Democrat Convention - Played on emotions - little truth

Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim American was ordered to Iraq years ago, his father wanted to talk to Donald Trump about his being an American Muslim soldier sent to war in a Muslim country. While I have great sympathy for Captain Khan’s parents I feel he distorted what Donald Trump has said. I understand in Captain Khan’s grief he may have taken what Donald Trump said and only heard what he wanted to hear. I also believe like many American's he believed the twisted lies of the media and the Democrat Party.

Captain Khan, 27, died on June 8, 2004, after he told his men to take cover and then tried to stop a suicide bomber outside the gates of his base in Baquba. Captain Khan and his parents are not the Muslim’s Donald Trump is trying to protect the American citizens from. Muslim Americans that are outraged by what Donald Trump has said are not putting the interest and safety of American citizens first and foremost.

Mr. Trump’s call for restrictions (ban) on Muslims entering the country is for the safety of American citizens and that should be the first responsibility of the President of any country. Donald Trump has not called for a permanent ban on Muslims. He only wants to give the U.S. Government time to setup procedure and policies that would help prevent terrorist from entering the United States. He is not for open borders which have proven to be a disaster for European nations and the United States. It appears Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party are more interested in being politically correct and winning Hispanic votes than protecting American citizens. I question where exactly does their loyalty lie.

Captain Khan’s father said If restrictions on Muslim immigration had been in place decades ago neither he, a lawyer with an advanced degree from Harvard Law School; his wife, Ghazala, who taught Persian at a Pakistani college before raising three boys in the Washington suburbs; their eldest son, Shaharyar, who was a top student at the University of Virginia and a co-founder of a biotechnology company; nor Captain Khan, who posthumously earned the Bronze Star, along with a Purple Heart, for saving the lives of his men, would have been allowed to settle here. That has nothing to do with the present terrorist problems facing the nations of the world. Donald Trump nor any other American would have even considered putting restrictions on Muslims “decades” ago. The time have changed and in the interest security for American citizens our immigration policies must change to meet the new threats.

The Democrats used Captain Khan's father and that is a disgrace. His speech was emotional and worthy to be told, but not at the Democrat National Convention. Captain Khan's father’s story is worth far more than to simply try and win votes for Hillary Clinton.  I am sure his father is very proud of his family, a foreign family that has integrated nicely into the United States.  I am proud of them and the millions of other foreign citizens that have done the same, but that does not mean I am for open borders at a time like this. Hillary nor the Democrat Party cared about his loss they only cared about how it might turn voters against Donald Trump. Like Hillary said in the Congressional hearings "What difference does it make (to her) now".

Mr. Khan criticized Mr. Trump’s statements as UN-American in an article published by Vocativ just a short time back. Please explain to me why it is UN-American to try and protect American’s from Radical Islamic Terrorist.

I found it interesting that Mr. Khan said Hillary’s campaign asked whether he needed speech writing help or any coaching. It seems they were really concerned that he would said the words that advanced their cause not Mr. Khan’s. 

I served in Vietnam and as a veteran I found it offensive that Mr. Khan took a swipe at the fact that Donald Trump has never served in the military. I might add Mr. Khan nor his other son have ever served in the American military and I do not think that makes them less of an American than their son that did. Mr. Khan needs to realize we have an all-volunteer military and if Mr. Trump was not drafted during the Vietnam conflict then he simply is like thousands upon thousands of other American boys. If I am not mistaken Hillary Clinton has not served in the U.S. military nor has her husband Bill Clinton.

Mr. Khan met his wife at Punjab University in Lahore, Pakistan. They moved to Dubai, where their two eldest sons were born, then arrived in Houston, renting a $200-a-month apartment. Eventually they settled outside Washington, where Mr. Khan worked at a mortgage company and at law firms. I suppose the $200 a month rent remark he gave to reporters for an apartment in Houston, Texas in 1980 was supposed to denote a difficult time. I am from Houston, Texas and in the 1980’s,  $200 a month would have gotten you a very decent apartment. Better than most lower middle class people in Houston lived in. Two hundred U.S. dollars in 1980 is equal to $579.57 in 2016.  A brand new town-homes on Lake Houston with swimming pools, tennis courts, putting range, parking, near parks, airport, malls and The Woodlands which is and exclusive neighborhood is advertised  today - 4 Bedrooms, 2 baths, $1,090 per month with a $200.00 deposit.  What is difficult for one family is luxury for another.

I think we should also note that their son was killed by a MUSLIM does he not want Americans to try and protect their family from the same danger occurring within the borders of the United States.

Khan said that Hillary Clinton, "called my son the best of America." I would think Donald Trump and most if not all Americans would call him the same. Once again the Democrats got the emotional speech they wanted in an attempt to play upon the emotions of American voters and win votes. They did the same when they used the mother’s that had sons killed by the police. There sons were not the best of America, but the Democrats got the boost they were looking for by using these mothers for their purpose.

