Trump on due process gets an F for failure of protecting our constitutional rights

As far back as October 2016 and probably before that somewhere out there as well,  I have posted history between Trump and the Clinton family.  I have noted that Donald Trump as at one time a Democrat, and that he funded the Clintons in many of their political campaigns, and in the most recent of years, he invited Bill and Hillary as special guests at his wedding, of only 300 people, the Clintons were both in attendance.  See this link:

Hillary and Trump in historical photos

Hillary and Trump in historical photos

Hillary and Trump in historical photos

Hillary and Trump in historical photos

Hillary and Trump in historical photos

PALM BEACH, FL: Newlyweds Donald Trump Sr. and Melania Trump with Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton at their reception held at The Mar-a-Lago Club in January 22, 2005 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Maring Photography/Getty Images/Contour by Getty Images)

Well now we have confirmation of what is really going on behind the scenes.  Trump announces confinscate guns first, due process second.   I am not sure if he fully comprehends what he is saying here.  But this is a major blew to civil rights, and constitutional protections.



On November 10th 2016 I wrote about how I was “Very wrong about the elections

“It is also notable that the bloodline that I have been speaking about for years, also applies to Trump.  What I have suspected the whole time, even writing about it all the way back in July 2015, is that whoever wins the election will be from the John Lackland bloodline.  Trump is in that family too, so I wasn’t all together wrong.”

This is what I had hoped for of course.  This is from the same article above from November 10th 2016

But all said and done, if Trump keeps his promises, such as dismantling the Federal Reserve, strengthening gun laws, repealing Obamacare, and appointing a conservative to the Supreme Court, then I am not going to be rioting in the streets or burning down my local liquor store, like some idiots this year did after the election.  He also mentioned that he would let the states decided about marijuana, and I really hope he keeps that promise, he has complete control over that topic.  Clinton assured her banking cartel friends that she would never legalize cannabis.

However there are a few things that I are very concerning to me.   First Jeff Sessions stance on marijuana laws, that is completely contrasting to how Trump mentioned that he would let the states decided about marijuana.  He said that while campaigning in 2016, and mentioned it after winning the election as well.   But to have Jeff Sessions be such an alarmist and prohibitionist puke, is not working for his intended mission.  Unless that was a rouse.  I think a lot of it is actually.  Certainly about his friendship with the Clintons, and that fact that Trump was a Democrat.  

Bush says Trump was a Democrat longer than a Republican

My thought is, same as it was when we went off and adventured in the world in July of 2016 when we bought out boat (traded our home for it).  That whatever is going on in the USA is not adding up.  There are some aces in people’s sleeves and they could mean significant change in  one direction or the other.   For me that does not sign of any kind of major stability.   

I made this video yesterday about the Gun Grab that Trump let slip as a thought on how to fix the school shooting issues.

TIME magazine also created a great write up.

  Trump is a Democrat – called it


Maybe this was a mishap.  Maybe he did not mean it as it sounded, like it talked about in regards to what Marco Rubio said about gun refom bills that are currently going forward.


Constitutional Protections

Legally, Trump’s position bumps up against fundamental constitutional protections. Whether it would pass muster in the courts would depend on the details.

“In general, property seizures are not allowed because an executive branch employee suspects the property might be used in a future crime,” Kopel said. But John Banzhaf, who teaches at George Washington University Law School, says the Supreme Court would probably allow a law that lets police respond to a student’s threatening social-media posts by seizing his weapons until a hearing could take place.

“A narrowly tailored ‘take the guns first’ law would probably be found constitutional,” Banzhaf said.

Rubio Proposal

A White House official said both Trump and Pence had discussed a proposal supported by Florida Republican Senator Marco Rubio that would create gun violence restraining orders at the federal level. The official said Trump’s comment was likely a reference to such a bill.

The proposal, which doesn’t yet have formal White House backing, would allow law enforcement and family members to obtain a court order to restrict gun access for people deemed a threat.

The White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Rubio’s proposal would allow guns to be taken away even before a legal process fully runs its course. Those who had their gun rights restricted under a restraining order would have the opportunity to appeal the court ruling after surrendering their firearms, the official said.

House Democrats introduced a similar proposal in May, modeled on gun restraining order initiatives in Connecticut, California, Indiana and other states that include an appeal process.

I would like to believe that he just misspoke.  But I have very little evidence that he didn’t mean it like he said it.  And the way that the republican and democrate bill that is being referenced, it is painfully crossing the tyranny lines.   I don’t think it is as terrible as some proposals.  And this makes some sense looking at other gun owner countries that own a lot of guns, but have very little crime in their country such as Switzerland.  

I recently made a video about possibly adopting a much more Swiss like gun culture.

Reference to the regulations in Switzerland, which is in some ways reflecting some Swiss common sense.


However the one thing with what is going on with Swiss gun laws, is similar to what is going on with Brexit.  The EU over steps their boundaries in local politics, and it creates resentment and hostility.   Many other countries put a Brexit like measure up in their country last election, and the Swiss are not happy about EU’s over reaching in the gun law realm of Swiss politics.  However they are still #3 in the world for gun ownership, with some 600,000 homes having a fully automatic Sig550 machine gun (for military use, but kept at home), and huge amounts of private owners that own guns.  In fact the number of military rifles issued doesn’t even count for the “gun ownership” totals, since the government essential owns those weapons, so that doesn’t count for private ownership.  
Swizerland is also #106 out of 115 counties for the crime index, meaning the higher the number, the lower the rate of crime.  So Switzerland is on the bottom of the list for crime.
Reference this chart:

I am trying to be pragmatic, even though that kind of thinking often works against a person’s best interests.  
However controlling the amount of SSRI drugs that are dished out in the USA, may be a better idea that violating people’s constititutional rights.   The USA doesn’t have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem, and a lot of that is casued by an over prescription of SSRI drugs, or giving drugs when none are needed.    The warning labels on many of those drugs is down right scary.  

At the end of the day, I am still glad that I left the USA for some world touring.   Im not feeling comfortable with those kinds of statements regarding the 2nd Amendment.  In fact that statement is worse than anything that I have heard out of any other politicians mouth.  To put due process as a secondary requirement.  That to me is really deeply aweful.

I will have to give the floor to NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch when she corrects the media narrative and put things back in perspective.


People should consider giving the NRA their tax retun money.  If anyone deserves our tax money, it’s those who are attempting to stand up for our civil rights, even our natural rights.

Add Comment