Amazon Holiday Deals

3D Tip Jar

Amazon mp3s

Promote Your Blog

Thursday Open Thread

CIS:E.372-2006
Julius Caesar and the Crossing of the Rubicon by Francesco Granacci, 1494

115 comments to Thursday Open Thread

  • Scott M.

    Luck be a Lady

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/26/Texas-Executes-500-Vicious-Murderess

    This bitch is about to quit wasting oxygen.Thank you,Texas.

  • Scott M.

    Why the NCAA should be abolished

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130626/oregon-ducks-ncaa-sanctions-chip-kelly/?sct=hp_t2_a10&eref=sihp

    They can crucify Penn State over something they had no authority whatsoever,yet they blow a kiss to Oregon.

  • Loyal Goatherd

    Since we’re trolling around at PBS: We all remember Big Bird’s revenge. The Sesame Street character and Mrs. Obama have teamed up in two new public service announcements to encourage kids to eat healthy and get active.

    “I love Big Bird,” Romney declared in a presidential debate in October. “But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

    The Obama campaign seized on the line and Big Bird quickly became part of President Obama’s standard stump speech.
    “Thank goodness somebody is finally getting tough on Big Bird. It’s about time,” Obama quipped the morning after the Denver debate. “We didn’t know that Big Bird was driving the federal deficit. But that’s what we heard last night. How about that?”

    Big Bird needs to learn to pick better friends.

  • Scott M.

    The Republican Civil War

    http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/27/the-gop-implodes2/

    Let’s name names:the two US Senators from Tennessee,traitors.Fact is,the national GOP is a lawn jockey for Wall Street.

  • -fritz-

    Coffee, krullers and salt water taffy! I know…it’s an “S”! Live with it!

    For you beach bunnies out there on the coastal areas, here’s a little piece on the safest and the dirtiest beaches:

    http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/america-8217-most-polluted-beaches-don-8217-t-140000615.html

  • Scott M.

    “War is all hell,and you cannot refine it”-William T.Sherman

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/battle-of-kennesaw-mountain

    One of Sherman’s rare blunders…tuned out to be a Rebel turkey shoot.Good news for him was Jefferson Davis replaced Joseph Johnston with with that Texas butcher John Bell Hood,who lost Atlanta in a sea of blood(Fort Hood!}.

  • Kit

    From the Border Security Amendment:

    ———————————

    (3) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.—The Com-
    prehensive Southern Border Security Strategy shall require, at a minimum, the deployment of the following technologies for each Border Patrol sector along the Southern Border:
    (A) ARIZONA (YUMA AND TUCSON SECTORS).—For Arizona (Yuma and Tucson Sectors) between ports of entry the following:
    (i) 50 integrated fixed towers.
    (ii) 73 fixed camera systems (with relocation capability), which include Remote Video Surveillance Systems.
    (iii) 28 mobile surveillance systems, which include mobile video surveillance systems, agent-portable surveillance systems, and mobile surveillance capability systems.
    (iv) 685 unattended ground sensors, including seismic, imaging, and infrared.
    (v) 22 handheld equipment devices, including handheld thermal imaging systems and night vision goggles.

    • Scott M.

      Kit,do you believe in fairies too?

    • Rufus

      Article IV, Section IV of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1789:

      “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

      • Scott M.

        That scrap of paper,Rufus?

      • -fritz-

        So far, this administration has broken all three of those laws, and then some!

      • Kit

        Rufus,

        Your point being? How is quoting the Constitution a rebuttal?

        • Kit

          “shall protect each of them against invasion”. It seems that is what this provision is seeking to do.

          • Rufus

            Kit, how is passing a nearly 2,000 page law to address what the Constitution does in one, terse paragraph sensible? Do you really think the reason the Federal government is so woefully inept at defending our borders is due to a lack of words on the subject passed by our Legislature? Surely you remember the Department of Justice legally restricting Arizona from detaining illegals at the state’s border just a few years ago?!