"Look for the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of law,'" Mr. Khan said while standing next to his wife, waving the paperback document of the Constitution vigorously and questioning if Donald Trump had ever read the Constitution. The Constitution is for the protection of United States Citizens, not for aliens that have not even entered the United States. That is the very reason Muslim Islamic Terrorist were held in Guantanamo Bay in order to prevent them from having Constitutional rights.

By the time Mr. Khan speech was over I began to wonder if  ethnicity was more important to him than being a United States citizen or in the least were their some conflict in his mind between ethnicity and United States citizenship.

"Like many immigrants, we came to this country empty-handed," he said, believing that with hard work he could raise his three sons "in a nation where they were free to be themselves and follow their dreams." He and his wife both had impressive University degrees so they were not like most immigrants. He should speak with the illegal aliens crossing the southern borders of the United States and then he would understand what EMPTY-HANDED really means. It also appears the United States has been very good to him and his family.

"Vote for the healer," Mr. Khan said, "not the divider." Obama and Hillary are healers of racist tension. Unfortunately Mr. Khan was not in the United States during the 60’s and cannot see how under Obama and Hillary our country is reverting back to the same racial tension we experience then. He has no comparison to use as to what a healer really is. Obama and Hillary both support the Black Life Matters Organization and that organization is not looking to heal racial tension in the United States.

The lack of action that Obama and Hillary Clinton took in Benghazi to protect our people is enough for me not to vote for her. Her failure to use a secured server is another reason I question her ability to be President. The Democrat Party emails released prior to the convention is enough to tell me that corruption is top to bottom in the Democrat Party. They will lie, cover-up, cheat do anything they can for one vote. What will Donald Trump do I really do not know, but I doubt if it will be more of the same failed policies. If he fails then I hope he fails trying something new.

I am not trying to take anything away from Mr. Khan ‘s grief and sacrifice, but his speech contained a lot of emotions and things stated as facts that are not exactly true. I still stand by what I said earlier he was used by the Democrat Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Grace Poe - disqualified because she is a foundling

There has been a case in the Philippines that has interested me. Philippine Senator Grace Poe filed to run for President in 2016.  The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) disqualified her as a candidate because she is a foundling whose parents are both unknown. A foundling is an infant that has been abandoned by its parents and is discovered and cared for by others. Poe's Philippine citizenship cannot be established, recognized or presumed under the 1935 Constitution since the charter did not grant citizenship to children born in the Philippines whose parents' identities are a mystery.

The 1935 Constitution clearly required blood relations to the father to establish the natural-born citizenship of a child. The 1935 Constitution did not contain any provision expressing or implying the granting of Filipino citizenship to foundlings on the basis of birth in the Philippines. According to this interpretation, the child of a Filipino mother with a foreign father would not be a citizen by birth, because the law or the Constitution requires that he make a further declaration after his birth. The 1935 Constitution allows only children whose fathers were Filipino citizens to be automatically natural-born Filipino citizens.  It is argued that the framers of the Philippine Constitution did not want children born to alien fathers to be naturalized Philippine citizens.

There is a 1987 Constitution and it states: Natural-born citizen, “No person may be elected President or Vice-President or Senator or Congressman unless he or she is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines…” Grace Poe is presently a sitting senator. I do not understand why this issue did not come up until she decided to run for President. It seems strange that there was no outcry when she ran for Senator and it is even stranger that SET did not disqualify her then.  Did the people who are protesting her bid for president not care if she became a senator, but she now has become too much competition for others seeking the position of president in 2016? Politics are strange in every country, enemies become friends and friends become enemies, in order to get elected and after the election everyone kisses and forgets.

In the case of Senator Grace Poe she does not know who her father or mother is, therefore she cannot automatically be classified as a natural-born Philippine citizen unless someday it can be determined who her father is. No one is questioning if she was born in the Philippines. She was found in 1968 in a church in Jaro, Iloilo, Philippines. Originally she was cared for by residents of Jaro, Iloilo, and later adopted by Ronald Allan Kelley Poe (Fernando Poe Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces). Her adopted parents were both actors. Her adopted father is now deceased and himself was a presidential candidate.

There are issues about her becoming a U.S. Citizen, then returning to the Philippines and reclaiming her Philippine citizenship, etc. I am not interested in that situation. The only thing that intrigues me is the foundling issue.

Those opposing her candidacy also argue there is no International Law conferring automatically a nationality to foundlings at birth. There is the United Nations Convention of the Reduction of Statelessness that provides: “A foundling found in the territory of a contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary be considered to have been born within that territory to parents possessing the nationality of the State. The Philippines is one of the signatories of the 1945 United Nation charter, but the ruling powers in the Philippines claim that rule does not cover Grace Poe because it did not go into effect until 1975.

