I am no apologist of Gaddafi but They were the only country to admit and pay retribution for thier terrorist attack over Lockerbie. He also paid with the loss of family
From Reagans US attack on his "tent". He was much subdued after that and even assisted identifying terrorists..
Gaddafi was focused on his huge irrigation project intending to export it through out AFrica. His people had access to education and was no longer the bad actor on the world stage. The Libyans were able to feed themselves and were not a debtor nation.
In Manchester England young girls were killed while exiting a pop concert. This from Straightline logic.
The suicide attacker was the direct product of US and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.

According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the US/UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop concert attendees. Before the US-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.

Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad..

I am not certain I grasp what you are trying to say. If any country is going to place limits on who can enter how do you determine the limit. When you get to 100 is there no room for more? What determines if a person is worthwhile to enter? (Some requirements might be obvious; i.e., murder anyone?)

It is interesting to follow history and how each individual or group came into power by assuming that each action along the way would produce only one consequence and hence the probable result. SAVAK learned many of its techniques from the CIA and consequently any harm done by SAVAK a causal link between any terrorism or immorality on the part of SAVAK was then attributed to the USA. Just because a community or country is stable enough (or just connected enough) to do business with the USA does not indicate that any moral country, company or individual should do business with them.
Stating that Gaddafi kept the country stable might be true but what kind of stability do you want? He ruled the people mercilessly, targeted the Lockerbie Pan Am jet with a terrorist planted bomb killing civilians and that the people didn't dare confront him or that American businesses could safely conduct business transactions makes overlooking the murder of civilians on a plane ok or at least balance out because Gaddafi was 'stable'. It could be said that Lenin and Stalin were 'stable' because at least you understood that you were never safe. It was a stable government under Mao Tse Tung where 200 million people died for infractions of rule of state but not for immoral criminal behavior. It was 'stable' in that you knew what to expect from the state if you crossed it.
If the peace of Rome comes from all resistors being dead then you could say it was a peaceful place to live.
Although it could be argued that things would have turned out differently if some circumstances could have been changed or done in a different order there is still no way to determine if that would be true.
The only thing left is to determine if our (the USA's) interactions are moral not if they benefit the country because the business climate is more stable to our benefit. It is not the moral place of any country or individual to make certain that the world benefits them by being what they want to deal with even if that means ignoring violence used to coerce others, even if that violence affects your group but at least not you, as in; "I don't know anyone who died on the Lockerbie Pan Am Jet but at least my company in Libya is under not threat and the checks I receive are still cashable."

Jimmy Carter abandoned the Shaw bringing about the Islamic revolutions over throw. Carter didn't like the Shaw's imprisoning his enemies. Very similar to Obama destroying stability in Libya when Gaddafi had 250 or so ISIS characters surrounded . Then low and behold our embassy was the first target of the future Hezbollah in Iran and latter in Bhengazi.

Mohammad Reza came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized, under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, until a US and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms.[6] Under Mohammad Reza's reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy since the founding of the Achaemenid Empire by Cyrus the Great - concurrent with this celebration, Mohammad Reza changed the benchmark of the Iranian calendar from the hegira to the beginning of the First Persian Empire, measured from Cyrus the Great's coronation.[7] Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernising the nation by nationalising certain industries and granting women suffrage.

A secular Muslim, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran as well as the working class, particularly due to his strong policy of modernisation, secularisation, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, relations with Israel, and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.[8]

Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most significant of which were US and UK support for his regime, clashes with Islamists and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 17 January, forced him to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ruhollah Khomeini. Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose president, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum. Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "the Shah".

Yes of course :refugee a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. These would likely be from Somalia and Syria. I don't want any from there.
An immigrant should assimilate into OUR culture
And have the ability to support themselves.

bravo, Mr. Hurley.

I just can't grasp the concept of open borders. I question how all the countries asking refuge for their people could tell us how they destroyed their countries because we are rather touchy about our being destroyed the same way.

I absolutely approve of the bans and limiting the number of refugees drastically until we can get a grip on the situation.

"By my life and my love of it"
Thanks jeffdhurley

Travel ban I am all in , For us to be told that we must sacrifice our own personal safety and potentially our lives , because someone in another country , who has not worked to build this society and may indeed have designs to cause it's destruction . "deserves" to be allowed in because they" never had a chance" and we , who have been so privileged should allow it because we can afford it and after all we are so rich as a country that we can afford a few losses . Well , I take my oath very seriously ... “I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine

A good place to look is in whichever direction Progressive women are flinging the most poo. I don’t know if anyone thinks of them as leaders, but the works of Christina Hoff Summers and Camille Paglia I have found to be pretty sane and interesting. That Progressives get apoplectic over them is icing on the cake.

Well it helps prevent know enemies from coming as easily.

I don't see a problem with this as it stops terrorist's from entering the US. I just wish Europe had the balls to enact a similar ban

Good point. Salary reduced by their rejection percentage!
I did suggest Florida consider the Death Penalty for Activist Judges... But I'm thinking we're not that lucky to get that passed... But wouldn't that be nice!

