Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

Since yesterday, over half of US governors are refusing resettlement of Syrian “refugees”.

A drumbeat of opposition against allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. intensified Monday as more than half the country’s governors, citing security concerns, said they would refuse to accept Syrian refugees into their states following the Paris attacks, which President Obama said “would be a betrayal of our values.” …

By late Monday, states refusing Syrian refugees included Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

It’s not a “betrayal of our values” to the US to refuse refugees who we view as security concerns.  It’s not a betrayal of US values to refuse entrance to actual immigrants we view as security concerns.  It is denying Obama his ability to ship future Democrat voters and ideological opponents to the US into the US in order to further “fundamentally change” the US and destabilize and balkanize the US.  But as Jim Quinn is fond of saying “we have elected the enemy”.  If you keep in mind that Obama’s ideology is to weaken the nation, suddenly it all makes sense.

The US has a long history of refusing admission to people that are antithetical to US interests.  The Wikipedia entry is biased, but the historical point is still made:

Several ideological requirements for naturalization remain under U.S. law. First is the requirement that the applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.”[34] This is essentially a political test,[35] though it “should be construed … in accord with the theory and practice of our government in relation to freedom of conscience.”[36] The statutory requirement is elaborated in the Code of Federal Regulations, which provides: “Attachment implies a depth of conviction which would lead to active support of the Constitution. Attachment and favorable disposition relate to mental attitude, and contemplate the exclusion from citizenship of applicants who are hostile to the basic form of government of the United States, or who disbelieve in the principles of the Constitution.”[37] Even still, the ideological requirement is “nebulous”;[38] it begs the questions of what the “basic form of government of the United States” is and what the key “principles of the Constitution” are to which the applicant must subscribe.

Like I said, biased – the last sentence gives it away.  The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, and key principles include the fundamental framework of the Constitution itself plus the Bill of Rights.

The US has restricted entry to communists, anarchists, polygamists, and other classes that are viewed as antithetical to US interests, security, culture, etc.  In short, you don’t invite people in who you don’t want in.

There’s been a major discussion in recent years of how Islam isn’t just a religion, but is also a political, governmental, and social system that’s outlined by the Koran.  Sharia law, which many muslims favor, comes directly from the Koran.  Sharia law is antithetical to the Constitution.  And when you look at populations who support it:

pew muslim research sharia lawWhy would you want to import people from countries whose populations believe in eradicating your rights, liberties, and system of government and replacing it with a rigid, violent, authoritarian patriarchal theocracy?

Answer for Obama and Valerie Jarrett and his crew is “fundamental change” of the country that they set out to bring low in order to make things “more fair” for the world by making the US a third world country… but for anyone else who lives here who isn’t an ideological leftist?

That objection to bringing in refugees is just considering the cultural shift that will harm the nation slowly, rather than immediate security concerns of bringing in radicals.

Another quick note on “radical” vs “moderate” muslims as a crybully activist interrupts a forum that wasn’t actually discussing Islam in order to say how discussing something peripheral to Islam is islamophobic:

Ted Cruz is discussing offering up a bill that will curtail importation of Syrian refugees into the US.  His main reason is security concerns.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has struck back at President Obama’s implication that his rejection of Syrian refugees is “shameful,” telling CNN he will be introducing legislation banning Muslim Syrian refugees from entering the United States.

“What Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are proposing is that we bring to this country tens of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees,” Cruz told CNN’s Dana Bash in Charleston, S.C., on Monday.

“I have to say particularly in light of what happened in Paris, that’s nothing short of lunacy.”

Asked what would have happened if his own father — a Cuban refugee who fled the island’s repressive Communist regime — had been told all those years ago by political leaders that there was no place for him because of security risks, Cruz said it was a different situation.

“See that’s why it’s important to define what it is we’re fighting,” Cruz responded.

“If my father were part of a theocratic and political movement like radical Islamism, that promotes murdering anyone who doesn’t share your extreme faith, or forcibly converting them, then it would make perfect sense.”