            It is already the law of the land that the Federal government is mandated to protect the citizenry from invasion, yet estimates put the number of illegal aliens currently on U.S. soil at around 10% of this nation’s population! Every first and second world nation of any size restricts immigration and controls its borders. Mexico does it better than us!!

            Your answer is to complicate the matter? We don’t have to pass this bill to find out what’s in it! We know what’s in the Constitution. We don’t need another page, paragraph or word of legislation.

            The Federal government is mandated to defend our borders. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE. Rubio, McCain et al ought to be drafting resolutions to force Eric Holder and Barack Obama to do their Constitutionally mandated duties and protect the citizenry of this country from foreign invasion or have them removed from office. Don’t you find it the least bit interesting nobody in Congress is doing that? Don’t you find it the least bit interesting nobody in the Executive branch is working on securing our borders?

            You’re playing soccer. A guy on the opposing team picks the ball up with his hands, runs up to the goal, his teammate shoves the goalie out of the way and he throws the ball in. The referee scores it as a goal. What do you do? Demand a red card on the guy who carried the ball? Demand a red card on the guy who shoved the goalie? Demand the referee not count the goal? No. Your strategy is to meet with the other team and restate the rules using 10,000 times as many words in hopes that more words will stop them from breaking the rules.

            • -fritz-

              The Federal government is mandated to defend our borders. IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE. Rubio, McCain et al ought to be drafting resolutions to force Eric Holder and Barack Obama to do their Constitutionally mandated duties and protect the citizenry of this country from foreign invasion or have them removed from office. Don’t you find it the least bit interesting nobody in Congress is doing that? Don’t you find it the least bit interesting nobody in the Executive branch is working on securing our borders?

              Hear, hear!!!

            • Kit

              “Rubio, McCain et al ought to be drafting resolutions to force Eric Holder and Barack Obama to do their Constitutionally mandated duties and protect the citizenry of this country from foreign invasion or have them removed from office.”
              Let’s look at that last part “or have them removed from office”. HOW?!?!?!

              • Rufus

                President Obama has sworn an oath to “… faithfully execute … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution… ”

                Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution states we are to be protected from foreign invasion.

                Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

                • Scott M.

                  Well,Rufus,Obama has executed the Constitution!

                • Kit

                  Rufus,

                  You still didn’t answer my question, so let me clarify:
                  You say he should be removed from office if he fails to secure the border. By what process should he be removed?

                  • -fritz-

                    Congress has the right to execute the process of impeachment! Actually they have the duty to do so if there is sufficient evidence that high crimes and misdemeanors have been performed!

                    • -fritz-

                      Apparently Clinton’s impeachment did not result in removal from office because it was a “low crime”, if you catch my meaning!

                  • Loyal Goatherd

                    Rufus isn’t taking the bait. But you know the process:

                    IMPEACH:
                    a : to bring an accusation against
                    b : to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office
                    c : to remove from office especially for misconduct

                    And yes, we know this would be impossible and political suicide. But sometimes the nation has to ask for sacrifice. The men who landed at Normandy weren’t expected to ever reach Berlin. Indeed 9 of 10 was expected to die within 72 hours of landing. Should those men have refused the impossible suicidal mission? Thank God, we had such men, then. Now, we need such men again, but they will not die this time if they fail, just have to retire from public service. True public servants would not even have to be asked to fight this battle, they would do it out of a sense of the public good they are sworn to serve. Not their political or career good, the public good.

                    • Kit

                      So, I take it you will be running for Congress, then?

                    • Loyal Goatherd

                      I would support a jury duty like call up for congress. There are too many freakin’ lawyers there.

                    • Kit

                      In all honesty, you are talking about launching a massive paratroop attack on Berlin while we are still tied down in North Africa.

                    • Loyal Goatherd

                      I like the analogy, the terms you describe are indeed impossible mission like. I would say it is more like, tied down in North Africa launching a large parachute drop on the Eagle’s nest in the Bavarian alps when Hitler is known to be there. Little chance of success, but a chance to decapitate the Reich one would have to try.

