Democrats Want to Abolish I.C.E.

Time to Abolish the Democratic Party



Abolition – the action or an act of abolishing a system, practice, or institution.

  • Synonyms: termination, eradication, elimination, extermination, destruction, annihilation, obliteration, or extirpation.

Hypocrite – a person who indulges in hypocrisy.

  • Synonyms: pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person, phony, fraud, sham or fake.

According to the Democratic Party of 2018, we must abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (I.C.E.) and replace it with something else. What that something else should be, they never say.

Perhaps I.C.E. could be replaced by the same left-wing mobs that are going around harassing conservatives in restaurants, department stores, movie theaters and gas stations, and standing around holding signs, screaming and yelling nonsense at the top of their lungs every weekend. This might just be enough to drive away terrorists, smugglers, gangs, and drug cartels. Nah, that won’t work.

Also, according to Democrats, a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, resulting in the annihilation of her own unborn child. To punish a woman for choosing extermination, which is her right, is morally unconscionable, according to Democrats.

Yet, when it comes to health care, in defending Obamacare, Democrats reason that whether male, female, or somewhere in between, anyone declining coverage should indeed be punished, via the income tax code (i.e. the individual mandate). You either play, or you pay.

So, let’s get this straight. Under the Democratic Party’s philosophy, you have a right to choose not to be covered by health insurance, but if you do you will be punished financially. Yet, a woman should have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child without consequence. Well, you’re either for freedom or you’re not. Selectively choosing when, or for whom it applies is hypocrisy.

The left-wing movement du jour, the push to abolish I.C.E., is sounding more and more like a Russian propaganda campaign. Quick, somebody call the Special Counsel! Nah, that won’t work either.

The next course of action should be to officially abolish the Democratic Party, which has renounced the use of reason to such a degree that it is effectively obliterating itself. It’s extirpation is just a matter of time. What America needs is a new political party, one that doesn’t recklessly commit hypocrisy on such fundamental American principles as our freedom and sovereignty.

Natural Born Citizenship: Free and Clear

:: Cruz’s Dilemma

– By: Larry Walker, II –

The concept of natural born Citizenship is clear and concise, to anyone with a rational mind. Although some may wish to contort its meaning to fit the presidential candidate of their choice, natural law is incapable of such bias. It takes two parents to produce a child, one male and one female, but you would never know it if your source of information is the lamestream media. By its logic, only one parent is sufficient.

Epigrammatically speaking, if both of your parents were U.S. Citizens at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen of the United States. The location of your birth matters little. You could have been born in Kenya, Canada, Panama, or perhaps on the Moon, but as long as both parents were U.S. Citizens, at the time of your birth, you are without question a natural born Citizen.

According to Vattel’s Law of Nations, Chapter 19 § 212: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights… The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

You can think of natural born citizenship as free and clear citizenship. In other words, the rights of the parents (plural) are passed to their children. Thus, when both parents are U.S. Citizens, their offspring are natural born U.S. Citizens, free and clear. No other country has a claim of right. Comprende?

However, if at the time of your birth, your father was a Citizen of Kenya and your mother of the U.S., this would pose a problem. Oh no! What’s the problem? The problem is duality. Under such circumstances, the child would be a Citizen of Kenya (a British subject pre-1964) by virtue of its father, and equally a Citizen of the United States by virtue of its mother. There’s nothing free and clear in this circumstance. Upon the age of consent, such a child may claim citizenship with one country or the other; however, citizenship does not equal natural born citizenship.

You might not like the result of the above graphic, but that’s simply the way it is. Here are some recent examples.

Is John McCain a natural born Citizen? John McCain’s parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, thus he is a natural born Citizen. It matters not that he was born on a military base in Panama. He could have been born in Siberia. No matter where he was born, McCain is a natural born American Citizen by virtue of his parent’s common nationality, at the time of his birth. You got that?

Is Ted Cruz a natural born Citizen? Ted Cruz’s father was a Cuban Citizen and his mother a U.S. Citizen, at the time of his birth. Thus, whether born in the U.S., Cuba, or Canada (where he was actually born) he is not a natural born Citizen of either.

Cruz was born with citizenship rights to Cuba, Canada and the United States. Although he may have chosen U.S. citizenship, at the age of majority, natural born citizenship is not something one chooses. Natural born citizenship is a right passed from one’s parents at birth. As such, Ted Cruz is no more a natural born Citizen than is Barack Obama.

The U.S. is filled with undocumented aliens, birthright Citizens, permanent residents, dual status Citizens, naturalized Citizens, and natural born Citizens. Whether the children of undocumented foreigners, born on U.S. soil, are U.S. Citizens by birthright is questionable. However, without question, such children are not natural born Citizens of the United States.

