Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Man the Gates!

The Jon Stewart video below tangentially brings up the issue of immigration and border protection.

Isn't this something that we should start having a serious constitutional discussion about?

Consider the following: The Constitution has been interpreted to grant exclusive control over and responsibility for customs, immigration, and defense of the borders and waters of the United States, to the Federal Government. This is the root the ongoing spat between the State of Arizona (and now also Alabama), who want the right to seek out and deport illegal immigrants. The federal government claims it is their job and their job only. The problem is, they aren't doing the job, and won't do the job. They haven't been doing it for a very long time.

Consider...

9/11 -- For the sake of this argument, we'll take the official story at face value. Every single one of the hijackers was in the country legally on a visa issued by the State Department. Noticed that I didn't say "properly" issued. It if had been properly issued the State Department would have done a proper background check to have determined the risk these individuals presented. Further, some of the visas had expired, but the individuals were still in the country. Had the U.S. federal government deported them? Of course not. They didn't even know where they were, or if they were in the country. The Feds really didn't care, no more than they cared when private citizens alerted the FBI that there were foreign students asking to learn to fly planes but not to land them.

Cuba -- Cubans in South Florida's exiled Cuban community sends things back and forth between the mainland and Cuba all the time, even occasionally themselves. Oh, this isn't advertised. It is very illegal and highly dangerous, but it goes on, and with a frequency that would shock just about anyone.

20 million+ illegal immigrants -- 20 million, 15 million, 30 million. The numbers vary depending on the source. No matter, it is still a lot of people. More people than should be able to simply waltz across a national border without being accosted. What's more, the debate it racist in assuming these illegal immigrants are all Mexican. They are not. Go to any Westside Los Angeles restaurant and there you'll hear U.K. English, Australian, South African, Canadian accents galore. No one really complains about those illegals, they blend in. They are here though. Like the 9/11 hijackers, most arrive via student or tourist visas and simply never leave. The Feds are simply so incompetent that the White illegals can live and work here for years without risk of being discovered.

Mexico -- Can we say drugs? It isn't just people flowing into the U.S. Tunnels under the wall, over the wall, through the wall. Yes, that wall, that very expensive wall that was supposed to stop it all. And what about the submarines running those drugs across the Gulf of Mexico and up the Mississippi? We catch one of those every once in a while, but how many don't we catch? And why exactly is it that the Obama administration is giving weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico? Please explain that one to me. It hasn't gotten much press in America (surprise, surprise), but Operation Fast and Furious, certainly has gotten a lot of press elsewhere. The Obama Administration has claimed it knew nothing about it, but that is quite simply not believable. You don't supply a massive cache of weapons to a criminal element of an ally nation without the President of the United States signing off on it. Why? Because doing so is an act of war; it constitutes an effort to undermine the government.

These are just a few examples, I'm certain I could come up with more, including complications caused by multi-nationals (which will have to be another post). But here are the points:


  • The Federal government is doing a lousy job of protecting our borders.
  • The Federal government doesn't even appear to be inclined to want to protect our borders.
  • The Federal government is failing to do proper background checks on visitors and immigrants into the country.
  • The Federal government is failing to keep track of those visitors and to expel those who commit crimes or who over stay their visa.
  • The Federal government is providing weapons to criminals to use against our own border guards.
  • The Federal government appears to be inclined to put our borders at risk by inciting war with out neighboring friendly nations.


In fact, and this can hardly be argued, the Federal government's every domestic regulatory and police effort appears to be focused on peaceful Americans instead. How do you explain that?

And the result, what do we have? 9/11. Attempted terrorist incidents (although apparently many of these were false flag operations orchestrated by the FBI). Crime by illegals. Lost jobs. Lost public resources due to illegal consumption. Lost civil liberties. An economy in tatters. Lost security and lost confidence in government. Government has become the enemy.

So, let's ask ourselves, why not let the States manage their own customs and immigration? Why not let them police their own borders? How would that work and could it be any worse? We'll explore that next. In the meantime, comments?

Stewart, Obama, and DOMA

For those who are still operating under the delusion that Barack Obama, or even the Democrat Party, is a friend to sexual minorities, please watch this funny, and as always, pointed Jon Stewart segment.


(ED. The video also subtly observes that one of the Republican candidates that the mainstream media is pushing for the GOP, Rick Santorum, is just as fuzzyheaded as Obama when it comes to thinking clearly on this issue. Ron Paul, however, the "unserious" candidate, whom the media tells us "doesn't have a chance," says to let the States handle the issue independently each in their own manner. That sounds like a better solution to me than this one-size-fits all madness.)

Saturday, April 30, 2011

Sarah Jane, you will be missed.