The US blocked active communists from entry.  If you were forced to be a member of the party in order to eat, it wasn’t held against you.  If you were a member of the party because you chose to be, you were blocked.  If you supported communism, you were blocked.  If you lived in an oppressive nation where membership was mandatory in order to get your bread ration, the US understood that you lived in an oppressive nation that forced you to either join or starve.

“When I hear folks say that, ‘Maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims,’ when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful,” Obama said.

Maybe we should just admit the refugees who are peaceful and fleeing conflict and who are not avowed members of a political/religious sect that demands an authoritarian theocracy that executes gays for the crime of living.  Maybe we should have some kind of test to see who’s actually willing to commit to wanting to support US principles and is seeking freedom from oppression and not admit the people who are members of that same political/religious sect that demands authoritarian theocracy and is sworn to eradicate the Jews and convert everyone else to their ideology by the sword.

Maybe we could say and do that in response to his “shame on you for not agreeing with my intentionally destructive plan” garbage.

Keep in mind that we don’t keep tabs on who’s in the country once they get here.

A Syrian refugee relocated to Louisiana has already gone missing, but the group accommodating them isn’t taking responsibility.

WBRZ reports:

WBRZ has learned Catholic Charities helped the refugee who settled in Baton Rouge, but said the immigrant left for another state after a couple of days, and they don’t know where the refugee went since they don’t track them.

“We’re at the receiving end,” Chad Aguillard, executive director of Catholic Charities, says. “We receive them, we welcome them into our community and help them resettle. There has been a lot of commotion and fear with Syrians. The fear is justified, but we have to check that against reality.”

This has been the case for a while.  Regionally infamous Lutheran charities that pull federal subsidies have been resettling Somalis in Minnesota for decades, including terrorists with links to al Shabaab and Al Qaeda.

I’ll just let a couple of the reader comments from the American Mirror story finish this out:

Oh, we don’t track them, we just bring them in and hand them over to you! Then we walk around with fkking halos over our heads as if we actually did something and then you all have to figure out how to live with them while they start destroying your once-wonderful country. You’re welcome!

refugees tsarnaev boston bombers

As a heads up for more sensitive readers, there are photos of terrorist attacks in this post further down.

Obama was just on TV and radio this morning saying how “we cannot” stop taking in refugees into neighborhoods in the US that Obama and his political donors and cronies will never live in, and the usual bleeding heart political BS that’s supposed to make people feel guilty for not taking in diseased strays.  Much of it is probably in response to governors across the country saying “no more refugees”. (Edit: In the time it took me to write this, another governor – a Democrat – was added to that list refusing “refugees”.)

If Obama hadn’t abandoned actual success in Iraq, the Middle East wouldn’t be producing the swarms of refugees that have invaded Europe and that he wants to bring here.  We already fought the bad guys over there so we wouldn’t have to fight them here, and so their people could live free there (including the actual refugees in the bunch).  There wouldn’t be an ISIS for them to run from but for him.  He’s the one who lost the war.

Like most politicians, he has the objective of building his party, and as a hard leftist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” the US, he’s doing his best to turn us into a third world hole.  In the last couple years there have been the swarms of teenage “children” from central America who knew how to game the US immigration system and who were allowed to stay as “refugees”, even though they were just opportunists taking advantage of a president who actively wants “social justice” through redistribution of American capital to the rest of the world.  If we’re brought down from inside and made miserable in front of the world, in his mind that would begin to make up for the fictional oppression that he believes the US must be punished for.  It’s first world guilt that manifests as self-flagellation and self-destruction, and doubles as political power-building when he imports people who will vote Democrat forever.

When more moderate people begin to look at the problem of Islamic terrorism and say “why do you want to bring in the kinds of people who bring in terrorists with them?”, the left with Obama as its mouthpiece declares that’s racist and islamophobic and everyone needs to shut up.  Meanwhile France, the nation that Obama said “represents the timeless values of human progress”, has discovered common sense and decided to seal its borders and take in no more so-called “refugees” because at least some of the terrorists that attacked Paris were those “refugees”.

