The Illegals Can’t Be Refugees In The US
Jul 14, 2014 Immigration, Political
The federal government tried to move a large number of illegals from the border states to a vacant Reserve Center in Western Maryland. Congressman Andy Harris (who represents some of the area but not the area of the Reserve Center) and local residents caught wind of the clandestine attempt and put an end to it. The governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley is itching to show his progressive stripes by letting as many of these folks in Maryland as possible. His policies favoring these kinds of shenanigans have resulted in a budget explosion, dozens of tax increases and a downturn in the state economy but he presses on.
O’Malley said these folks should be granted asylum. The UN is working to declare these illegals refugees in an effort to force the US to take them in. They technically do not meet the definition of a refugee but when has the law ever stopped the UN or other progressives?
[note]An asylum seeker is someone who is seeking status as a refugee If asylum is granted by the host state then the person would become a refugee and be entitled to legal protections.[/note]
These word plays are nothing more than games designed to get tens of thousands of illegals in the US and give them some kind of legal status. However, the plan should never work (though in this world it might) because any court reviewing the petitions would see a glaring problem.
Mexico has granted the illegals free passage through their country so they can get to the US. In other words, Mexico gave them safe refuge.
The International Justice Resource Center states that the following people are not refugees (therefore cannot be granted asylum):
Individuals who voluntarily avail themselves of the protection of their country of nationality or habitual residence or individuals who have received protection in a third country are also not considered refugees. See 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, art. 1(C). [emphasis mine]
All of these individuals have received protection in a third country because Mexico granted them protection to make their way to the US therefore they cannot be refugees. They can’t seek asylum in the US because they received protection (from their alleged persecution) in the country of Mexico and Mexico is a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol. Since Mexico granted them protection they need to be the ones to grant them asylum.
I certainly pray that the court system beats back any attempt by the UN or misguided politicians (like Martin O’Malley) to grant a status to these illegals that they are not legally entitled to in the US.
If they want asylum then send them back to Mexico and let the Mexican government take care of them.
I am not opposed to legal immigration. We welcome those who come here legally with open arms and are happy to call them friend. Those who come here illegally are making their first act in this nation an intentional violation of our law. We cannot trust nor should we support those who disregard our laws while at the same time attempting to use our legal system and generosity against us.
We do not need to send them home. If the UN and others want to make them refugees then send them to Mexico, the country that granted them safe entry.
Perhaps the easiest way to end all of this and to ensure they leave and that a wall is built to keep people out would be to convince Democrats that these people have all indicated they will vote Republican.
The wall would be up in a week and these folks would be someplace else very quickly…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: asylum, international law, lies, martin o'malley, Mexico, moron, refugees, safe passage, un
Hillary: Gun Rights Way Out Of Balance
May 7, 2014 Political, Second Amendment
Hillary Clinton was at the National Council for Behavioral Health conference and she addressed firearms in this country. She said the nation’s gun culture had gotten “way out of balance” and the idea that everyone could have a gun was not in the “best interest of the vast majority of people.”
Who is Hillary to determine what is in the best interests of people and, for that matter, how is she even qualified to make such a claim? There is no way to quantify this and it is nothing more than an emotional statement followed by a few examples of shootings, many of which were committed by people who were not allowed to own a firearm.
There is also a flaw in this claim that everyone could have a gun. The first problem is that not everyone can. Felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to own them. How do they get them? Some are not caught on the government background check (the same government that let the 9/11 terrorists in the country) and most buy them illegally. Just because something is banned, illegal or forbidden does not mean people won’t have access. I think the experience with prohibition demonstrates that quite clearly as does the problem with Heroin overdoses.
The second problem is the statement “could have a gun” as if a right is something the government is allowed to dole out regardless of circumstances. In other words, we have laws that forbid some folks from owning firearms because they have shown they should not have them. To Clinton government should decide if you could have the gun no matter what you have demonstrated.
If you are a law abiding citizen who is not otherwise prohibited you CAN have a firearm regardless of what Hillary thinks.
If Hillary is so willing to decide that the gun culture is out of balance and needs government action what other right will she infringe upon?