                    • Kit

                      Which is why we stayed in North Africa before moving to Normandy. This would be trying to launch a paratroop attack on Berlin in 1942.

                      You even acknowledge that (1) Obama will stay in power because we don’t have the votes in the Senate* and (2) it will be political suicide. So, you are saying we should do something that you admit will probably fail spectacularly.
                      What possible reason could there be for doing something that suicidal?

                      *Assuming we don’t lose a single Republican seat in 2014 and we take every Democrat seat that will mean a net gain of 19 seats. Still not enough to reach the magic number of 66. (It might be 67)
                      And if you believe we’re going to get a sweep like that, I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for just the low price of $1,956,352.22 cents.

                    • If you are going to quote WWII history at least get it correct. The USA wanted to go directly to an invasion of europe in 1942. The British insisted on a second front. That is why we were in Africa, Sicily and Italy prior to the Normandy invasion.

                      Why you should believe that THIS lame attempt to do something that has been promised and blown off for years is going to happen or is a good idea is beyond me. They are all lying snakes.

                    • Rufus

                      The snakiest.

                    • Yeah, if Ronald Reagan fucked this up, Marco Rubio has no chance.

                  • Rufus

                    Oh brother! I give up! Check back with me in 20 years, Kit, and you can give me your opinion on what happened to this country with the benefit of hindsight.

                    • Anonymous

                      Rufus, I am surprised you waited this long to give up. I will refrain from saying anything further, as it would serve no purpose, save this:

                      “None so blind as those that will not see.” — Matthew Henry

                    • I’m “stealing that Matthew Henry quote. I gotta go dig mine Commentaries (abridged — but the print is still so small… I’m amazed he could even write all that much less someone read it in a lifetime. He must not have had much “fan engagement” in his day. :-)

    • Loyal Goatherd

      United States–Mexico total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,933
      Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
      California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
      New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
      Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,241

      1760 yards to the mile times 1933 = 3,402,080 yards of border. A rubber bullet turret every two hundred yards = 17,010.4 turret fire zones. Round that off due to terrain to 17,500 minimum rubber bullet machine gun turrets. Each with internet connection, each controlled by ICE fire control computer or by paying subscriber (who can be entertained by computer simulated invaders at regular intervals). ICE fir control computers would monitor the subscribers for failure to enforce and could switch to live ammo as required (for vehicles or other armored invasion).

      Nothing less will do. We can’t expect our chief law enforcement officials to do enforce the law, because they have yet to do so in an effective manner. If 11,000,000 have arrived since the last amnesty 27 years ago that’s over 1100 a day. It’s time to be serious about it.

      • Scott M.

        Eric Holder believes in the law!!!

      • Kit

        A massive network of automated turrets that can fire a near-endless supply of rubber bullets and I’m the crazy one?

        • Loyal Goatherd

          Loyal Goatherd
          April 25, 2013 at 9:12 PM
          Loyal Goatherd’s illegal immigrant amnesty program.

          We all know the goats will wander around wherever they choose to the best forage. The only way to keep the goats on the farm is to fence the farm. Any illegal immigrant wishing to become a resident (not a citizen), may report (at their own expense) to the state police or equivalent agency of the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas. There will be a strict limit of 3 million people, so volunteer early. Then to be placed by those states in to work camps at the US-Mexico Border. There they will labor building three border fences with 100 yard spacing for five days a week. On the sixth day, they will be taught English, the US Constitution, self-reliance and certain job skills. On the seventh day they will attend the worship service of their choice (in the camp) and then may rest. The Feds, who created this problem, will have to pony up all expenses incurred by these states, as well as one fifty dollar savings bond for each week the immigrant labors. The laborers will remain encamped until the entire fence is completed. Those wishing to leave the camp earlier will be deported. those who do not report, will be deported. Those who will not work will be deported. Those who labor and are released when the fences are completed, will be given permanent resident status and may seek citizenship through the common and ordinary way permanent resident aliens do. There will be no credit for illegal residency time, nor time in the camps. The clock starts at zero the day they are released, if it takes ten years, then ten years start then. Those immigrants who show aptitude maybe redirected from fence construction to fence infrastructure construction. The second and third fence lines will need power and internet connection. As rubber bullet machine guns will be set up on these fences at regular intervals. The second fence line will be an online game any American can play, for five dollars a day, you can have a rubber bullet machine gun turret with webcam and Infrared at night. The third fence line will have the same rubber bullet turrets but will be drone controlled. If all else fails the top of the third fence is electrified. The Goats will stay on the farm or else.