This inevitably leads to the “not all Muslims are terrorists” argument, which is true.  One bad apple does not spoil the bunch.  Except that saying can still be horribly wrong in practice.  One person sick from e coli or listeria will have a responsible business shut themselves down or have the FDA on them a heartbeat later to shut them down.  If only 1% of your food is liable to be dangerous, you don’t get to keep putting it on the market – it’d be wildly irresponsible.  If only 1% of 100,000 people you import support terrorism, then you’ve imported 1,000 potential terrorists.

If you care about your nation, you don’t bring in people who wish to do it harm.

Hollande is a French leftist, but is still French.  He understands that protecting France is a priority.  I haven’t heard him say he wants to “fundamentally change” France (at least not on this topic).  He also seems to understand that if you have an outbreak of terrorism, it might be worthwhile to look at the vector that terrorists are using to attack you, and the populations they come from, especially when so many of them are military-aged males.

Most are coming for free stuff given away by brain-dead-liberal western democracies.   They aren’t coming to assimilate to their new countries, they are far from peaceful, and they bring their animosities and wars with them.

These are not the poor tired huddled masses seeking escape from despotism and yearning to breathe free.  If they really wanted freedom they’d be fighting for it in their homelands.  They’re bypassing nations that don’t give handouts to make it to the ones that do.  They’re not looking for a place to be free of oppression of Islamic states and cast off the miserable lot they had and work to become citizens of their new nation, they’re looking to exploit the naivety of brain-dead-liberal societies – and then there are some who are looking to expand those Islamic states.

islam will dominate

So you start with a group that demands that other nations give them things simply because they’re there.  They demand asylum and they demand the necessities of life because someone else has them and they want them.  Those are the regular “refugees”.  The brain-dead-liberal west thinks that we’re somehow obligated to take care of people out of some “common bond of humanity” or some such nonsense.

Thing is, within that population of “refugees” is still the “radical muslim minority” like the would-be dominators pictured above.  And it’s not exactly a small number.

Ben Shapiro did a good breakdown on the myth of the radical muslim minority last year.  It’s good to assess what the numbers say:

At 4:40 he looks very briefly at numbers in France.

“France: 4.7 million muslims live there.  A 2007 poll showed 35% of French muslims said suicide bombings could sometimes be justified.  That’s 1.6 million radical muslims living in France.”

From Pew Research, and a favorable poll (and you can find plenty of such polls):

pew research muslim terrorism poll 2011 suicide bombing

If you take those numbers and read what they actually say, you have 20% of American-born muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified – and believe it to the point that they’d admit it.

The question is “suicide bombing/other violence against civilians is justified to defend Islam from its enemies.”  Would you say it’s “often”, “sometimes” or “rarely” or never justified?

If you answer with “rarely”, you’re still saying that once in a while it’s okay to murder a bunch of Parisians at a concert who have nothing to do with world conflicts aside from being Westerners.

So in order to “defend” Islam from it’s “enemies”, 20% of American born Muslims – and much higher numbers in other countries – think this is okay at least every once in a while:

2015 paris attack

And that this is acceptable:

kenya attack 150406 2

kenya attack 150406

There is no reason for any nation to invite that inside their borders, because it’s a predictable result of importing populations that harbor terrorist tendencies.

For the US and the coalition countries who fought overseas to shut down Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and dozens of other terrorist groups, many of which converged as the Islamic State, there is no reason ever to import the same mayhem that we fought against overseas with the intention to prevent having to fight it stateside.

It’s especially offensive as the interpreters (mostly muslim themselves) who helped us in mid-east conflicts aren’t being allowed into the US.