It is easy to write grand notes on the passing of great politicians and industrialists, less so on those who have simply made the lives of others more pleasant through their talent, charm and generosity. The Snark is saddened to note last week's passing of Elizebeth Sladen, better know for almost four decades to Dr. Who fans as the indomitable and effervescent Sarah Jane Smith. Ms. Sladen passed quietly on April 19, with few outside her family having even become aware that she was badly ill with cancer. She was 63, and appeared to be half her age and in perfect health. The fifth season of the popular Sarah Jane Chronicles was due to begin shooting this next month. 


Friday, July 09, 2010

The Office Manager Speaks

Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff for President Obama, has issued a press release saying that the arrest of 10 Russian agents who spent years in the U.S. posing as Americans citizens sends a signal to other countries that the U.S. is "on guard."

It's ironic that Emanuel would presume to comment on anyone else's "posing as an American citizen" given that he is a duel national and has even worked with the Israeli Defense Force. Further, there is ample evidence that the only reason these Russian spies may have been ejected is because Israel doesn't want any competition when it comes to brokering stolen U.S. intelligence information.

Why is this man being given a platform to speak on any issue? He is not the President of the United States. He is not the Press Secretary. He is not even an elected official. He is an office administrator. FoxNews insults democracy and the American people by giving this man a soapbox.

Of course, maybe Rahm Emanuel isn't just the chief of staff, which might explain why he never seems to be outside of whispering range of Barrack Obama -- but in that case, what exactly is his role?

The only person doing anything involuntary...

The only person doing anything involuntary here is Oscar Grant, who is involuntarily dying.


Amazingly, Oakland did not erupt in flames last night after an all-White jury found the cop that did this killing guilty of involuntary manslaughter rather than murder. Time will tell whether true justice is finally done in the case of Oscar Grant.

Friday, October 09, 2009

ROTFL

This is not a good thing, not even for the Obama administration. Half of America is gasping; the other half rolling on the floor laughing. As my waitress at breakfast exclaimed, while reading the news over my shoulder, "For what?"

It's a good question. The nomination deadline was February 1, less than two weeks after he took office. The voting for the prize reportedly took place many months ago, so the possibility exists that Obama may even have won the prize prior to the Cairo Speech, which is arguably the only significant policy change that he has even announced (although not much followed through on).

It is indeed laughable. The Norwegians have made a laughing stock of Alfred Nobel's intent, of Norway, and demeaned each deserving person who previously won the prize by deserving it.

Good Company

Obama isn't the first sitting U.S. president to win the Peace Price. The first was Teddy Roosevelt, in 1906. Roosevelt was not known as a peaceful man, but rather as one who was fond of shooting things and who established America a globe straddling empire. The second was Woodrow Wilson, in 1919, who is considered by many scholars to have be the worst of American presidents. Wilson was also the president who took America into World War I, a self-serving and decidedly non-peaceful decision that (even Winston Churchill concluded) lead directly to World War II.

If we know people by the company they keep, Obama having received this award bodes well for anything but peace. He is already the leader of a country that is waging war on two countries that did not attack his own, that is maintaining a concentration camp in contravention to the Geneva Accords, and a network of unlawful (no-longer-quite-so-secret) prisons throughout a network of host states.

One has to wonder by exactly what standards do the Scandicavians judge peace? Or did they just have a little too much Aquavit the other night? Perhaps this is some version of a drunken practical joke.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Best Actress

Kate Winslet may have gotten the Oscar, but Meryl Streep got the Award. Wow.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Love thy own son first...

Maybe if the son of the homophobic mega-church pastor had not had to spend his life hiding his sexuality from his father... Perhaps if his father had embraced and loved him, as Jesus had instructed him to... Maybe if the son had had the option of forming a loving, committed relationship, of even getting married... Perhaps if the son had been home that night with his own husband, their own children, instead of cruising a public park... 


...then Potter's House founder T.D. Jakes would not now be facing the embarrassment he now faces (but so richly deserves) as his son stands charged of trying to participate in a circle-jerk with two policeman in a Dallas park. Reverend, you reap what you sow.


And, dear reader, ask yourself this additional question... Do you really believe those two Dallas policeman had their own willies in their pants when they arrested Jermaine Jakes? (If so, I've got bridge in Alaska to sell you.) Dallas' Finest -- we hope that Jermaine wouldn't have gotten himself arrested for anything less than prime -- were breaking the law, in order to induce someone else into breaking the law. This was entrapment pure and simple. 


It only goes to prove, any fool who lives in Texas is exactly that -- most especially if you are Black and Gay.

Friday, February 06, 2009

Who is that rising star on the Israeli flag?

