinated with any sense of nationalism, though I definitely seem to have it. I just believe that the best way to secure liberty and freedom that currently exists is with a constitutional government and with a representative republic as we were initially set up with. Armed conflict should be the last resort. As can be seen in many of our states the legal and political actions are still being pursued so there is no need for armed conflict. Geographic boundaries play a huge part in this as governments are set up based on geographic boundaries. It would be impossible for a group of freedom desiring people to exist freely interspersed with communists, for example. The only way for the group of freedom desiring people to achieve their freedom is to band together and take over some land where they can protect each other and set up their government. As the Declaration states, just governments are set up “at the consent of the governed”. The boundary does nothing for government accept to give it a place to function and for people who will consent to that form of government to congregate.

In regards to privileges, the privileges associated with citizenship are morally and ethically wrong and should not exist for anyone. Using guns to extract money involuntarily from private individuals is wrong regardless of who they give it too. Forcing anybody to pay for anybody else's healthcare is wrong no matter where that person was born. Being born in the United States does not give a man the authority to send police to extract money from you in order to pay for their health care or anything else.

I may be using the wrong term, but I cannot think of a better one to describe our freedoms, liberty. While our Constitution acknowledges natural rights, we have the “privilege” of being able to practice our rights (theoretically) because of the government we set up. It is difficult to find another government which allows the citizens to practice their natural rights, and those governments would be unjust. Because of this I consider it a privilege to have a government that acknowledges our rights. As for the rest of your statements, I definitely agree.

What I would like more than anything is to trade my "privileges" back in for the rights I was born with. Obamacare, publicly funded roads, government security, and endless pointless foreign conflicts aren't worth the ongoing extortion and limitations on personal freedom. If Americans would like to keep foreigners out, the government should step back and allow us to exercise our freedom of association to refuse any business transaction with any person we choose. If the system is so far gone that we cannot count on regaining our freedom of association, then our system doesn't deserve to continue functioning. Without the enlightenment values that the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution to a lesser extent, are based upon, I have no purpose for our current system. I would rather have to purchase the services provided by a government from the private market than continue to go down the rabbit hole of growing the government and decreasing human freedom for the purpose of solving government created problems.

Most of this I agree with. I do believe, as did our Founders, that government does have a proper role in our lives. It was to provide protection from foreign powers, protect our rights, and provide roads to allow for commerce. This does not really go with the rest of the subject, but I thought I would point out an area we do not agree. I think there are some areas that it is best for government to take an active role in, but as you have pointed out, not as many as they are trying to be part of now.

So to conclude, the use of public land is a human right

(agree),

not a constitutional one, and the way to keep people out of it that we don't like is to increase human freedom, not increase government authority.

Our Constitution does not cover those who have not consented to be governed, it does govern US citizens and its government. It is government’s responsibility to only allow immigration of people who will consent to be governed in the way that we have already consented. It is also unjust for a government to try to change itself by bringing in people who have not consented, and will not consent, to be governed as we have already consented (through a representative republic).

I believe I have addressed your three main points: constitutional rights vs natural rights, foreigners should fight instead of flee/voting with your feet is dishonorable, immigration threatens privileges. Let me know where you think I'm wrong.

I don’t necessarily feel you are wrong, but I do disagree with some of your assertions, as discussed above.

BTW, I'm enjoying some Christmas off time so don't think my increased level of participation is somehow indicative of this issue being more important to me than other issues. I'm just enjoying friendly discussion on this nasty rainy day.

Merry Christmas!

I'm actually far more concerned with the removal of hispanic families than I am the stopping if immigration from countries that don't really fill any market demand. The labor market in the United States is demanding low-wage unskilled labor at prices forbidden by the federal government, but it is my opinion that the free market is better at determining the allocation of resources including human labor than the government is and that the government's prohibition on hiring illegal immigrants is not only a violation of the constitutional and human rights of citizens to engage in private contacts and the human right of immigrants to travel on public land and sell their labor, but also reduces the productive capacity of the United States and the material well-being of the people living here.

First, I don’t think we will ever stop illegal immigration, that does not mean we should stop trying or that we should not hold those people accountable for breaking our laws when they have. Second, I agree that the free market is better at determining wages and allocating resources. Where we differ is I believe we have a great pool of unskilled, low wage labor and illegal aliens are preventing these people from being hired. They are called teenagers, high school drop-outs, people with low ambition. If we get rid of welfare so people had to work and got rid of the majority of the illegal immigrants so they had a place to work, both of our concerns will be answered.

[l921428x]

So did they fail to destroy Islam, or are you purposefully misrepresenting history?

of course they failed to destroy islam, I hope that is not a serious q, they failed just as the crusaders had 400 years
before and now 200 years later we are still facing the same allahdamn stuff.