Tag Archives: political parties

Our Secure Southern Border

Posted on by
Reply

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas insists that our southern border is secure. President Joe Biden (D) echoes him with his own silence on Mayorkas’ claim. Here’s some of what Texas’ police and National Guard are intercepting at that border under Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) Operation Lone Star, which has the Texas National Guard also working the border, according to Texas Department of Public Safety Sgt Marc Couch:

  • more than 225,000 migrant apprehensions
  • more than 13,000 criminal arrests,
  • more than 3,500 weapons seized
  • 289 million deadly fentanyl doses

That’s since Operation Lone Star began. Just since last October, there also have been 500,000+ known “gotaways,” illegal aliens who were spotted crossing our border illegally but who evaded capture.

This is what Biden and his DHS Secretary, neither of whom are willing actually to visit our southern border, are letting through with their version of “secure.” Since that’s what they’re calling it, I have to conclude they’re deliberately letting this sewage in.

Imagine the intercepts and the increased safety of our nation if the Federal government were really interested in security.

More Gun Control Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

Delaware, President Joe Biden’s (D) adopted home State, has a new gun law [emphasis added].

Under the bill, known as the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022, the manufacturing, sales, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, and transport of assault weapons, aside from those lawfully possessed or purchased before the bill became law, is prohibited.
The law classifies weapons that feature a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower used in a sports, or recreational, form is outweighed by “the danger that is can be used to kill and injure human beings” and are restricted on the possession and use of those weapons. However, the bill states that it is not the intent of the Legislature to place restrictions on those weapons designed for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activity.

This is Progressive-Democrats presuming to dictate to the good citizens of Delaware those Government-approved purposes for which they will be permitted to keep and bear Arms, even though no such authority exists in the 2nd Amendment or anywhere else in our Constitution.

There’s this, too, in that bill:

The law also provides that anyone currently owning, or possessing, those weapons are encouraged to receive a certificate of ownership from the state’s Department of Homeland Security[.]

Encouraged. Sure. There’s no reason for this, either, given the unconstitutionality of the law (which obviates any need to prove grandfathered ownership) other than so that Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, who continue to decline to identify their limiting principle, can know who has weapons for future confiscation.

This is yet another example of the lawlessness of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Progressive-Democratic Party Newspeak Dictionary

Posted on by
Reply

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) has a new entry. While using her authority to line-item veto $21 million she says was allocated for “anti-choice” programs.

Anti-choice: what she vetoed was this:

$10 million for marketing programs about adoption, $2 million in tax credits for adoptive parents, $3 million for a “maternal navigator pilot program,” $1.5 million for pregnancy resource centers and $700,000 for a nonprofit pregnancy center.

She claims her veto was based on the pregnancy crisis centers spread disinformation and withhold other information. These are plainly bogus beefs.

Instead, Whitmer is claiming that giving women options regarding their pregnancies is anti-choice.

Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

Or outright dishonesty.

Ukraine is asking the US for long-range, armed drones to give the Ukrainian forces improved chances against the barbarian invader.

President Joe Biden (D) and his administration won’t send them.

More than two months ago, Ukrainian officials requested four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones, US officials said. The Biden administration was reluctant to approve the request, the officials said, citing a number of concerns, ranging from the potential loss of advanced technology from the battlefield to the need to train Ukrainians to operate the drones.

The need to train Ukrainians? They’d be trained up by now if the request had been honored those two months ago.

The American technology would be given over to the barbarian via battlefield losses? The enemy always gets its adversary’s technology from battlefield losses. The only way to prevent that is to not go onto the battlefield at all. And then surrender the technology, anyway, when the adversary is peacefully conquered due to its decision not to fight.

…highly-sensitive technology could wind up in Russian hands if Ukrainian forces are overwhelmed.

This is a cynical, if not deliberately dishonest, sham rationale, creating, as it does, the vicious circle: the Ukrainians might lose a battle and give up the tech, so we won’t supply the tech, thereby vastly increasing the likelihood that the Ukrainians not only lose a battle, but lose the entire war.

All because the Biden administration is so…risk averse…that they refuse the risks involved in actively helping a sovereign nation, and a potential ally if not friend, defeat a barbarian’s invasion and drive the barbarian back out.

It’s disgusting, and Ukraine might not survive until January 2025, and even if it does, vastly more Ukrainian women and children will be butchered between now and then, all for the convenience of Biden’s risk aversion.

Government Intrusion

Posted on by
Reply

A particularly bad effort by the Progressive-Democratic Biden administration, this one attempts to insert Government between parents and their children, have the children engage directly with Government persons, and block the parents from participating or any sort of oversight at all.

The proximate subject is a CDC-generated

private chat platform that enables teens to discuss—without parental oversight—a range of highly fraught issues, including LGBT challenges, occult topics, dealing with difficult relatives or even finding an alternative “family” through communities that are more accepting.

This Q Chat Space

includes features that enable its teen users to evade parental scrutiny and oversight.
For example, the platform offers two options for text reminders of upcoming chats—discreet or detailed. Detailed reminders include a “Q Chat Space” tag and other identifying information. Discreet reminders, however “are private, they do not include ‘Q Chat Space’ or the name of the chat,” the platform explains. “They only say ‘Reminder: You have an online discussion in about 1 hour.’ or ‘Reminder: You have an online discussion in about 24 hours.'”
At the bottom of the Q Chat Space website, there is a bar with a button reading “Click/tap here for a quick escape…” accompanied by a picture of a person running towards an exit door. Clicking on the button changes the screen to Google’s website.

Jaco Booyens has the right of it:

It is not the role of the CDC or any school environment to educate Americans’ children on gender, sex, sexual conduct, or sexual preference. In fact, this particular site is highly deceiving, encouraging children to hide their activity on the site from their parents by giving them an easy exit button.

There are two major Government crimes in Booyens’ objection: one is that intrusion of Government into parental responsibilities. The other is Government teaching children to not trust their parents, to hide important family matters from them, functionally to lie to their parents, if only by omission.

This is what the Progressive-Democratic Party is trying to do to traditional family structure. We must start the removal process this fall.