Yes the law of unintended consequences . That is one law that needs no judge. That law even pertains to judges interpreting the law due to bias and politics selected by the party that is in vogue.

In the federalist papers, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution tell us .....The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power in fact the constitution made the judiciary so weak the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.
How is that possible? Our founders explained, Barton said, that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.”

In fact, they tell us that, “there is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

“No wonder Progressives don’t like the Constitution — it restrains them!” Barton reflected. “They don’t like to be held back from fundamentally transforming the country. It’s no wonder that they work so hard to keep the Constitution from being taught in schools.”

Barton said that Thomas Jefferson long ago warned the people of leaving the Constitution to be interpreted by those who may or may not agree with what it says.

This is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson is quoted as saying. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” he added.

David Barton said that we have forgotten the words of the Founding Fathers, and need to go back and study the Constitution.

As John Jay, author of a number of the Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court advised: “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the Constitution of his country…By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.”
From historian David Barton.

BTW Hillsdale College offers a free online course : US Constitution 101

There are two problems I see with this. First, it does not account for the rate of being overturned. You are penalizing a judge that has had 100 cases appealed and 5 overturned (5%) the same as a judge that has had 6 cases appealed and 5 overturned (83%).

Second, any good judge will occasionally be overturned. THere are many reasons. Maybe the appellate judge is not as "good/correct." Maybe the judge is trying to rollback liberal precedent, but the appeals court is to ready to overturn precedent.

Think of this situation when you have a progressive president in office for 8 years. A few appointments to stack the appellate court and then the more objective judges would start to be forced from office, letting the progressive president fill their spots. Not what you would want to happen, I think.

if you keep reducing their pay, they won't be able to afford to make more bad decisions. Remember this is a permanent 10% reduction (retirement, et al). So after 8 times... They are DONE. Or at least we are not paying for their stupidity. And if they stay, you MUST check where their money is coming from!

Very true.

a pretty accurate way to assess a person is to ask if they voted for Hillary. If the answer is yes, look out and avoid them

Thanks Blair.

Well of course , my observation is that women are more likely to respond with emotions than logic in general than men. With that said only a fool would take a generalization and consider it as fact for any individual. The leaders both elected and not in my lifetime have been disgraces for the most part,
Displaying traits that are both evil and not seen often in any women I admire.

actually thats true. its both sexes. I would argue that there are more liberal women than men though.

That probably wouldn't stop many of them, unfortunately. They know what the Constitution is, they just actively seek to subvert it and turn it to their own ends. These people are way too intelligent to be doing this inadvertently.

1) The reason the 14th Amendment was necessary was to hasten the adoption and integration of the disenfranchised slave population. (It should also be noted that there are some irregularities about the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments which call into question its legitimacy.)

"We the People" were both the framers AND the populace affected. It should be remembered that the Constitution was a revision/overhaul of the Articles of Confederation, which did treat the several States as independent and fully sovereign nations (where being a sovereign nation they would have absolute and primary authority over immigration, tourism, etc.). Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1889, immigration and citizenship terms have been under the purview of Congress as per Article 1 Section 8. As each State ratified the Constitution, that State's citizens then became citizens of the United States of America, so there very much existed a formal process and conditions - it was just carried out en masse. As other States were in turn accepted into the Union, their citizens similarly became citizens of the United States.

(I would note that the EU has nearly duplicated this process. If you have an EU passport, every member nation of the EU must accept the validity of that passport no matter which nation originally issued it.)

2) Are they subject to our laws? Yes, but that is a price of entry. Are they afforded all the privileges of citizenship or protection by the Constitution? No. They are guests. They don't pay income taxes, nor are they allowed to vote nor hold office. They can also appeal for extradition to their own nation rather than face a US tribunal of justice. So the rules aren't the same. A couple of examples:

- illegal immigrants who are caught violating the law are more often extradited out of the country than prosecuted and held at our expense. It is notable that ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement - a Federal agency) is charged with this rather than local law enforcement and why the Kate Steinle case is so troubling. The perpetrator had already been removed from the country numerous times and the local law enforcement refused to cooperate with ICE to have him deported yet a seventh(?) time.
- wiretapping laws make a big distinction between citizens and non-citizens in requiring a warrant (regardless of geographical location). What is interesting is that the warrant applies to the citizen - not the non-citizen. Why? Because the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to citizens only.

Now that doesn't mean that guests in our nation have no Rights. The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that rights are inherent - not granted by Government. The difference is in who is responsible for safe-guarding those rights: non-citizens can not apply to have their rights protected by the US Government because they are not subjects of US government but rather subjects to their own governments. That is one of the roles of Embassies - to verify that citizens of that nation are accorded treatment in convention with any treaties agreed to between the two nations.

3) No worries. The thing to keep in mind is that just like on your property, no one has the right to come onto your property without permission. It's called trespassing. The same principle applies to nation-states, it just means a little more complexity in creating and administering the rules.