          Kit you may have missed the original post. And I would rather have the border patrol, patrolling and servicing the turrets than standing around somewhere. This would be expensive, but if the point is to stop people from entering illegally, then a real fence line will have to be built, maintained and patrolled. Call my plan fantastic, because it is, but the point is to secure the border first, because the bait and switch is getting old.

          • Kit

            “This would be expensive, but if the point is to stop people from entering illegally, then a real fence line will have to be built, maintained and patrolled. Call my plan fantastic, because it is, but the point is to secure the border first, because the bait and switch is getting old.”

            See my post at the top.

            • Rufus

              Kit, how do nations with one one/hundredth the GDP of the U.S. do this? Have police ask for proof of citizenship when making arrests. Have schools require proof of citizenship prior to admission. Have truant officers patrol for kids not attending school. Have employers verify employment. Severely fine employers who do not… And put some cameras and drones on the border. Outsource the thing to Google and they’ll have the thing 100% sealed for a fraction of what the INS spends today!

              • Kit

                Rufus,

                The Bill requires mandatory E-Verify.

              • Kit

                “Have police ask for proof of citizenship when making arrests. Have schools require proof of citizenship prior to admission.”
                I’m assuming you mean RESIDENCE STATUS not Citizenship.

                • Kit

                  Or at least elaborate there.

                • Rufus

                  No, I mean the parents’ citizenship. Yes, there are legal resident aliens who can send their kids to our schools, but use all contact with government services to categorize and identify the scofflaws.

                  Take away the free and unencumbered access to education, SNAP dollars, medical care, housing… and many will self deport and few will make the trip in the future.

                • Rufus

                  Your defense has gotten so petty that I don’t think you have any desire to consider alternatives.

                  In my travel in foreign countries I was required to show my U.S. passport for all kinds of stuff, even report my location and whereabouts on a regular basis.

                  The issue in this country is not a dearth of laws. It is an unwillingness to follow the law and prosecute offenders. It’s not a Legislative problem. It is an Executive and Judicial problem. Why do you believe more Legislation will solve it?

                  • Kit

                    “Your defense has gotten so petty that I don’t think you have any desire to consider alternatives.”

                    How?

                  • Kit

                    “In my travel in foreign countries I was required to show my U.S. passport for all kinds of stuff, even report my location and whereabouts on a regular basis.”

                    Which countries?

                    • Rufus

                      Mexico, Canada, Singapore, China, New Zealand, France, Belgium, Germany, Malaysia, The Philippines, The Netherlands, England, Ireland, Australia, Italy, Austria, Belize, and Luxembourg.

              • Matt Helm

                No Child Left Behind forbids asking parents proof of citizenship, or legal residency status. These kids are doomed when they enter public schools because English as a second language students often stay back, costing tax payers double, sometimes triple, to send them through school. Take it from me and my experience with this … the parents don’t understand English and can’t help the kids with homework. This is why the education budget has skyrocketed. This has also watered down test scores in the country where we fail miserably when compared on a global scale. NCLB also put a stop to not factoring in Special Ed. and ELL (Engish Language Learners, aka illegal aliens) test scores when accounting for national test score data. Since we’ve been adding those groups to our national scores, it’s no wonder we look stupid. I can tell you how bad public education is in a lot of ways, but this fact really makes public education look worse than it is. Of course, it was designed with that intention so that they can keep raising taxes to throw more money into educational funding.

                Anyway, Kit, no one has read the whole amnesty bill. Shouldn’t we be against any bill that the people who vote on it, haven’t read it before casting a vote?

