Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Homeland Security Secretary: Illegals Have ‘Earned Right to be Citizens’ | CNS News

Homeland Security Secretary: Illegals Have ‘Earned Right to be Citizens’ | CNS News: (CNSNews.com) –
(January 24, 2014)

Speaking at the United States Conference of Mayors on Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the approximately 11 million people who are in the country illegally have “earned the right to be citizens.”


Oh, really?  And if they are "in the country illegally", perhaps the Honorable Secretary will explain exactly what they have done to have "earned the right to be citizens"?

Was it something passive?  Were they born here, of US Citizens?

Probably not. If they were, Johnson would not have said they were "in the country illegally".  Natural Born Citizens are not illegally in this country.

How else could they have earned the right?  Was it something which 'actively' did?

For example, did they apply for entry to this, which (to them, is a "Foreign Country"?  Did they apply for immigration?  Apparently not.

One path to citizenship is to enlist in the American military, and earn their citizenship as a result of their military service.

But ... 11,000,000 soldiers who came to this country to fight for this country?  A that level, that wouldn't be 'citizen-soldiers', that would Janissaries.  No, slavery is no longer practiced in this country.

Johnson said: “An earned path to citizenship for those currently present in this country is a matter of, in my view, homeland security to encourage people to come out from the shadows”.  What does that mean?  What shadow ... is that the shadow of having entered the country illegally?  And who cast that shadow?

Or is it all George W. Bush's fault?  Or my fault, or yours? 
 (Have I mentioned that Johnson was  appointed by President Obama?)

He said: "“It is also, frankly, in my judgment, a matter of who we are as Americans to offer the opportunity to those who want to be citizens, who’ve earned the right to be citizens, who are present in this country--many of whom came here as children--to have the opportunity that we all have to try to become American citizens.”

I'm confused.  But I'm old and ignorant, so perhaps someone can explain to me why he seems to say one thing and then the complete opposite in the same sentence.  It sounds to me as if he's saying that the people he has already described as illegal have 'earned the right' simply by finding themselves within the borders of the United States of America ... without permission.

Which strongly implies that they have broken American border laws to be here; and if you are successful, that's all you have to do to "Earn The Right".

“The five core missions of the Department of Homeland Security are guarding against terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace and critical infrastructure in partnership with the private sector, and supporting emergency preparedness and response efforts at every level,”  Johnson said.
What part of those core missions are supported by endowing citizenship on people who ignore our borders and our immigration laws?    We can acknowledge their poverty and their desire to improve their lives by moving to a nation which has a more robust infrastructure and superior social programs, but should they become our problem, arbitrarily and unilaterally?  If we are paying to resolve their problems, shouldn't we be consulted? 

“Common sense immigration reform is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, businesses, and if the polls (are) to be believed, the majority of the American people”
The polls have NEVER said that:  the polls have said that we should secure our borders and enforce immigration laws.  Which, I believe, is what Mr. Johnson said earlier in his preamble, is part of The five core missions of the Department of Homeland Security.

 Which is HIS JOB!

Johnson said. “Border security is inseparable from homeland security.”

But if his opinion is that his job is to hold two diametrically opposed priorities on the same subject, then he either is a lying son-of-a-bitch or he is failing to deal with his cognitive dissonance.  In either case, he is obviously the wrong man for the job.

Or a liberal.  And in our current POLITICAL situation, it's perfectly okay to NOT do your job, as long as you are a good Liberal.

Friday, July 18, 2014

The Gun Lobby And A Dumb Law Are Keeping Us From Safer Guns

The Gun Lobby And A Dumb Law Are Keeping Us From Safer Guns:
(July 16, 2014)   The Huffington Post

If Loretta Weinberg is so adamant about the efficacy of "Smart Guns", why is she offering a "deal
to the NRA that she will withdraw what she has already admitted is a dumb law?

Just another Liberal Democrat end-run, for political purposes?  Probably, but pity the poor Huffington Post Writer who is charged by his editor of keeping up with the Politics while pretending to understand the issues ... which he (admittedly) DOES NOT!

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Pee-waddin'

Inspired by Never Yet Melted's "I'm Not Doing That" post today, I can't resist the urge to offer this 2013 version of YouTube's "Best of the Web".

If some of this doesn't scare the Pee-Waddin' out of you, you're braver than I am.








Tuesday, July 15, 2014

"What should they do? Compromise?" A Modest Suggestion.

Embrace Obama's Border Security Bill:
(July 14, 2014)
The new Obama law changes the existing William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a 2008 statute that says minors who are not from Mexico or Canada are entitled to legal proceedings before they are deported. Surprisingly, Obama has agreed this is not a good idea and wants to scrap it. He wants speedy deportations. He is also asking for $400 million to secure the border and pay for additional border agents, as many have been moved to detention centers and other cities to deal with the humanitarian crisis. Senate Democrats are not so happy with Obama’s bill, which will increase deportations and end the crisis. Congressional Republicans don’t like its $3.7 billion price tab. What should they do? Compromise.
No.

