Mexico tells Texas to lay off the National Guard — or else

Mexican President NietoFrom

Mexican president condemns Texas’ decision to deploy National Guard along border

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto says Texas’ decision to deploy National Guard troops along the border is “unpleasant” and “reprehensible.”

Last month’s deployment had previously drawn Mexico’s ire. It says the border should not be militarized and issues should be solved jointly.

In an interview with the newspaper El Universal published Friday, Pena Nieto said Texas’ move could affect bilateral relations.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has criticized border security and suggested last month that Islamic terrorists could be entering the U.S. from Mexico, a charge Mexico has dismissed as “absurd.”

Let’s see: Boko Haram, ISIS or al Qaeda having to get their ankles moist via the Rio Grande, or trying to enter via other methods?  I think I know the answer of ISIS et al.  Besides, it’s already occurred.  And the feds themselves are warning of Islamist border incursions!  There is already clear evidence of Muslims having entered the US via our southern border.

Nieto is perturbed that his citizens cannot cross the border in order to acquire their share of Free American Cheese and either stay or come back readily.  Clearly, it is onerous to enforce one’s borders and attempt some semblance of sovereignty.

Sorry Mr Nieto; you’re dealing with Rick Perry, and he doesn’t much care for hypocrisy.



Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Harry Reid LG

Harry Reid = short eyes.

I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.

I never envisioned having to actually write about the topic.

I never thought that there would be even one American politician that would want, in any way, to reduce Our American Freedoms.

Until now.  Until today.

Someone in American politics actually wants to amend the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  The actual United States of America Bill of Rights.

Which states, beautifully and succinctly:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suspect that there could be a more plain directive than that.

Who is the person who wishes to amend such a simple and beautiful foundational precept?

Demorat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In my opinion, the Wall Street Journal nails the problem and the issue:

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.

by Theodore B. Olson

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.

Yes.  Tinkering can cure that aged and so-“yesterday’s news” tragic document.

Because, after all, the US Constitution and its concomitant Bill of Rights need to be “living documents.”  Read: documents that need to be changed when it is convenient to the purpose and agenda of Leftists.

They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

And oh yes, oh they should.  And that rising up should include black powder and brass and torches and pitchforks.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

And let us examine, fundamentally, the foundational precepts of the Constitution and what it protects and what it doesn’t.

This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution’s Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid’s gambit won’t survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against “money in politics” and Supreme Court justices they don’t like.

But there’s a point here.  What’s the point?

The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In Citizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.

In other words, money can find itself supporting what it will, and — with teeth-gritting enamel flecks populating the various keyboards of Leftists — corporations are still considered as “people.”

The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court’s decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs. 

Ban the publication of books and pamphlets.  That translates, these days, to BANNING MY BLOG and blogs of a like mind.

Under this proposal, I would have to face jail if I continued writing.

Let me quote a so-called “lion” of the Demorat Left:

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

One important notation: Saturday Night Live, look out.

You’d best not poke fun ever again.

And let me quite plainly make — as I wrote earlier — the argument regarding Positive vs Negative Rights.

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.


The First Amendment should NEVER be touched.  EVER.

Have I made myself sufficiently plain?



Jaws is dead; long live Jaws

richard-kiel-as-jawsRichard Kiel, the 7’2″ actor who played the villain “Jaws” in two of the James Bond movies with Roger Moore in the late 70s, passed away in a Fresno, Fornicalia hospital this week.  He was 74 years old.

Twilight Zone - To Serve ManI particularly remember Kiel from the 1962 Twilight Zone episode entitled “To Serve Man.”  For those unfamiliar with the story, I won’t provide a full spoiler — with the exception of three small words: “it’s a cookbook.”

Richard Kiel As Jaws With Roger MooreI could never forget the scene where Kiel places his hand on Roger Moore’s face, looking like nothing more than a grapefruit in his huge mitt.

Michael_Dunn_Richard_Kiel_Wild_Wild_WestKiel also played the character Voltaire, the assistant of Dr Miguelito Loveless (actor Michael Dunn) in the series The Wild, Wild West in 1965.

Mr Kiel had broken his leg the week prior to entering the Fresno hospital.

Requiescat en pace, Mr Kiel.



You knew this was coming: trying to quarantine Ebola is RACIST

Attempting to quarantine any Ebola-ridden country in West Africa can now be quantified as racist.


Dr. Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization director-general, has said that disruptions in commercial air travel to West Africa would impede the efforts of international health organizations to contain and combat the disease.

“We must be careful not to characterize Ebola as an African disease,” she said in a  teleconference on September 3, warning that the stigmatization of the disease with any racial classification would be detrimental to the U.N. effort to control it.  “This is an international issue, a global threat.  We need to make sure Ebola patients and Ebola-affected countries aren’t stigmatized and isolated.”

We must be careful not to characterize Ebola as an African disease except that it is an African disease.  And, of course, you should never isolate Ebola victims.

Just when you thought things couldn’t get more stupid, there dawns a brand new day.



ISIS: “A very significant counter-terror operation”

According to Secretary of State John Friggin’ Kerry, it is not a war.

Repeat: it is not a war.

And this, yes, on the heels of Mr Obama on Wednesday night saying that “ISIL is not Islamic.”  And then turning right around and becoming another War President, in direct contravention of his Nobel Peace Prize which — oddly enough — the committee quietly asked he return.  I’ll wager you never heard of that, due to the ministrations of the American Media Maggots.

Mixed messages, America?

And Obama was only forced into his current political tack because two American journalistas were beheaded quite publicly on video.  Politics again, and that pesky technology stuff.  Damn the inconvenience.