Australia and Illegal Immigration

Posted: October 19, 2014 by ShortTimer in Amnesty, Illegal Immigration
Tags:

Australia has begun a program called “Operation Sovereign Borders” to stop illegal immigration:

australia no way

Pretty cut and dried, huh?

Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) is a military-led border security initiative to stop the boats, prevent people risking their lives at sea in the hands of criminals, and preserve the integrity of Australia’s immigration program.

Asylum seekers who travel by boat without a visa will not end up in Australia. The rules apply to everyone; families, children, unaccompanied children, educated and skilled. There are no exceptions.

Australia is serious about protecting its borders and will stop anyone who attempts to come illegally by boat.

Seeing as how the only way to get to Australia is either by plane or boat, this is a very, very clear message and clear program.

The US could easily do something similar.  Simply explain that if you come illegally, you will be removed – and then do so.  Of course, that would require parties in power to actually listen to the citizenry, actually want to secure the borders and protect the nation – and then actually do their jobs to secure the borders.

Insanely left or insane lefties at MSNBC are blaming the National Rifle Association for the ebola outbreak.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

He’d be one of those people who sees your right to protect yourself as a matter of “public health” requiring him to start regulating your rights – again, in the name of “public health”.  Of course, without the NRA to blame, there’d still be Manbearpig.

-

Meanwhile, in California, Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown has signed a bill that allows family members to petition judges to remove their family members’ rights.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will become the first state that allows family members to ask a judge to remove firearms from a relative who appears to pose a threat, under legislation Gov. Jerry Brown said Tuesday he had signed.

This does nothing to deal with the root causes of maniacal violence – that of the maniac.  Institutionalization is still nigh-impossible, yet removing constitutional rights without a trial, a hearing, or their knowledge from family members who said the wrong thing after Thanksgiving dinner is easier than ever.  Stasi-tastic!

-

And in even less fun economic news, the US is churning about $8,000,000,000,000 in debt.

When discussing the national debt, most people tend to only focus on the amount that it increases each 12 months.  And as I wrote about recently, the U.S. national debt has increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014.

But that does not count the huge amounts of U.S. Treasury securities that the federal government must redeem each year.  When these debt instruments hit their maturity date, the U.S. government must pay them off.  This is done by borrowing more money to pay off the previous debts.  In fiscal year 2013, redemptions of U.S. Treasury securities totaled $7,546,726,000,000 and new debt totaling $8,323,949,000,000 was issued.  The final numbers for fiscal year 2014 are likely to be significantly higher than that.

So why does so much government debt come due each year?

Well, in recent years government officials figured out that they could save a lot of money on interest payments by borrowing over shorter time frames.  For example, it costs the government far more to borrow money for 10 years than it does for 1 year.  So a strategy was hatched to borrow money for very short periods of time and to keep “rolling it over” again and again and again.

Blackwater founder Erik Prince made a statement recently that was roundly critical of Obama administration policies, calling Obama out for having destroyed his company that could otherwise have solved the ISIS “boots on the ground” issue.

“It’s a shame the [Obama] administration crushed my old business, because as a private organization, we could’ve solved the boots-on-the-ground issue, we could have had contracts from people that want to go there as contractors; you don’t have the argument of U.S. active duty going back in there,” Prince said in an on-stage discussion featuring retired four-star Gen. James Conway. “[They could have] gone in there and done it, and be done, and not have a long, protracted political mess that I predict will ensue.”

Pretty much.

The left already thinks of US troops as mercenaries (Washington Post writer Bill “American troops are baby-killing mercenary scum who need to shut up and do what I tell them” Arkin is infamous for it) and uses it as an epithet.  And they generally tend to hold Tim Robbin’s opinion on business (that aren’t their own) as well:

The solution to dealing with ISIS might actually be to just agree with the left and actually let corporations go in with mercenary forces to clean up the mess.

If corporations actually had fought a blood war for oil in Iraq (as per the leftist fantasy), then there would be corporate entities with an interest in the final outcome of the conflict.  If Exxon/Shell/BP/Texaco were all invested in the nation as part of their bottom line, they’d be interested in building the place up.

Historically, US companies have built infrastructure in other nations.  The first example that comes to mind is Creole Petroleum Corporation, which built up Venezuela’s oil business (which Venezuela took over by nationalization in 1976).  MST3K riffed one of their short films back in the mid-late 90s.