There is also under Article 2 of the 1961 International Convention on Statelessness, “a foundling found in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have been born within the territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.” The Philippines is not a signer to that agreement.

Under the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the Philippines did sign and which their Supreme Court has consistently enforced states, “Everyone has a right to a nationality.”  To deny Poe or anyone citizenship based on foundling status seems to violate that agreement.

One article written in the Philippines stated Grace Poe could not renounce her U.S. citizenship because U.S. law forbids it. It claimed once a U.S. citizen always a U.S. citizen that is not true.  More Americans gave up their U.S. citizenship (3415) in 2014 than ever before.  In 2013 there were 2,999 Americans who renounced their citizenship. Most expat’s do it for tax reasons. If they decide at a later date to reunify and regain their citizenship they must pay the U.S. Treasury $2,350 and complete the proper forms. The U.S. Embassy in Manila has confirmed Grace Poe renounced her U.S. citizenship and who in the Philippines has the right to question who the U.S. can or cannot allow to renounce their U.S. citizenship.  

Before you send me a negative comment please understand I am not questioning the right of the Philippines to deny citizenship to whomever they please. I am simply saying I am confused by what I read in the Philippine newspapers and hear on Philippine voice media. The stories seem to change based on who is telling the story and who the story teller supports for president in 2016.

U.S. code 1401 states regarding natural born citizenship of babies: a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person is a U.S. citizen; any person born in the United States is a U.S. citizen; a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth is a U.S. citizen; a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years and it is not proven they were not born in the United States is a U.S. citizen; a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years is a U.S. citizen.

I wonder how many Filipino’s have taken advantage of the lax U.S. natural born citizenship laws in order to become U.S. citizens or have dual citizenship.  I am sure the number is in the thousands as with aliens from all countries. I would think there are a few Philippine politicians that have taken advantage of U.S. citizenship laws.

Senator Ted Cruz now running for the Republican nomination for U.S. President was born to a Cuban alien father, American mother, in CANADA and is considered a natural born citizen of the United States.

For some time the U.S. has had a problem with mothers coming to the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth and then returning to their home country after the baby is born.  It entitles the child to U.S. citizenship, all rights as a U.S. citizen including, in State tuition fees, welfare, etc.  It is only against U.S. law if the mother lies about her reason for entering the U.S. prior to the baby being born. It is illegal to enter the U.S. for the purpose of giving birth. We now have a problem with wealthy pregnant women from China. Perhaps it is time for the U.S. to adopt the same laws that other countries, like the Philippines have to eliminate the problem. I am sure if U.S. laws were changed it would have a negative effect on many Filipino’s as it would citizens from other countries.

I would like to see our immigration problems solved, but I could never bring myself to declare children born in the United States, regardless of their parent’s citizenship or being born to unknown parents stateless. Only a heartless person could mistreat a child who had no control of the circumstances surrounding his or her birth in that way. 

There are some cultural traditions in every country, in every religion and every denomination that should be changed and anyone in my opinion that still treats foundlings in this manner should make the needed changes as soon as possible. 

I wonder if the present Philippine foundling law is related to a Spanish tradition regarding male status in society or is it related to something to do with the Catholic Church.  The Philippines is predominantly Catholic and there was a time when I am sure the Catholic Church would have approved of the law.  I guess the bishops of the Philippine still approve of the law because their silence is deafening.   I certainly do not thank Pope Francis would approve of the law.

Obama's immigaration policies leave much to be desired!

 The Department of Homeland Security as recently as 2014 was enforcing a secret Obama administration policy that prevented officials from reviewing the social media accounts of those seeking visas. If that practice had not been in effect it may have stopped the San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik from entering the country.

The New York Times reported that Malik, a Pakistani woman who moved to the U.S. with a fiancée visa in May 2014, "had made little effort to hide" her support of violent jihad, and her desire to be a part of it.

This activity was uncovered by the FBI shortly after Malik and her American-citizen husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, killed 14 people in San Bernardino.

Of three background checks conducted by immigration officials during the visa process, none uncovered Malik's activity on social media. Immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused to end a secret Obama administration policy that prohibited officials from reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants.

Obama is more concerned about what the Muslim world thinks than providing security for the people he was elected to protect. Obama was afraid the Muslim world would be offended if it was disclosed publicly that the U.S. was checking people’s personal social media pages before issuing a visa. This thinking is more than naïve it is stupid! There is no excuse for not using every resource at our disposal to fully vet individuals before they come to the United States.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, one of Obama’s party mates, demanded that the U.S. create a new policy that allows officials to check the social media accounts of visa applicants.  

It is ironic that Obama is lax, to put it mildly, on issuing visa’s but goes overboard on putting people on a ‘no fly list’.  The Obama guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations.  It gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly list. It allows government officials to “nominate” people to the no fly list based on vague incomplete information. The no fly list is so inaccurate that it contains many names of deceased people. I wonder if this is a designed way for Obama to abuse the no fly list program.