Last week, President Obama decided to admit 10,000 Syrian refugees to the United States. But there’s another group of foreigners who deserve our help much more – the 50,000 men and women who served as interpreters for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They’ve already put their lives on the line – and often their families’ lives and friends’ lives as well – to show who they stand with.  They’re struggling to do everything the legal way and they’re being left hung out to dry, or killed trying to dodge vindictive terrorists overseas while US bureaucrats ignore their paperwork.

They really are the people who fought the hard fight to protect their homelands as best they could, they’re the people who saw western virtues as something that could help them, they’re the people who’d integrate into western society, and they really are the ones yearning to breathe free.  They’re the ones who aren’t looking for handouts, just looking for a safe place to live and become productive citizens.  They’re the ones who paid their dues in advance, actively fighting against islamic terrorists – and they’re the ones being ignored.

Via Legal Insurrection, Obama says Republicans are the same as Iranians chanting “Death To America” because Obama logic.

“Just because Iranian hard-liners chant ‘death to America’ does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe,” Obama said to strong applause from the audience.

“In fact, it’s those hard-liners who are most comfortable with the status quo,” Obama said Wednesday afternoon. “It’s those hard-liners chanting “death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal.”

“They’re making common cause with the Republican caucus,” Obama said to laughter and wild applause.

Just like how a toothless deal that lets Iran have nuclear weapons means Iran won’t have nuclear weapons.  Because you’re racist or something.

Speaking of the Iran deal, why are we doing that anyway?

A reminder about presidential candidate Jeb Bush and what he thinks of illegal aliens breaking into the country with their first steps as violation of laws:

Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love.

Some people love money.  We call them bank robbers.

Some people love hurting people.

2015 was predicted to be another high-level year of illegal aliens showing upwhich has proven to be true, but it’s more easily hidden due to infrastructure built up last year, and it is slightly less than last year.

Via HotAir, a footnote to #gamergate from August, that a debate was broken up by bomb threats deemed credible enough to evacuate.

Apparently several calls had been made to the Miami PD and Miami Herald indicating that a bomb would go off at 2:45 PM, and though apprised that this has happened before to #GamerGate, the authorities weren’t taking any chances.  They sent everyone back a couple blocks and cleared the entire neighborhood surrounding the venue.

Stuck standing outside in the 96 degree Miami heat, suddenly the journalists present were extremely interested in what #GamerGate had to say, and many of them were seen giving interviews there on the street.

Playboy magazine has decided to drop full nudity.

Can’t help but wonder if it’s at least peripherally related to the Army & Air Force dropping “adult sophisticate” magazines including Playboy in 2013.

ana cheri blow kissAdieu, Cheri.

Obama can’t find arugula:

“As long as you can go in some neighborhoods and it is easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it is easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable, as long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence.”

Clips.  Heh.

You can buy books all over the place.  You can also buy books online and read them with your Obamaphone.  This isn’t a question of literary accessability, this is a question of people’s choices.  Choices that are “nudged” a certain way by certain politicians.  If those “some neighborhoods” that Obama won’t describe any further started picking up “Capitalism and Freedom” or “Economics In One Lesson” or “The Vision of the Anointed“, he wouldn’t be president.

Also, you can’t buy a gun easier in neighborhoods like that.  It’s much easier to buy a gun at Cabela’s in Sidney, Nebraska than it is to buy from a fence in Detroit, Michigan.  But the neighborhood where it’s truly easier to buy isn’t someplace with rampant violence, because the character of the neighborhood is significantly different.  One is influenced by independent American traditions, the other has been tragically corrupted by leftist socialist dependence and corroded the culture into a self-pitying self-destroying quagmire of misery.

NRO asks “Where have all the air marshals gone?“:

The Transportation Security Administration is experiencing a mass exodus of Federal Air Marshals so severe that it may soon render the marshal service an “agency-in-name-only,” according to current and former marshals.

Agents across the country are looking for any excuse to exit the marshal service, repelled by the agency’s pattern of mistreating and endangering its employees, and its own concerted efforts to thin ranks through a hiring freeze and the closing of field offices. Richard Vasquez, a former marshal who resigned in January 2015, says his Washington, D.C., field office alone lost up to ten marshals per month in the year preceding his departure.