                • -fritz-

                  Anyway, Kit, no one has read the whole amnesty bill. Shouldn’t we be against any bill that the people who vote on it, haven’t read it before casting a vote?

                  That didn’t seem to help any when they crammed Obamacare down our throats! We were all against it and the bastards voted it in anyway! Taxation without representation, anyone? I say we fire the whole bunch and start out with a whole new Congress, Potus and dogcatcher!

                • Rufus

                  What our Legislators do to our children is a true travesty. Using children’s minds as pawns in a political battle for power. It is disgusting.

            • Loyal Goatherd

              Last week, both political parties were heralding the Corker-Hoeven amendment as a “tough” response to pressure from voters who want to see the border secured before granting amnesty to 11 million illegal aliens.
              But in reality, the two sides are lying in unison. The bill actually grants immediate amnesty before border enforcement. Additionally, the much-praised legal requirement for a biometric exit-entry system has been undermined in this version of the bill. Millions of green cards, which allow permanent residency, will now be issued before border enforcement takes place. New border agents aren’t required until 2021, and they’ll likely never be hired.
              The most insidious changes are the result of special powers given to Janet Napolitano and other future leaders of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While language exists to promote the border fence, DHS can waive the requirements if they so please. Judicial proceedings likewise leave an out to never build the fence. I predict the fence will never be built.
              Also, criminal immigrants will be allowed to stay. Legalization for gang members and convicted criminals is in the current version of the bill. It even includes amnesty for future visa overstays. In other words, we’ll have a prospective amnesty for future illegal immigrants. And don’t forget guaranteed welfare access for illegal immigrants. This is all in the latest version of the bill.
              Now you can understand why the elite don’t want the immigration reform bill read. Like Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare, Congress must “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”

              http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/hurry-up-and-vote/

              • Kit

                “Legalization for gang members and convicted criminals is in the current version of the bill.”

                Where?

              • Kit

                Loyal Goatherd,

                From the Text of the Bill itself:
                http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=90004483-a74e-4311-9376-844c9165ef09

                ———————

                SEC. 3701. CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.
                (a) INADMISSIBILITY.—Section 212(a)(2) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (I) the following:
                ‘‘(J) ALIENS IN CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.—
                ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Any alien is inad- missible—
                ‘‘(I) who has been convicted of an offense for which an element was active participation in a criminal street gang (as defined in section 521(a) of title 18, United States Code) and the alien—
                ‘‘(aa) had knowledge that the gang’s members engaged in or have engaged in a continuing series of offenses described in section 521(c) of title 18, United States Code; and
                ‘‘(bb) acted with the intention to promote or further the felonious activities of the criminal street gang or maintain or in- crease his or her position in the gang; or
                ‘‘(II) subject to clause (ii), who is 18 years of age or older, who is physically present outside the United States, whom the Secretary determines by clear and convincing evidence, based upon law enforcement information deemed credible by the Secretary, has, since the age of 18, knowingly and willingly participated in a criminal street gang with knowledge that such participation promoted or furthered the illegal activity of the gang.
                ‘‘(ii) WAIVER.—The Secretary may waive clause (i)(II) if the alien has renounced all association with the criminal street gang, is otherwise admissible, and is not a threat to the security of the United States.’’.

                • Loyal Goatherd

                  Ah yes, Subtitle G Section 3701 page 750 of 1187 Text thereof

                  This is kind of our point Kit. These 1187 pages are unintelligible at best.

                  IE: (4) LOW-INCOME YOUTH.—The term ‘‘low-income youth’’ means an individual who— (A) is not younger than 16 but is younger than 25; (B) meets the definition of a low-income
                  individual provided in section 101(25) of the
                  Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
                  2801(25)), except that States and local work-
                  force investment areas, subject to approval in
                  the applicable State plans and local plans, may
                  increase the income level specified in subpara-
                  graph (B)(i) of such section to an amount not
                  in excess of 200 percent of the poverty line for
                  purposes of determining eligibility for participa-
                  tion in activities under section 5103; and
                  (C) is in one or more of the categories
                  specified in section 101(13)(C) of the Work-
                  force Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C.
                  2801(13)(C)).

