The Hancock-Henderson Quill, Inc.
Greetings ta ever one in western Illinois and all readers of "The Quill."
Full moon is this Thursday, January 12th. I always like be'n out at night, if'n in January there is a full moon with snow on the ground and no clouds in the sky.
It makes fer perfect coyote hunt'n and there's no excuse fer not bagg'n one of them ornery buggers as they hunt fer rabbits, sleep'n quail, an unguarded newborn calves, or sheep.
The Sierra Club and the U. S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the Wyoming ranchers for controlling the coyote population.
It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried and true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a "more humane" solution to this issue.
What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive.
The males would then be castrated and let loose again.
This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U. S. Forest Service.
All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes.
Finally, an old feller wearin' a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said, "Son, I don't think ya understand our problem here. These coyotes ain't a breed'n our sheep; they're eatin' "em!"
The meeting never really got back to order.
A loyal reader of "The Quill" and long-time area resident shared the follow'n information fer yer benefit concern'n immigration and a selective immigration ban.
It certainly demonstrates that in Washington D. C. and within The Liberal Press "hypocrisy is not a sin but is a fine art."
Wouldn't it be interesting if, at some point during the presidential campaign, one of the candidates had asked, "Oh by the way, has anyone in Washington D.C. ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952?
I did not know of this act until recently, but it has been a law for almost 65 years.
Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington D.C. do not have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in our country.
After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U. S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims).
The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist.
Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our president called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.
As Gomer Pyle would say, "Well, Surprise, Surprise!" It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.
Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the "Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the president, whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.
The president may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate."
Who do you suppose last used this process?
Why it was President Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.
But he actually did more. He made all Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them.
Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.
So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?
Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an "applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution."
Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslims to swear allegiance to the U. S. Constitution, technically, all Muslims who follow the Quran rigidly, should be refused immigration to our county, if'n this law were stringently enforced.
(to be continued next week)
Hope'n ta see ya in church this week.
Remember; Wherever ya are, whatever ya be a do'n "BE A GOOD ONE!"
Keep on Smile'n
Catch ya later