Archive for the 'U.S. Border Security' Category

This reportedly happened yesterday in Carlsbad, California. A group of mostly military age males invaded our country illegally via boat and then dispersed throughout the city in cars.

Are any of them on the terror watch list? Do any of them have a criminal history?

We don’t… pic.twitter.com/MQHqpF27Gu

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 14, 2024

As you know, other states have stepped up to offer troops to secure the Texas border. That’s a good thing since Abbot has a habit of folding like a cheap suit under pressure.

Instapundit links an analyst who says it isn’t as clear as folks are making it out to be that the SCOTUS has given the final word on anything.

“The Court’s order vacated an injunction previously entered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that had prohibited the Government from damaging or destroying Texas’ wire. The Supreme Court’s order has been the subject of widespread and sometimes fiery commentary. However, the press and commentators are misanalysing the order. Governor Abbott and Texas are still free to prevent the feds from cutting their wire. The Supreme Court’s order does not forbid that. The press is misleading you. . . . The reason that the press and other commentators and critics are incorrect is that they apparently fail to understand the limited effect of vacating an injunction. After the Supreme Court’s order vacating the injunction, the status quo was the same as it was prior to the TRO ever being entered: There is no court order prohibiting the Government from taking down the wire AND there likewise is no Supreme Court order or opinion saying that the Government had a right to take down the wire. Nor is there an order by any court that Texas cannot protect its own property, namely the concertina wire.”

I don’t think it much matters. Either Texas will fold or they will hold fast. As for the SCOTUS, I expected nothing different from them. With AWB laws being enacted nationwide by the blue states, the SCOTUS has been running from semi-automatic weapons ban cases for months now. The two establishment women on the court – Barrett and Roberts – will nearly always side with the progs as we have now seen. The lower courts are running roughshod over Heller and Bruen and the SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care enough to stop it.

If that’s true, then why should Texas listen to the SCOTUS on this matter? The FedGov only wants control over this area in order to facilitate the foreign invasion.

As for the NG troops, here’s a warning. Be armed or go home. And that means be under arming orders, with weapons an ammunition and the authority to use them.

Replace “Biden Maladministration” with Washington DC since Reagan first gave amnesty, and you’re set. The author, bless his heart*, is still living in the fog of delusion about the Republicans. He’ll learn, after decades of betrayal, they all do. That’s another topic.

The collapsing border disaster under the Biden Maladministration is a live topic of international consequence today. Many well meaning Christians believe it is wrong to keep refugees out on a temporary basis because they believe borders are man-made constructs lacking biblical warrant. Besides the contradiction obvious in their having homes with walls and locked doors, their argument does not hold.

Established borders are biblically warranted as we see in two clear scriptural examples. Though other arguments are available, these are quite potent.

In building a case for national borders, Dr. Gentry starts in Genesis and then briefly discusses the Law and historical books primarily.

Any discussion of the necessity of national borders must start with a REAL definition of Nation, which comes from the word natal, meaning: of the same womb/lineage. A proper definition includes a common language, customs, and, most importantly, common religion.

Briefly, distinct religions won’t coexist. They can’t. The Bible clarifies that conversion is necessary for an immigrating person to be accepted into a nation. This is actual assimilation. It’s even true for Christians today. To be a citizen of the Kingdom of God, you must first be converted by God, accepting Christ under the power of the Holy Spirit, or you are a trespasser in the kingdom of heaven; woe to you, for except you be born again, damnable is your end indeed (Matthew 18:3, John 3:3, others).

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the Hebrews were a religious, ethnic, and linguistically unique people. And in the few instances where they weren’t, again, adherence to the religious Law (conversion) was required. A country is simply some distinct region or a land area.

Chapters 9-11 of Genesis detail the creation of Nations. In a longer form post, we could include the post-flood covenant through to the Tower of Babel. The covenant with every living creature and the rights of men are discussed here.

The author does an excellent job of taking complicated topics and making them accessible to the average Christian, and he keeps posts to a digestible size, something most appreciate. That’s probably one reason he doesn’t tackle the abovementioned points while offering only two clear instances from Scripture.

*This is a southernism. Sometimes it’s not, but we’re using it only as tongue in cheek. We deeply respect Dr. Gentry’s work.

News of Chinese influence.

In 2021, China’s policy banks ⁠— the China Development Bank (CDB) and Export-Import Bank (Exim) ⁠— made no loans to Latin America for the second consecutive year. Beijing is now essentially focused on financing Chinese companies to operate in the region.

This shift in strategy and the resulting proliferation of Chinese companies in Latin America will increase the circulation of people and money that are no longer under the direct control of local governments. Based on current trends, Chinese criminal organizations will likely thrive in this new economic environment. Extortion, money laundering through front firms, and smuggling are already increasing, posing a severe threat to the population’s safety in the region.

Drug production is one of China’s fastest-growing businesses in Latin America. After China’s booming export of fentanyl or its precursors to Mexican cartels, a new market has emerged for non-fentanyl synthetic opioids such as nitazenes, also known as benzimidazole opioids such as the synthetic opioid derivative ISO, which are 20 times more potent than fentanyl.