                  In any case, nowadays, not only are the bills so gargantuan that no one could conceivably master them and predict their consequences; each page produces even more pages of regulations. They can’t even be lifted, much less digested.

                  You cannot have a functioning democratic republic when the laws are so voluminous no one can know what the law is. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351916/immigration-bill-or-it-corker-hoeven-amendment-everything-wrong-washington-andrew-c

                  So supporters and opponents can each claim anything is in the bill and no one, not even the senators voting on it know what’s in the bill. Just trust us, we know what we’re doing! NO! Sorry can’t trust you with your record of failure. If one has studied all the implications of this bill with this most recent 119 page amendment in the last week and now claim complete confidence in it, that one lies! Plain and simple. This is not debate, this is not deliberation. This is a rubber stamp!

                  • Kit

                    What does that have to do w/ street gangs. The law on street gangs seems pretty clear to me.

                    • Loyal Goatherd

                      So supporters and opponents can each claim anything is in the bill and no one, not even the senators voting on it know what’s in the bill.

                      That is my point, the section you quote appears to be plain language and somewhere else, potentially, there will be an insertion to alter the language. Who knows?

                    • Kit

                      You stated that under the current bill (and this is what YOU typed): “criminal immigrants will be allowed to stay. Legalization for gang members and convicted criminals is in the current version of the bill.”

                      I asked you to point to me where in the bill it says so. I even cited clear plain language concerning gang members.
                      You failed to cite any place in the bill where it says that “criminal immigrants will be allowed to stay”. In fact, your only response is “Well, the bill is so long who knows?”

                      So, again, do you have any solid proof that “criminal immigrants will be allowed to stay.” Anything from the bill that contradicts what I wrote.

                      I’ll take section of the bill where the language is so vague that “supporters and opponents can each claim anything is in the bill” regarding criminal immigrants. I’ll take that.
                      Just point me to it.

                    • Rufus

                      Why won’t those “living in the shadows” continue to live in the shadows?

                      This nation has a 40+ year track record of not deporting illegal aliens, including the sons of bitches who overstayed their student visas and attacked our citizens on 9/11/2001. The problem has never been our laws, it has been enforcement.

                  • Kit

                    And, I’m not denying our laws are a nebulous mess. What I am saying is the law on street gang members, as far as I can see it, seems quite clear.

                    • Rufus

                      Except there as a waiver if the gangbanger sincerely promises he’s ever so sorry and remorseful about his gang membership.

                    • Kit

                      “Except there as a waiver if the gangbanger sincerely promises he’s ever so sorry and remorseful about his gang membership.”

                      Yes there is. And there are reasons to grant waivers. Perhaps he was in it 5 years ago and has since left the gang and actively helped the police fight gangs. Perhaps there is ample evidence that he is sincere about his turn around and is helping schools and police fight gangs at risk to his own life.
                      Perhaps, on top of all of these, he has turned state’s evidence.
                      There are PLENTY of reasons to grant a waiver.

                      But let’s say that one is granted foolishly then you call them on it. Just don’t go in screaming “IMPEACH!!!” or “BRING DOWN THE ADMINISTRATION!!!”
                      Make it an issue for a week or two (at most) then move on.
                      Conservatives have been saying we need to use Alinskyite tactics against Obama, well one Alinsky rule is “An issue that drags on too long becomes a drag”.

                    • Rufus

                      Kit, I did not scream impeach or bring down the administration. I clearly, logically and irrefutably pointed out that our nation’s illegal alien problem is not due to a lack of legislation. We have plenty of laws on the books that make unauthorized entry into our country illegal and punishable by deportation.

                      The problem is a lack of enforcement of existing laws. You claim you want to fix the problem. Then fix the problem.