The main issue is this. According to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, “No Person except a natural born Citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.” So where does that leave Ted Cruz? Is he a U.S. Citizen? Sure, if he affirmed. Is he a natural born Citizen? Due to the citizenship status of his parent’s, at the time of his birth, he clearly is not.

Is Ted Cruz eligible to run for the presidency? Technically no, since he is not a natural born Citizen. But since you allowed Barack Obama, who is plain as day not a natural born Citizen, why stop Ted Cruz or anyone else for that matter? If it weren’t for that confounded Constitution, we could nominate whomever we yearned, without conscience. But, since we do have a blessed Constitution, it’s up to us, rather than fainthearted federal judges, to see that it is upheld.

Reference: #NaturalBornCitizen

Who Built What? – Obama’s Fallacy of Composition

You Didn’t Build That!

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

The “framework” is not a person, natural or legal, to whom a debt can be owed, “institutions” do not act, “society” has no mind, no will, and makes no contributions. Only persons do these things. Imputing responsibility and credit for accumulated wealth, current production and well-being to entities that have no mind and no will is nonsense. It is a variant of the notorious fallacy of composition. ~ Anthony de Jasay *

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. For example, Obama’s use of the fallacy surmises that, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” In other words, if an individual owns a successful business, then the individual didn’t build it, but rather society as a whole built it. Thus, he concludes that the assets of all successful business endeavors, and any profit generated therefrom, whether owned by an individual, a partnership, corporation, or joint venture, really belong to society, not its owners.

But this is nothing new. Anthony de Jasay wrote about it in 2002, in his article entitled, Your Dog Owns Your House. Following the same line of fallacious reasoning, if an individual is a drug addict and derelict, then he didn’t get that way on his own either, but rather society made him so. Therefore, society owes all drug addicted derelicts a free pass to the nearest community owned rehabilitation center, as well as an equal piece of the collective economic pie. As such, one clouded by the fallacy of composition might make the following statement.

‘It always amazes me when someone says, “I became a drug addict and derelict on my own, and I take full responsibility for my actions and want to make things right.” Nah, nah, nah, you didn’t get that way on your own, society made that happen. You walked and drove over public roads and bridges that someone else built in your quest for dereliction. You had a teacher somewhere who influenced you to experiment with drugs. You didn’t become a derelict by yourself. Therefore you have no right to take responsibility for your actions and try to make things right. Society will rehabilitate you and make you whole.’ Does that sound familiar?

Yet, in spite of our omniscient government, approximately 7,000 high school students drop out every school day, which translates to one in three students. So extending Obama’s fallacious reasoning a bit further, it may be stated that an individual who decided to drop out of high school, to perhaps become a full-time gangbanger, didn’t make that decision on his own either, society made it for him. Somewhere along the way, teachers, police officers, judges, social workers, and politicians made a contribution. Thus, the fallacious would conclude that society owes the dropout not only an an equal piece of the collective economic pie, but a second chance to return to school and start over again, no matter how long it takes, the cost, or whether or not the individual is a willing participant.

Under Obama’s long-known fallacy, it’s damn free will, damn ingenuity, and damn hard work and tenacity, no one has ever accomplished anything on their own, good or evil. You are a product of society. Your dog owns your house. You have no right to the income produced by the sweat of your brow. There are no winners or losers. If you succeed, your wealth belongs to the state, and if you fail or don’t even try, then society will always bail you out.

Goose-stepping to the nth degree, it would follow that there is no difference between good and evil. All actions are created equal. The murderer, mass murderer, rapist, child rapist, kidnapper, thief, the avowed racist, down to the lowest level of the depraved, all have a right to share in the fruit of law-abiding, productive, citizens. There is no failure, and there is no success. We are all one. So it would follow that all prisoners should be freed, including terror suspects world-wide. And further, that all borders should be open to the poor across the globe, since they too have a right to share in the successes of those who are more fortunate.

Never mind that you studied day and night to perfect your craft, that you worked hard to get where you are, that you paid your own way, filed all your tax returns and paid all taxes due, are current on all your bills, and both you and your record are clean. To the fallacious, you deserve no more than dropouts, do-nothings, freeloaders, tax cheats, deadbeats, drug addicts, derelicts or common criminals. These are the ends of Obama’s fallacy of composition. But we know better.

For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. ~ Hebrews 3:4

All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty. ~ Proverbs 14:23

The borrower is servant to the lender. ~ Proverbs 22:7

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” ~ 2 Thessalonians 3:10

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. ~ Isaiah 5:20

Photo Credit: Fallacy of Composition | The Fallacy-a-Day Podcast


Your Dog Owns Your House, by Anthony de Jasay | Library of Economics and Liberty

Book of Isaiah, Chapter 5 | Holy Bible