-

I started writing this whole post a few days ago, then life got in the way, and now returning to it, I see it still holds quite true.  The world has started asking questions about this shaky coalition of the unwilling, Iraqi civilians who haven’t fled are left between the Scylla of American airstrikes with no ground support and the Charybdis of ISIS which still controls their lives.

President Obama has declared “war upon war so we can have peace upon peace” which sounds like Woodrow Wilson’s lying promises of noninterventionism coupled with his propaganda that dragged us into WWI now married to Neville Chamberlain’s naivete when it comes to dealing with aggressors.

-

Ultimately, a mercenary force on the ground would solve the political quandary of putting American forces into active combat (even though we have troops on the ground… and they are wearing boots, no matter how many times the lie of “no boots on the ground” is repeated).  If Iraq as a nation were run by anyone who cared about the nation – whether decent Iraqis or foreign business interests, they’d have hired mercenaries on their own by now.  If Iraq’s war were privatized and subject to market forces, it would be won and stabilized already.

-

The problems of the Iraq war, both under Bush and Obama, are representative of their respective ideologies.  Bush believed in spreading freedom and democracy to people whose capacity to immediately accept freedom and democracy even the Founders would’ve been skeptical of.  Bush’s domestic policy in the US ignored the US borders and ignored sovereignty for domestic business interests, so thinking of the border as something that should be sealed didn’t really occur to him or those around him – hence the foreign fighters who were swarming across in the 2004-2006 timeframe.  The HET team I got to work with briefly near Fallujah in 2005 explained that the entire problem in Iraq stemmed from foreign terrorists that the locals could clearly identify, but who kept coming in because borders were porous.  But Bush’s failures were contrasted with successes, though – the surges worked.  It was a fix to a problem that could’ve been prevented, but it still was a fix.

Obama’s ideology when it comes to problems is to talk about them just enough to say they aren’t important (or to blame Republican partisanship for them while claiming to be nonpartisan), and then handwaving them away.  His problem-solving methods are limited to rhetoric and using the bully pulpit to be dismissive of all criticism, and enjoying a press that willingly obliges his every whim.  His answer to Iraq is that it’s Bush’s fault because of the status-of-forces agreement of 2008, one which Obama did not seek to change with Iraq because he accepted the will of the Iraqi government as being every bit as important as America’s.  The US isn’t exceptional to him, and all countries are equal.

This led the US-Iraq relationship to become one that may as well have been a Maury Povich show with “out of control” children telling their parents off, and the parents sighing that they just can’t do anything about it.  Iraq needed to be leaned on until they accepted.  Obama was unwilling to lean on Iraq and tell them they had to accept in order to prevent a predictable result like ISIS, because Obama didn’t want to be involved.  He’s the absentee parent who doesn’t want the kid, so he lets the kid run wild – and/or blames the kid’s other parent for the problems while absolving himself of responsiblity and saying he never wanted kids in the first place.  None of that solves the problem and all of it contributes to it.

Nonetheless, he uses the 2008 status of forces agreement as an excuse.  When ISIS threatens everyone in the world, he responds with “I will not be intimidated” and some more words.  Now, pushed hard by his staff, he’s barely on board with half-measures that will accomplish little besides aiding Assad against ISIS and give ISIS a rallying cry for more terrorists to join them.  A declaration of “I will put no American boots on the ground” (technically already a lie, but the intent to avoid conflict is clear) is a declaration that thoroughly emboldens the enemy as much as a retreat date in Afghanistan did there, and that declaration of timidity reminds our other geopolitical foes like Russia that we aren’t going to do anything to save the Ukraine.

Eric Holder’s calling it quits.

And congress is still proceeding with looking into Fast and Furious, now years later.

The contempt of Congress case against Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. — the first sitting Cabinet member ever to face such a congressional rebuke — will continue even after his resignation takes effect, but it’s unlikely he will ever face personal punishment, legal analysts said Thursday.

Mr. Holder, is expected to announce his resignation later Thursday, and Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the timing is not accidental: A federal judge earlier this week ruled that the Justice Department will have to begin submitting documents next month related to the botched Fast and Furious gun operation in a case brought by Judicial Watch.

“I don’t think it’s any coincidence he’s resigning as the courts are ruling the Fast and Furious information has to be released,” Mr. Fitton told The Washington Times.

It’s not a coincidence.  He’s quitting so he can dodge criminal charges that would stick.

Last month’s news:

A federal judge has ordered the Justice Department to provide Congress with a list of documents that are at the center of a long-running battle over a failed law enforcement program called Operation Fast and Furious.

In a court proceeding Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson set an Oct. 1 deadline for producing the list to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

He’s quitting so the Democrat-held senate can force a successor through, just in case the Democrats lose the senate in the mid-term elections.