“The numbers are dwindling; now they’re not telling the public this, but that’s the fact,” Vasquez says. “The only people who aren’t trying to leave are people who are past that age-37 range and are meaning to retire.”

No one wants to work for the TSA.  Is anyone really surprised?

Travel every day, never spend time at home, get bureaucratic social justice BS from DC that tells you who you’re supposed to look for and who you’re not?  Not really a surprise that good people leave an agency that’s supposed to be good due to leadership.

Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement ranks 313 of 314, Customs and Border Protection 293 of 314.  It’s almost like there are winners and losers in this administration.

A CEO who isn’t lost (yet) talks about lost jobs:

Clifton stated the following on CNBC:

“I think that the number that comes out of BLS [Bureau of Labor Statistics] and the Department of Labor is very, very accurate. I need to make that very, very clear so that I don’t suddenly disappear. I need to make it home tonight.”

After getting that out of the way, Clifton went on to eviscerate the legitimacy of the cheerful spin given to the unemployment data, telling CNBC viewers that the percent of full time jobs in this country as a percent of the adult population “is the worst it’s been in 30 years.”

He’s right, too.

Charts 5 and 6:

2015 bol employment rate Presentation-Employment-Population-Ratio-425x282

2015 bol labor force participation rate Presentation-Labor-Force-Participation-Rate-425x282

The “employment rate” goes up by percentage because the actual number counted as potentially working goes down.

Not really a surprise from the spineless jellyfish RINOs.  The Republicans, rather than explain how they would fund all of DHS except for Obama’s amnesty, instead chose to surrender completely.

Via HotAir:

The “Hastert Rule” says that a Speaker shouldn’t let any bill reach the floor unless a majority of his own caucus supports it. In the end, when the Great Executive Amnesty Sellout reached its final act, a supermajority of Boehner’s caucus opposed it. He passed the bill anyway — with all members of the minority party voting yes.

All the Democrats voted for it, and a handful of Quisling RINOs did, too.

All they had to do was explain that they would fund everything but the illegal amnesty.

Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution lists the powers of Congress – among them:

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization

That’s all they have to say.  Explain that it’s for Congress to do, not the Executive branch.  Explain that the executive doing it is unlawful and illegal, and it will be stopped.  Explain that impeachment is an option, but one that Congress would rather forgo by shutting down the illegal amnesty and correcting the petulant and wrong “constitutional scholar” Obama.

Or they can crap all over the working people, poor, and middle class in the US who will now have to deal with illegal aliens who compete for their jobs, take their benefits, and take their taxes.  No one benefits from illegal aliens being allowed in except for illegal aliens and the people who exploit their labor or their persons.

There will be more illegal aliens when amnesty is granted.  This is not really a surprise.  If you tell some illegals they can stay, others will try to do the same.  Following the law is shown to be for suckers.

Or maybe it’s time to get used to Republicans intentionally losing, like the impotent jackasses they keep showing themselves to be.  The handful that are worth a damn can’t get rid of the useless establishment toadies who knuckle under to every leftist demand, and every time the sniveling pusillanimous cowards surrender, they drive away more and more of the people who would be their base.

Why vote for them or support them when they’re going to surrender at every turn and abandon every principle they were elected to hold?  And why can’t the establishment Republicans see that they’re committing suicide with those who would support them?

The new blood Tea Party Republicans need to put the screws to the establishment until they either grow a spine or go join the Democrats (like the stuff we’ve already seen them do in the last few elections).

Basically Drudge’s big stories of the day, but today the FCC chair refused to testify before congress about net neutrality, The Hill looks at the new arbitrary ability for the FCC to impose internet regulations and asks if it’s outright lawless, and the lefty “Electronic Frontier Foundation” suddenly realizes that big government might not be the best thing to have on an internet that’s supposed to be free.