Avigdor Lieberman -- and he makes Saddam Hussein look to have been downright humanitarian.  


He not only advocates total Apartheid, but wants to also strip non-Jewish Israelis of their citizenship. Why bother with with a two-state solution, when you can just kick them all out; let them to wonder the globe, stateless. However, that might not be quite enough of a final solution for Lieberman. He has also advocated a holocaust of sorts against the captive population in the Gaza camp, even going so far as to obliquely suggest the use of nuclear weapons to accomplish an ethnic cleansing. 

And this guy presumes to be an Israeli-Obama, the change candidate of our "nearest and dearest" ally. If the real Obama doesn't want to end up being compared to Chamberlain, rather than Lincoln, he better consider carefully our relationship with Israel. Least we forget, America considered Germany an ally at the start of WWII. The Bush family was even involved in underwriting Germany's war bonds. It would be unconscionable if we were to repeat the mistake of closing our eyes to horror, merely so we could make some money off of the devil.

Constructive Engagement

A comment found below the McClatchy story on Cliff Cornell, the young Army "deserter" (read, "Iraq protester") who was recently deported by that holier-than-thou "peace-mongering" nation to our north. 


To those in uniform who are attacking Mr. Cornell

new

Submitted by tharms on February 6, 2009 - 7:54pm.

Gentlemen, your commitment to your country, under the U.S. constitution, is limited to two years. Period. Look it up. Further, that is for the express purpose of defending this country, not for freeing other countries. Not for liberating oil. Not for making the world safe for democracy. It certainly isn't for the purpose of killing and torturing innocent civilians half a world away just because they pray to the wrong god.

So waving the flag at the disillusioned and expecting them to bow down to your sacrifice if probably not the best strategy. You joined up because you wanted a salary and because you wanted to feel good about yourself--and possibly because you really were gullible enough to buy into Bush's line of Texas bullshit. And when you come home, and are protecting New York Harbor or the Golden Gate, undoubtedly you will find each and every one of these critics respecting your commitment, but until then you shouldn't be overly surprised by their hostility. You've cooperated in great embarrassment to this country -- and you did so willing. At least Cliff Cornell had the integrity to stand up and say "no" to what he knew was wrong. He's justifiably earned some respect for that.

Serving the American nation, the American people and serving the American government are two different things. One is a group composed of your families, your neighbors, your towns, cities and states; the other is a group who used to work for the former, but who has now taken over the latter -- and their intent is to build an empire paid for with the sweat of American labor and the blood of American youth. That's you, that's your blood they intend to spill, and for what? Oil? The false hope of democracy in some foreign land? For expanded markets for corporations we're having to bailout with taxpayers money anyway? Ask yourself, is this really the way it is suppose to work? Is this really what Franklin and Jefferson intended? Is this really worth dying for?

The American people have been made decidedly less safe, less respected, and less prosperous by this misadventure in Iraq -- and the blowback will haunt us, our children, your children, for generations. If you want to talk about taking responsibility. Take some responsibility for that -- or at least give it some thought. Surprising as it might be, you just might discover that, instead of criticizing Cliff Cornell, it is far more patriotic to join him.

Faux Diversity

President Obama says his new team of economic advisors is diverse, not stacked with sycophant "yes" men (and women). So, surely we will find among the Keynesians, a few free-marketers, an Austrian economists or two, perhaps a representative of the Cato Institute, if not someone from Auburn? Nope -- not a one. 

Mr. President, your openness to a diversity of economic opinion is about as authentic as your openness to sexual diversity -- in short, you are a puppet of the old corporate financial elite, dressed up in a nice Africa-American suit. You are just as white and bigoted and as opposed to true equality for the disadvantages as those limousine liberals from the other Hyde Park were 75 years ago.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Who'd of thunk it?

Today the Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project released a new study investigating where Americans want to live.

Among its findings: Denver is the most desirable place in the country to live -- which any Coloradan could easily have told you. No study needed. Another discovery: People who live in cities -- as well as people who want to live cities -- are more open than others to the idea of living with immigrants and neighbors of different races. Whoa, stop the presses!

We can all be grateful to Pew for investing in a study that provides the shocking, absolutely shocking, news that country hicks are bigots. Who could have imagined that?

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Man, 72, knocks out whole group of gang bangers

Jack get's it...

The stimulus package is not going to be a walk in the park either. Republicans are yelling it's too costly and doesn't stimulate enough. And they might have point. It's at $825 billion now and could go higher. Hundreds of millions for condoms and other contraceptives doesn't belong in there either, unless it's for what's about to happen to the American taxpayer. (Jack Cafferty, 1/26/09)