Current procedures are to send border-compromisers back where they came from, unless they are children.

Realizing that children are being sent unattended by their parents, who expect (with justification) that the current procedures will ensure the safety of their children no matter what happens, the border patrol should change their procedures.

They should transport the children to that point farthest away from their initial entry point, place them across the border, and not that they have been "displaced".

For example, if the illegal border-crossers have been apprehended at Laredo, they should be re-inserted at Tijuana.

 But the parents of these children have decided that they cannot afford to keep their children, so their only choice is to suckle on the good will of the American President (who has already shown that he doesn't really care.)

Perhaps if the surviving children were subject to inconvenience, their parents would cease sending them over the border.  Apparently, they are unable (in their current economy) to survive with so many hungry mouths to feed.  So they send their children to another country, in hopes that others can assume their parental duties.

This .. doesn't sound fair to the people upon whom they are imposing.  If they care so little for their children, they should at least be obliged to assume the burden of retrieving their children ... which is essentially what they seem to be asking Americans to do.

Or, they could just eat their children.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Can USPSA run a profitable Nationals?

USPSA Finances Part 5: Can USPSA run a profitable Nationals? | Gun Nuts Media:
Today I want to regather my focus and look at Nationals, the single largest expense on the USPSA tax returns.
----
It is immediately obvious that USPSA loses money each year on the National Championship matches. The average money lost by USPSA over the six year period of Nationals we tracked is approximately $250,000 a year. That is an awful lot of money.
Today we have two questions: can USPSA run a profitable National Championship series
and more importantly, should they?
I don't know if USPSA should run a "Profitable" National Championship series.  Probably not .. they never have before.

But SHOULD they?

Well, that would be nice.

I dont think that anyone who has ever been to a Nationals Match expects that it .. or USPSA as a whole .. should be a "Profitable" venture.

This is an all-volunteer venture.  The sole purpose is to allow us, the members, to compete at a variety of skill-levels.  Most of us are really not very good at what we love the most ... shooting at difficult targets under challenging circumstances.  It stands to reason that the National Matches present the greatest challenges.

Most of us who spend our time, money and energy competing  in USPSA matches don't expect to win.   It would be nice if we came in at a 'high level' in our own designated Class and Division.  But there are always those people who are 'talented' who almost invariably win.  We secretly loath and detest 'talented' shooters, but the statistics don't lie;  they are better than us.

We can live with that.

Every year, hundreds of not-very-good shooters compete in the Major Matches: Sectional, Area or National matches, it doesn't matter except that the higher-rated the match, the chances grow increasingly slim that we will "do well".

We don't care.

We just want to shoot a "Major Match".

Your reasons for spending hundreds of dollars may vary.  You may want to see how you stack up against the best of the best.

You may want to meet the best and brightest in the USPSA world.

You will spend more money than you can afford, you won't win a darned thing, and you'll come away thinking that it is "money well spent"

DYING to come to America: "Watered Down" Immigration policies responsible

Report: SMALL LIFELESS, DEAD CHILDREN Found “Washed Up Along Riverbank” of Rio Grande | The Gateway Pundit:
(July 14, 2014)

A Fox News exclusive reported this morning by Jana Winter inexplicably buried the lede.
  Winter reports that several dead children have been discovered “washed up along the riverbank” of the Rio Grande, but fails to note that there have been no reports by the Obama administration on this.
 This indicates a pattern of covering up dead illegal alien kids by the Obama administration. It was two weeks before news was reported on the sole child death acknowledged by the Obama administration, Gilberto Ramos, a 15 year-old boy from Guatemala whose body was found in the Texas brush dead from the heat.

(Note: according to this report, Gilberto Ramos did not drown while crossing the Rio Grande.  however, apparently several other juveniles did.   Whether death by drowning or dehydration, the consequences --- and the blame --- are the same.)

Let's face it: we have an Open Border to our south.

Our president, for reasons known only to himself, has refused to enforce current Immigration Laws.

Especially, he has made statements which might be interpreted to mean that he will not stop "children" from illegally crossing the border from Mexico and Central/South American countries.

He may consider this a "humanitarian effort", but from this report it is anything but humanitarian.

Children are literally dying because of the failures of the Obama policy.

Even if we are not concerned about who besides "migrant workers" (and their families ... those who are still living) may be encouraged to enter America illegally: perhaps it's time to be aware of, and consider, the fact that these family members will never be seen by their fathers and their mothers again.