She had a real tough time of it when her hubby was caught having sex with an intern. Drudge broke the story. Hillary is getting a lot of press about her failure in Benghazi (she did not do too well with that 3 am phone call) so what if Hillary decided that the information culture has gotten out of balance and the idea that everyone can post information is not in the best interest of the vast majority of people? Perhaps people would need to jump through the same hoops they do to purchase a firearm. Perhaps information will be as regulated as firearms and the only people with access will be the politically connected.
What if Hillary decided that there are too many religions in America and religion is way out of balance and the idea that everyone could worship as they see fit is not in the best interest of the vast majority of people? Perhaps she will deem that there are too many religions and only certain ones are worthy to exist. Maybe she will force people to go through the same process to join a religion as to purchase a firearm.
Rights are not something the government deemed we could have and they are not something that government granted to us. They preexist our government and they are protected (not granted) by our Constitution.
This is the problem with liberals. They think they know what is best for you and who can blame them considering the number of people willing to be enslaved by the government?
Liberals want control and they know they can’t get it outright so they incrementally take rights away from a population too busy worrying about American Idol than what is going on in this country. Liberals keep upping the ante and then one day rights are gone because people sat by and allowed them to be eroded away by a tyrannical government.
I think, to paraphrase Hillary, the political class has gotten way out of balance and this notion that elites can make a career out of politics is not in the best interest of a vast majority of people.
The difference between our statements is I am correct.
I am willing to bet that the four Americans who Hillary allowed to be murdered in Benghazi would have loved to have a bunch of Americans (citizen or soldier) with guns the night they lost their lives because of her incompetence.
Hillary’s incompetence is responsible for more American deaths than all my guns combined.
And how many armed guards watch over her anyway?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: benghazi, gun rights, Hillary Clinton, liberal, lies, moron, political elite, sex scandal
July 4th, Dependence Day
Jun 28, 2013 Political
Looks like the Fourth of July is no longer Independence Day. Nancy Pelosi, the moron whose brain is botox numbed, noted that it was one year ago that the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare (what they did was change it to a taxing scheme) and therefore provides health independence for millions of Americans (and no doubt illegals).
Pretty soon we’ll all be leaving for the Fourth of July recess. Next week when we celebrate Independence Day, we’ll also be observing health independence. This marks one year since the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Affordable Care Act offers just that: A healthier life, liberty [to] pursue [a] person’s happiness, to be free of constraint, the job locked, uhh, because they’re policy locked. So, if you wanted to be a cameraman, a writer, you want to be self-employed, if you want to start a business, if you want to change jobs — whatever is you want to do — you are free. ~Nancy Pelosi
The reality is that Obamacare enslaves people to government. We fought for our Independence from an oppressive government only to end up a few hundred years later enslaved to the new government. Obamacare FORCES people to engage in commerce and it FORCES them to pay fines (the SCOTUS redefined them as taxes). When people have independence they are FREE to choose.
When people are forced to do something they do not want and that is not authorized under the Constitution then they are not Independent.
Nancy Pelosi might celebrate Obamacare on the 4th of July and it is likely that many of the low information Americans will celebrate with her.
The rest of us will celebrate the Independence our Founders fought, and many patriots died, for. We will lament what is happening to this nation and the shackles that are placed around our legs by today’s government.
But we will not celebrate the slavery that has been imposed by the government that is supposed to protect our freedom.
Pelosi is an idiot and she has no concept of how this nation was founded and what led to our Independence.
She only knows how to oppress.
She is a modern day slave owner and she likes it that way.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Think Of A Pez Dispenser
Apr 3, 2013 Political
I know that trying to teach a liberal anything is like trying to teach a pig to sing but I feel it is an obligation to try particularly when the liberal idiot in question is a lawmaker. You see, when lawmakers are uninformed and work to pass laws detrimental to us and they do so with no understanding of the topic they want to regulate then it is important to try to educate them. It will likely not help them because most of them are mind numbed morons but pointing out their stupidity might help people remove them from office so they can no longer damage us and infringe on our freedom.
Colorado Democrat Representative Diana DeGette is the latest moron to show her ignorance. She is involved in the sweeping anti gun legislation that has resulted in the loss of millions of dollars in business for the state. In fact, the total loss will likely exceed a billion dollars as hunters are shunning the state, outdoor shows have cancelled filming there and at least one firearms related company is moving out of the state. All of this coming as uninformed morons like Diana DeGette work hard to infringe.