Obama has resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the no fly list even though the guidelines are officially labeled unclassified. Eric Holder, while still Attorney General, invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent no fly list guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list.

Obama is more concerned about being ‘politically correct’ than being an effective President. Obama appears to be more concerned about protecting Muslim causes than protecting Christian causes. So much so that he discriminates against Christians. Obama seems more interested in honoring and protecting the heritage of his father than his American heritage, if he has any.

In closing, I want to include some of the things Obama has said, supported and wanted to change regarding immigration, illegal aliens and issuing visas:

Obama in 2006 wrote that a vast influx of Immigrants could harm native-born blacks – that does not sound like the 2015 Obama.

Obama opposes immigration raids designed to identify illegal immigrants in workplaces. It appears he is more interested in protecting the jobs of low skilled illegals than low skilled Americans.

Obama supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He wants them to have an opportunity “to fully embrace our values” and the benefits of living in America. I do not want illegal aliens in our country. We have immigration laws as all countries and I want them enforced. I have nothing against people immigrating to the U.S., but I do oppose any one entering our country illegally.

Obama favors permitting illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Obama believes Illegal aliens should get a license and get insurance to protect the public. That is a valid argument, but they should not be here in the first place and if they were not here they would need a driver’s license.

Obama wants illegal aliens, even those who have returned home, who worked at jobs using phony or stolen Social Security numbers, to reap the benefits of whatever Social Security contributions they may have earned illegally.

Obama voted against a point system for immigration. A system that looks at a person’s skill and how their skills could contribute to the advancement of the United States and he voted in favor of  focusing on the reunification of family members, even if that meant permitting the relatives of illegal aliens to join them in the U.S.

Obama supported the DREAM Act, legislation that would have allowed illegal-alien students to attend college at reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents, and to earn conditional permanent residency and a path to citizenship.

In 2009, Obama expressed concerns that his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants and argued that was all the more reason to legalize illegal aliens so they could get health coverage.

Obama's instructed the Department of Health and Human Services' to stop designating HIV as a "communicable disease of public health significance."  H.I.V. is manageable and I do not oppose those with H.I.V. from traveling to the U.S., but I question why Obama left other sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, on the HHS no entry list. I agree with Obama that the ban on those living with H.I.V. is unfair.

 In September 2010, Obama instructed his Justice Department to sue Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for establishing a hotline for the public to report immigration violations. Now Obama says if you see something suspicious report it – and if you do you risk being suited by the Obama administration.

In August 2011, President Obama issued an executive order to prevent potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court from moving forward if they did not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations. In other words he issued a free pass to the U.S. to the others. At the time Obama’s Homeland Security estimated there were over 300,000 immigration cases pending on illegal aliens that were criminals and had immigration violations.

In June 2012 President Obama, frustrated that Congress had thus far failed to pass the DREAM Act, issued an executive order that allowed a two-year deferral from deportation to the estimated 800,000 young illegal aliens who had entered the United States as minors and allowed them to apply for work permits. I believe unemployment records indicate native born black teenagers are the most unemployed in the U.S. Obama demonstrated once again that he if he dislikes a U.S. laws or a clause in the U.S. Constitution he is not above ignoring them.

In August 2012, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the Obama administration had “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost the number of deportations for which it took credit. Figures recently unearthed by a federal lawsuit in Texas cast serious doubt on the administration’s deportation claims. The number of deportations according to Obama appeared to have declined significantly (40%) during the president’s term in office which turned out to be false.

Some U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents are suing the administration over its use of “prosecutorial discretion” in dictating how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced. They claim they are being prevented from doing their job.

In 2005 the Bush administration initiated the construction of a virtual border fence, consisting of a network of cameras, ground sensors and radars designed to spot incursions and help determine where Border Patrol agents should be deployed. The project was slated to be completed by 2011. In early 2011 the Obama administration scrapped the plan after 53 miles had been completed.

Obama stopped requiring immigrants to be self-supporting. They can now start drawing welfare payments as soon as they are released by immigration authorities. Obama is aggressively trying to boost the welfare rolls among non-citizens.

In July 2007, presidential candidate Obama told the National Council of La Raza, opponents of illegal immigration were ugly and racist. Once again Obama employs his divisive tactics. Obama told the Hispanic at La Raza nursing mothers are being torn from their babies, children are coming home from school to find their parents missing and people are detained without legal counsel. Do you believe that? Babies being ripped from their mother’s breast, children left unattended because their parents have been taken away and Public Defenders are not being provided for illegal aliens.

A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and its affiliates skyrocketed (7 million in one year) when Obama took office. I think you call it buying votes for the Democrat politicians.

I will pose more on Obama’s immigration ideology in a later post.