There are several problems with this approach.  First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

A leftist push for more control really might mean cronyism for their politically aligned friends?  Naw… you don’t say.

The internet will grind to stagnating European halt.

In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet. …

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote. …

“Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”

I’d file this entirely under the part of the cycle of the anointed being wrong where Thomas Sowell says “the critics’ concerns are dismissed”… which comes right before the “solution” is implemented and causes the exact problems the critics fortold.

We’ve heard about the UN Arms Trade Treaty for months (if not years) by now, and it’s almost a given that it will never be ratified by the US Senate, because it includes plenty of rules that are anathema to the Second Amendment.  But it was passed through the UN and enacts at Christmas:

The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is set to take effect on Christmas Eve. Though the United States delegation to the U.N. has supported the treaty, it has very little chance of being ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. But there is still reason for concern, said Catherine Mortensen, spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association.

“We are worried about an end-run around Congress,”  Mortensen told TheBlaze. “Barack Obama or a future anti-gun president could use ATT and international norms compliance to rationalize enacting gun control policies through executive actions, especially in the import and export realms.”

“Even now, with an existing appropriations rider prohibiting action to implement the treaty unless it is approved by Congress, administration officials are publicly professing support for international efforts to bring the treaty into effect. That’s outrageous,” she added.

The U.N. General Assembly adopted the treaty in April 2013 with a vote of 154 to 3. The State Department points out that only Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed it.

That thing about Iran, Syria, and North Korea opposing it is used by the current administration to portray those who object to it as extreme.  Except there are plenty of nations who are “for” it who later didn’t sign it, didn’t ratify it, or will ignore it just like other treaties.

The better news on the treaty is more recent, via CNS News:

( – As United Nations officials welcome the Christmas Eve entry into force of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), its progress in the U.S. remains hampered by significant Senate opposition and funding prohibitions included in appropriations legislation.

Most recently, the omnibus government funding bill passed by the Congress earlier this month contained new prohibitions on the administration using any funds to implement the conventional arms treaty. Under U.N. procedures the U.S. would be liable for 22 percent of the budget for the ATT secretariat, the body that will oversee its implementation.

It’s nice to know we’re at least not paying for it.

It’s especially nice since the UN’s attempts at gun control usually end up murdering lots of people.

And like was suspected about those who opposed the treaty – the question is who else didn’t sign or didn’t care – note the story says “among the non-signatories”, not “this is a comprehensive list of all the non-signatories”.

When the U.N. General Assembly adopted the ATT in April 2013 only three member-states voted against it: Iran, Syria and North Korea.

But the list of nations that have not signed the treaty is far longer, and includes some of the world’s more controversial regimes. Among the non-signatories are Russia (the world’s second biggest arms exporter, after the U.S.), China (the fifth biggest), Cuba, Ecuador, India, Iran, Iraq, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Venezuela and Vietnam.

The effect of active and powerful restriction on small arms trade could mean major problems for recreational shooters in any free state as imported ammunition tends to be cheaper than domestic.  Banning importation of cheap foreign ammunition through auspices of the ATT would be a way to impose a financial burden and barrier to entry into recreational shooting, and thus to harm gun culture.  For those who believe in citizen disarmament, it’s a feature.

Meanwhile, the EPA found itself blocked from banning lead ammunition.  Again, lead ammo is cheaper, and with regards to hunting ammunition, it performs very well and replacement ammunition is often very expensive.

A federal appeals court denied a lawsuit Tuesday by environmental groups that the EPA must use the Toxic Substances Control Act regulate lead used in shells and cartridges.

“We agree with EPA that it lacks statutory authority to regulate the type of spent bullets and shot identified in the environmental groups’ petition,” Judge David Tatel wrote for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Note who’s suing and how.  Environmental groups are suing the EPA to act (often environmental groups getting money from the EPA or other part of govt).  This is something the environmental movement has done for quite a while, and often hand-in-hand with the EPA.  They sue the EPA for the new rule they want, the EPA settles with the group, or gets a judge to rule in favor of the new regulation, and the EPA can just go out and make it happen.