If Obama was a home-owner in Chicago, who had a swimming pool in his back yard; and if neighborhood children climbed his chain-link fence to swim in his pool ... and if those children drowned in his swimming pool, what would happen?

He would be charged as having "maintained an Attractive Nuisance", and prosecuted for any consequences.

In this real-life case, the issue is not that there are no fences around the "swimming pool" that is America, but that the "owner manager of the property"  (The American President) has unilaterally declined to enforce any 'punishment' for people who attempt to illegally cross our southern border.

Washington Examiner (7/13/14): "Obama Pays Price for Inaction on Immigration Law":

In the short run Barack Obama paid no political price for the Democrats' decision to sidestep immigration. The only time he got pressed on the issue was a grilling by Univision’s Jorge Ramos in September 2012. Obama carried 71 percent of Hispanic votes in November.
---
The second thing that led to the flood of underage illegals was Obama’s declaration in June 2012, five months before the election, that he would not enforce immigration laws against so-called “dreamers,” young adults brought over the border illegally as children who also met certain conditions.

Sometimes, "Hope and Change" can kill you; and the man responsible for the deaths of these children is he who so cunningly held out the hope of the "undreamable dream" for people who would probably not have sent their children to confront the lion mouse in his lair, if they had not been encouraged to do so by the man with a cell phone and a pen.

President Obama is responsible for the deaths of these children.

He, alone.

(Source referenced by David Codria via gunbloggers.com)

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Definition of "Most Transparent Administration ....."

Earnest defends notion of 'most transparent administration' in US history | Fox News:
(July 13, 2014)
The White House on Sunday stood by President Obama's position that he continues to be the most transparent president in U.S. history, despite widespread complaints from journalists and other Americans about a lack of information or apparent misinformation.

Translation:  "The Emperor Has No Clothes!"

Saturday, July 12, 2014

"If This Goes On ...

PREFACE:
Robert Heinlein wrote short stories and novels based on the premise: "IF the goes on ...." the schtick was to take a current (then in the 1940-1960 decades) societal or cultural meme and extend it to its logical absurdity.

Claire of the "LIVING FREEDOM" blog (aka: "Backwoods Home") wrote an apologia Friday and then wrote the article for JFPO, who published it today (Saturday, July 12, 2014).   It has since been picked up by many gunbloggers, but on the off-chance that you missed it ... below under "DISPATCH FROM THE FUTURE" is the link and the introductory paragraph from this apocryphal tale of a Dystopian America.

Also check out the background article: "Those nice people who want to annihilate you".

(NOTE to self;  start new Category/Label designated:  "DAMN! I Wish *_I_* had written this!")


Dispatch from the Future:
 REPORT TO THE NATION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUN CONTROL
               By the Blue-Ribbon Panel on the Current Crisis
 BACKGROUND: Following the Sunnyside Nursery School Massacre and similar disasters, Americans in the mid decades of the twenty-first century realized that "NO GUNS" signs and similarly stringent security measures were no longer sufficient to totally eliminate deadly violence from society.
 Although the gun-rights movement had experienced decades of successes, Americans finally rose up and demanded sweeping reforms. Some notable pacifists called for the slaughter of all gun owners and the torture of any politicians perceived to be pro gun. Police chiefs threatened to have their officers shoot any armed person on sight. The nation was in crisis.    ......

[read on ... repeats the DISPATCH FROM THE FUTURE link above]

How to Get Started in Competitive Shooting

How to Get Started in Competitive Shooting: | Triangle Tactical:

This is one of the kinds of articles that I wish were more generally available online.  It provides the kind of information which helps people decide that maybe they CAN shoot "competitively", and at the same time it allays qualms that a person is "not good enough" to compete in an organized match.

Starting something new can be intimidating.  When that new thing involves firearms and a timer, it can be overwhelming to get involved in if you don’t know where to start. Do not worry, young padawan, I am here to help.
 I’ve noticed a trend on local shooting forums where people will add a comment to a thread about a shooting match and say something like “I wish I could do that, but I’m not a good enough shot” or “I need more practice”, or something to that effect. Some of these people have been making the same comments for years. If you want to try competitive shooting, do it. Nobody cares how bad of a shot you are. Chances are, they will all be stuffing magazines, or BSing while you are shooting anyways. As long as you are safe, you will enjoy your time. You will also be surprised how fast you improve.
(H/T: GUNWIRE.COM)

Being able to shoot accurately is not necessarily a reason to NOT shoot competitively.  Nobody expects you to win every match, and you meet the nicest people on the range.

However, learning to shoot SAFELY is definitely a requirement.

Many gun clubs which sponsor competition matches offer training programs to prepare people to shoot safely.  Sometimes, the instructors of these classes also help you to learn to shoot accurately, as well.