He’s also quitting so that he won’t be in office and thus will be eligible for presidential pardons.

holder fucks

He stonewalled long enough to slither out of office, but no doubt his successor will be a miserable leftist as well and Holder will be back as a consultant or advisor or in some other role where he can continue his schemes.

gamergate in 5 minutes

For reference, this is what those “gamers are dead” articles looked like – all from the same day:

a84

There’s also a pretty good recap at Breitbart here.

How or why would there be 14 articles published decrying gamers as horrible, wretched, misogynistic, angry misanthropes?  Well, that’s explained by the newest revelation.

Remember JournoList?  That secret leftist group of reporters who decided how to set a narrative across the media in order to favor Barack Obama and leftist causes by collaborating behind the scenes?

Well in the video game world, there’s GameJournoPros – another mailing list that seems to be mostly left-leaning “journalists” – just this time the social justice warrior variety who exist in video game journalism to bludgeon you with their club of moral superiority.

Despite the #NotYourShield folks of all stripes, colors, creeds, orientations and varieties saying “hey, video gamers aren’t just straight white males, so stop demonizing all gamers in my name as a _____”, the game “journalist” SJWs continue their assault, violently rejecting any calls for transparency, objectivity, and an end to the incestuous corruption of developers and journalists colluding with each other.

f59

Broadly speaking, gamers don’t want to hear some social commentary on how “E3 is full of white male protagonists again and you’re racist because of it”, nor do they want to hear about how Princess Peach’s very existence is sexist or how Birdo is insensitive to cross-gendered reptiles.

Casual gamers find it obnoxious, preachy, and irritating, and more serious gamers find it… obnoxious, preachy, and irritating.  And now that game “journalists” behavior is being shown to be a collaborative effort for personal gain (as well as financial gain), it’s pretty gone quite a bit beyond that.

In the gaming world, if a game offends you, you don’t buy it.  It’s that simple.  The market will correct itself.  If you like good games and don’t really care that Cloud Strife’s haircut is offensive to the folically challenged, then you certainly don’t need someone going out of their way to scream about it and networking with their fellow game “journalists” to get the game shut down.

You certainly don’t need some games “journalist” using their connections and networks and going out of their way to make sure a game doesn’t get produced, doesn’t get distributed and doesn’t get sold because they find it offensive, or because they want to spike a game in favor of their developer friend’s game – and they’ll use their social justice/political correct angle to get that other game spiked.

Discussing the topic and demanding a reform of games journalism has resulted in predictable responses – including those 14 stories above.

But it’s a matter of course – they’re social justice activists who use the “you’re a racist/sexist/homophobe” as a way to demand that you shut up.

-

As I’ve noted before, the whole GamerGate issue is a microcosm of society where the leftist social justice warrior types have taken it as their personal mission to force everyone to knuckle under to their demands.  It’s pretty similar to what we see in politics and broader culture every time some leftist social justice activist claims some mantle of the oppressed and demands special treatment for it – while simultaneously never doing anything for the oppressed party (because then they’d lose that specialness to make demands).  We’re currently seeing the same thing happen to the NFL, where a handful of dirtbag players (and possibly team organizations that covered for them) have prompted activist groups to target the entire NFL, going so far as to make demands that have in at least one case specifically hurt (financially) the people they claim to want to help.  It’s all part of a broader cultural push, but that’s for another post.

Senator Jeff Sessions called out the White House and rich internationalist billionaires and businessmen like Mark “Like Open Borders on Facebook” Zuckerberg for demanding open borders for you, while they spend millions to keep people out.

It’s very much worth it to listen to Sessions – he gets rolling pretty quick, hammering home the point that Zuckerberg has gone to Mexico and called American immigration policy “unfit for today’s world”, and spends millions in pushing for amnesty as well as millions on his own home for “privacy”.  He calls out Zuckerberg, who’s using his billionaire wealth and influence to push for more illegals in the country while US citizens are left high and dry despite having the skills that Zuckerberg would need for his company.

Basically, Zuckerberg wants cheap labor for computers at the expense of American workers, but cloaks his hypocritical greed in social justice rhetoric.

Meanwhile, it appears President Obama isn’t fond of fence jumpers when they’re at his house.

Never Forget

Posted: September 11, 2014 by ShortTimer in Jihad, Never Forget, terrorism
Tags:

9/11/01
>Never Forget

>Never Forget

>Never Forget

-
9/11/12
benghazi blood walls