And finally, the Obama amnesty was ruled an overreach by a federal judge in PA.  I’ve been writing about how Obama will push for amnesty for illegal aliens for a long time, and since he just up and did it with his “executive actions”, that’s about when I stopped posting so much.  Doesn’t feel critical to write about this stuff when it’s all over the news everywhere.  If you’ve been reading here, or you’re remotely paying attention, you’ve seen it, heard it, and you’re mad about it.  I yelled “fire!” for a long time, and now there’s a massive conflagration.

>Lame Duck "Immigration Reform" - Amnesty

There’s only so many times I could post that pic from The People’s Cube.  And then he just did it.

Except that judge in Western Pennsylvania has said that he can’t do it:

A federal judge Tuesday ruled parts of President Obama’s deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, with a scathing memo dismantling the White House’s legal reasoning and arguing that Mr. Obama tried to steal Congress’ lawmaking powers.

The ruling doesn’t invalidate the policy immediately because it was part of a case over a single illegal immigrant’s deportation, but it could serve as a road map for other federal judges who are considering direct challenges to the president’s policy.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.

Part of the issue was also that the method by which Obama did it was through “prosecutorial discretion”.  That’s supposed to mean that an individual prosecutor can look at an individual case and choose whether or not to go forward with charges.  It does not mean that 5-10 million crimes can simply be ignored and that an entire statute can be mandated to be ignored by the executive branch.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.

Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making.

Illegal alien supporters, not “immigrant rights advocates”.  Every legal immigrant who sees 5-10 million people cutting in line is apoplectic over this.

The White House defends the policy as a reasonable use of Mr. Obama’s powers to set priorities for enforcing laws, and to stop the breakup of families because of deportation.

Meanwhile, there are millions of US citizens in prisons and jails for various reasons whose families are broken up.  There are millions of families broken up by government policies that favor broken homes as well.  No tears are shed for them, no hearts bleed for them.

Joyce R. Branda, the acting assistant attorney general who is leading the case, argued that Congress has provided too little money and the administration can deport fewer than 400,000 immigrants a year out of the total population of more than 11 million.

Ms. Branda said given that, it makes sense for Mr. Obama to set priorities, including proactively telling millions of illegal immigrants that they are in no danger of being kicked out. That policy allows immigration agents to focus on the other illegal immigrants whom the president deems serious cases, or on those crossing the border this year and beyond.

When Obama’s DACA amnesty crap started, there were rallies of illegal aliens in major cities.  Immigration officials could drive there with buses and start loading them up.

When the surge of illegal alien minors happened over this last year – because of Obama’s pro-illegal alien policies – immigration officials were driving buses into major cities and dropping off illegals downtown.  Those same illegals could’ve been handed back to the nation that facilitated their passage, but they weren’t.  They were dropped off with “walking papers” for court dates they would never attend, and told they wouldn’t be deported because “families”.

Branda is a lying shill.  In the years of the Obama administration, we’ve seen ICE agents called terrorists by the president, and ICE agents sue to be able to do their jobs because they’re told to break the law.

Obama’s banking on the idea that no one will ever do away with his illegal dictatorial unilateral executive amnesty.  The idea is that it would be politically horrible to “tear apart immigrant families”… which is sort of like waking up to find a family of criminals tearing open your Christmas presents and then them screaming how horrible it would be if you took your children’s presents that the illegals stole out of their children’s hands, and if you kicked them out of your house since it’s cold outside, or had them all arrested for breaking and entering.

To the mush-brained, it makes you seem heartless, but they’re just criminal invaders, thieves and criminal squatters in your house.

And the worst part is that all they would’ve had to do was ask if they wanted to come in.  America is not uninviting.

So anyway, Merry Christmas.  Despite all the lumps of coal we’ve gotten this year (including a crapton of new regulations for the new year we don’t know about), at least there are a few positives.