DeGette does not know how firearms work and she does not know that a magazine is the device that the ammunition is placed into so that a firearm (that uses a magazine, of course) can function through that ammo. DeGette thinks the magazine is a throw away item and that once the ammo in the magazine is spent, the magazine is no longer of any use.
I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available. RCP
In order to teach a libeal one must make the lesson simple. Cartoons and crayons are wonderful tools to help liberals. I want to make it easy to help DeGette understand how a magazine works.
Ms. DeGette, think of the magazine as a Pez dispenser. You use one by taking a package of candy and inserting it in the dispenser. Each time you lift the little Pez head a candy comes out (it is a semi automatic candy dispenser in that one candy is ejected with each activation of the head). Now Ms. DeGette, what happens when the Pez dispenser runs out of candy (ammo)? Do you throw it away?
Of course not. You simply open another package of candy and insert it in the dispenser and you are ready for rapid fire candy dispensing.
This is how a magazine works. Each has a limit on how many rounds it will hold. The Pez dispenser has a limit of one package of candy. The only real difference is that Pez dispensers only come in one capacity where magazines come in different sizes.
Back to magazines. The user fills one with bullets and inserts it in a firearm. Then he pulls the trigger and each time he does one round (and one round only) is fired. When the last round has fired, now pay close attention here, the shooter removes the magazine and inserts more bullets in it (like the Pez dispenser). Once that is done the magazine can be used AGAIN.
Usually, shooters have several magazines filled so they can switch an empty one with a full one without having to reload the magazine immediately. Think of it as carrying several loaded Pez dispensers so when one is empty another can dispense the tasty treats without the need to immediately reload.
Perhaps we should ban these high capacity Pez dispensers and tax the hell out of the candy (ammo) because of the obesity problem in this country and the ever increasing number of diabetics.
I will let you ponder that while you take in all the info I have provided to help you do an effective job. I am sure you are not interested in being informed because if you were, you would be a conservative.
Perhaps being loaded is a problem YOU have and that is why you are not so bright…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: ammunition, anti freedom, backlash, colorado, diana degette, gun ban, lies, magazines, moron, pez dispenser, semi automatic
A Paying For Problem Is A Spending Problem
Feb 12, 2013 Political
Congressman Steny Hoyer, a moron from Maryland, said that the country does not have a spending problem; it has a “paying for problem.” Yes, this moron actually said this. He might be right depending on the definition of spending because it seems there is no problem when it comes to that task. The problem is spending too much.
We have a paying for problem because we spend more than we have. In Hoyer’s limited ability to comprehend, we only have a problem because government has not confiscated more of our money to pay for the spending. You see, if only they could steal more from us, then there would be no problem.
If you had little or no money and went out and bought something on credit and then coul not pay for it what would be the root of your problem? Would it be a paying for problem (yes, you definitely have that if you can’t pay your bill0 or would the root cause be that you spent money you knew you did not have?
[note]When you have a paying for problem it is because you have a spending problem. If you don’t spend too much you won’t have a problem paying the bills.[/note]
Hoyer also took his obligatory shot at George Bush and Republicans:
Well, we spent a lot of money when George Bush was president of the United States in the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. We spent a lot of money. Real Clear Politics
George Bush was responsible for four trillion dollars in increased debt in eight years. Obama is responsible for a six trillion dollar increase in four years. It is time to stop blaming Bush for the past and focus on the failures of the present guy and his band of merry morons.
Steny put on your big boy pants and start accepting responsibility. Perhaps you can talk to the members of your party in the Senate and find out why they have failed to pass a budget for the last four years. There is a little thing called a law that mandates them to do so.
I am sure I am wasting my time because Hoyer is not a very smart guy. I am surprised they let him out in public without one of those safety helmets on.
Steny, I will type this slowly for you. The US takes in lots and lots of money each year. You guys keep spending more than that. Perhaps you all can focus on things that will get the economy going again and millions of people can get jobs. Then they can pay taxes and solve your alleged paying for problem.
Keep in mind that no matter how good the economy is we always (absent accounting gimmicks) run deficits. Even the alleged Clinton surplus actually ran a deficit.
You can make anything look good on paper.
The only thing Clinton balanced was his marriage and his affair and that, like his math, failed.
I am glad that Hoyer is not my representative. I would not want to have to communicate with him as it would lower my IQ.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: debt, Democrats, moron, Obama, paying for problem, steny hoyer, taxes, trillions