                      The three branches of our government form a system of checks and balances. The Constitution gives Congress powers to deal with an Executive branch that will not faithfully execute the laws Congress passes. The Congress is not using any of those methods to deal with the abhorrent lack of border security. Instead Congress is passing more laws.

                      I don’t think the people illegally crossing our borders and wantonly overstaying their student visas are afraid of our laws.

                      Many people here have given you many specific reasons why they do not believe the Senate’s approach will be effective. You just keep shifting the argument to another arcane point in a nearly 2,000 page bill and insisting those who disagree with you have to go on a scavenger hunt to answer your question to your satisfaction.

                      How about you answer a question or two?

                      What does this new bill address that is not currently covered by existing law?
                      Why will the Executive branch enforce this new Senate bill (should it become law)?

                      A policeman is walking his beat late at night and sees a man hunched over, staring at the ground under a street light. The policeman approaches and asks the man what he’s doing. The man replies, with very slurred speech, “Officer, I lost my wallet when I came out of Joe’s bar.” The policeman says, “But Joe’s bar is about 50 yards up the block.” The drunk says, “Yeah, but the light is better here.”

                    • Kit

                      The “Scream Impeachment” remark was more targeted to the movement as a whole which has gone “a bridge too far”, so to speak, in many cases where dropping it after a few weeks or a month or 2 would’ve been better.

                      But you did say that if they do not enforce the laws they should be removed from office. What other mechanism may now be used other than impeachment. You didn’t scream it but you did imply it.

                      Also, How am I shifting the argument to some arcane point. List an example where I have done so.

                    • Rufus

                      Oh, for heaven’s sake. Your debate tactics are beyond absurd and have grown tiresome; “Show me, how, where, which countries…”

                      Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 8 U.S.C. 1324A make it unlawful to hire, recruit or refer any alien not authorized to work.

                      That’s the final homework assignment I’ll do for you. If you don’t want to learn the lesson there’s nothing I can do to change your mind. Why you believe more, redundant legislation will fix a problem that has to do with the lack of a will and desire to enforce legislation is beyond my comprehension.

                      No country in world history has granted amnesty to such a large number of people in such a brief period of time. A group of people who have all, by their very existence, shown reckless disregard for our nation’s laws and sovereignty. What could possibly go wrong?

                    • Kit

                      ““Show me, how, where, which countries…””

                      First, you are exaggerating what I said. I simply asked “Which countries?”

                      I believe you when you said you have travelled to foreign countries. I wanted to know, and I am speaking truthfully, which ones you were referring to so I could continue this debate. I was not arguing there, I was trying to ask for clarification. Since when is asking for examples “absurd”?
                      Now, if it came across that I was arguing with you there, then I apologize and admit I should have clarified my own question better to let you know that I believed you. I plead that it was late at night.

                      “Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 8 U.S.C. 1324A make it unlawful to hire, recruit or refer any alien not authorized to work.”
                      Mandatory E-Verify will make enforcement easier of that law easier. Also, it is currently voluntary, not mandatory as you said above. (Or seemed to have said)

                    • Rufus

                      No, I didn’t seem to say E-verify was mandatory. I wrote, “unlawful to hire, recruit or refer any alien not authorized to work.” What part of “unlawful” do you find confusing? It’s not a “voluntary” law. If you employ people and you employ people unauthorized to work you have broken the law. Right now. Today. Pre-Marco Rubio’s legislative brilliance.

                    • Kit

                      Also, this law is not ideal. It would’ve been ideal if we had enforced our border from the get-go but we failed. Few are denying it. I won’t deny that, even Rubio won’t deny that fact*. We let this problem fester to the point it reached the number of 11 million. So now it must be dealt with the best way possible. Not the ideal way, that ship sailed, but the best way possible under the present circumstances in a climate.

                      *In his speech yesterday: “They (the bill’s opponents) are increasingly opposed to this effort because for over three decades and despite many promises to enforce the law, the Federal Government, under both Republicans and Democrats, has failed to do so.”

                    • Rufus

                      Start enforcing the existing laws and millions will self-deport. Stop providing SNAP, medical care and welfare to foreign nationals. Close the borders and millions will stop coming in.

                      Why do they come here? Because life is better here than in Mexico. Eliminate that incentive.

                    • Kit

                      The closest I can think of relating to your example of the “absurd” and “tiresome” debate strategies* is “Someone makes a blanket statement about the bill. I ask for clarification: Where in the bill does it say that?”
                      Or, when you say that if they refuse to follow the law, they “must be removed from office”? I ask how. The only way you can remove Obama from office now is through impeachment. Which I have since shown would be completely fool-hardy. But you never used the “I-word”.
                      Goatherd and Fritz have both said Obama should be impeached. You said he should be removed from office if he fails to do so but have dodged the question relating to how. So, I’ll ask more clearly:

                      “Rufus, do you think Obama should be impeached for failing to secure the border?”

                      *Which, as I pointed to above, was a misunderstanding.
                      **You did answer my question concerning the countries and I do thank you for that.

                • Rufus

                  You answered your own question:

                  ‘‘(ii) WAIVER.—The Secretary may waive clause (i)(II) if the alien has renounced all association with the criminal street gang, is otherwise admissible, and is not a threat to the security of the United States.’’.

                  • Kit

                    See above, there are practical reasons to grant a waiver in this case.

                  • Kit

                    And that is different.

                    He said “criminal immigrants will be allowed to stay”.

                    Your response is they can IF they can get a waiver on the basis of renouncing gang violence and affiliation with said gang. Which might be harder than you think. So, as far as I can see, my question has still not been answered.

                    Making sure these are granted responsibly is an issue for congressional oversight. Of course, that is as long as congress does its end with some degree of political competence instead of dragging it out longer than it needs to be dragged out.

                    • Rufus

                      Kit, why are people who cross our borders illegally and commit additional crimes still here?

                      Why would illegal aliens who do not meet this bill’s nebulous requirements come out of the shadows and volunteer for deportation?

                    • Kit

                      They probably won’t but this will make it easier to spot them and if they prey on other former illegal aliens, it is now easier for those aliens who do meet those requirements

                      “nebulous requirements”
                      And how are they nebulous?

                    • Rufus

                      It takes 1,800+ pages to do what Article IV, Section IV does in one paragraph. Nebulousness is the least of its problems.

                      Our country did this for the better part of 150 years without this new, magic bill. Every first and second world country in the world does this today without this magic bill.

                      Enforce the existing laws.

                    • Kit

                      Oops, unfinished paragraph (DAMN YOU ADD!!!) :)

                      “They probably won’t but this will make it easier to spot them and if they prey on other former illegal aliens, it is now easier for those aliens who do meet those requirements do report them when they are preyed upon.”

                  • -fritz-

                    ‘‘(ii) WAIVER.—The Secretary may waive clause (i)(II) if the alien has renounced all association with the criminal street gang, is otherwise admissible, and is not a threat to the security of the United States.’’.

                    Hell, Rufus! Even Obama wouldn’t fill the bill on that reg.!

  • JimmyC

    I saw some of Granacci’s paintings at a museum in Florence- really beautiful work. It’s too bad he’s not as well known as the other Renaissance painters of his time.

  • Scott M.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/06/27/Rick-Perry-Calls-Second-Special-Session-on-Abortion-Bill

    Pull a little child from the womb and smash its skull or stab it to death…that is what abortionists do.Wendy Davis,you are one sick bitch.Hell isn’t hot enough for you scum.

    • JimmyC

      It was sickening to read the lefty blogs yesterday, treating her like some kind of hero. Thank God we didn’t allow people to vote on what they believe in; otherwise some inconvenient babies might have been born.

  • Daniel

    I’m really jealous of the guy who married her … lucky bastard! ;-)

  • -fritz-

    I’m hot! Don’t worry ladies…not that way!

    It’s 111 right now in Hendertucky, NV and going toward 114 tomorrow and 117 Sat. and Sunday!

    Oh, and, yes, I am naked! :D

    Don’t peek!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>