US authorities believe that these drugs are being manufactured in China and shipped to Mexico where they are then smuggled into the US. In March, Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody issued a warning against ISO, as law enforcement agencies advised that the drug might be responsible for the recent rise in overdose fatalities. “Isotonitazene is so strong that it can kill just by coming in contact with someone’s skin or being accidentally inhaled,” stated Moody.

Concerns are growing that ISO may be manufactured directly in Mexico or other countries in the region, where Chinese criminal groups have already established production facilities for “creepy,” the name given to a potent cannabis strain popular amongst criminal grow operations, particularly in South America.

Mexico is a failed state, just as are most or all of Central and South American countries (Brazil may be an exception).  Michael Yon has documented the flood of immigrants that will soon overwhelm the Southern border, and are already doing so.  They will crash the American medical system demanding free medical care, and the food and logistics situation won’t fare much better.

Meanwhile, here is the focus of the U.S. Marine Corps: The South Pacific.

Here is the focus of the U.S. Army: Europe.

The Navy is have trouble meeting recruitment and retention goals, as is all of the military.

The U.S. Border Patrol, perhaps the only real police force left in America, isn’t allowed to do their jobs.

If Congress was comprised of anything other than gargoyles, demons and pit vipers, they would hold a vote tomorrow and unanimously declare the Southern border to be a war zone, America to have been invaded, and the military deployed under arming orders to shoot trespassers.

But that won’t be done.  Per a Michael Yon dispatch, this was seen.

Costly food and energy are fostering global unrest https://t.co/HNubS6vrWv

"The Economist has built a statistical model to assess the relationship between food- and fuel-price inflation and unrest." pic.twitter.com/AGpAtyQUJu

— wonkmonk (@wonkmonk_) June 28, 2022

The authorities want chaos and unrest.  They thrive in it.  They need it.  It helps to maintain their authority.  It makes the know-nothings beg for more government intervention and control.  It’s all by design.

Never forget that.  This is all by design.

Unless of course it’s the U.S. Southern border, in which case, they want to lose that war.

WAIT JUST A MINUTE https://t.co/cOn5SBDIf1

— Wag the Poso 🐕 (@JackPosobiec) January 26, 2022

I don’t think there is any question that the voters put Donald Trump in office, at least in the main, because they’re sick and tired of seeing their jobs go to Hispanics and Latinos, all the while observing the cash-based society they live in where they don’t do business via official channels where they would be taxed.  And they’re tired of this cashless society since they have to endure the taxation to prop up medical care, SNAP, welfare and other support for cross-border workers.  They’re tired of paying their share when others don’t.

Paul Ryan doesn’t care about you or your views.

Congressional Republicans are working with the Trump transition team on a solution for immigrants brought illegally to this country as kids, House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday.

Hundreds of thousands of these immigrants gained temporary protections and work permits from President Obama. While campaigning for president, Donald Trump promised to undo those protections, putting the immigrants at risk of deportation, although he said last month he hoped to “work something out” to help them.

Ryan didn’t detail what Congress and Mr. Trump would do about the program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. But when questioned on a CNN town hall by a woman who identified herself as a DACA recipient with a young daughter, Ryan told her he did not want to see her deported.

“I can see you love your daughter, you are a nice person who has a great future ahead of you, and I hope your future is here,” Ryan said.

“What we have to do is find a way to make sure that you can get right with the law, and we’ve got to do this in a good way so that the rug doesn’t get pulled out from under you and your family gets separated.”

Host Jake Tapper pointed out that Mr. Trump, during the campaign, promised a “deportation force” to round up the more than 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. Ryan dismissed that idea.

“I’m here to tell you in Congress, it’s not happening.”

It sure would be nice if we engaged in the fabrication of machine guns in violation of the NFA, and then had Paul Ryan on our side who wanted to help us “get right” with the law.

But we haven’t yet made our voices heard in such a way that Paul hears them.  Mark my words now though, he is compromised.  I’ll guarantee it, I would bet every penny I’m worth on it.  He is involved in the deep state, and someone has pictures of him.  Mark my words.  It’ll eventually be found out.

And as for what you really need to know about Ryan, you have already heard it.  Paul Ryan advocates universal background checks.  There.  That’s all you ever need to now about him.  He is a communist.  Case closed.

Breitbart:

Babeu was on a helicopter tour of Mexican drug cartel scout locations in caves in the side of mountains throughout the desert about 70 miles inside the U.S. border. Essentially, that means U.S. sovereignty is gone for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of square miles throughout the American southwest.

Babeu was leading the helicopter tour with Dr. Ben Carson, a GOP presidential candidate, after briefing Carson on everything happening at the border.

Among other things that Babeu showed Carson and Breitbart News on this helicopter tour were how this far inside the border on high ground there are scores of scout sites where cartel operatives serve as lookouts for smugglers bringing drugs, people and other contraband into the country.

“If they can operate up to this degree, 70 miles north of the border, in law enforcement we call that a clue,” Babeu said in a brief exclusive interview outside the helicopter after landing back at the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office. The lack of United States sovereignty this deep into the country is highly concerning to Carson, who told Breitbart News that this shouldn’t be happening.

“We should stop them at the border,” Carson said. “They shouldn’t be 70 miles inside the border. We should stop them at the border. As the sheriff indicated, if we were to take like 6,000 troops and put them at the border, you wouldn’t have those people coming inside the border.”

Seriously?  You mean actually stick troops on the border and give them robust rules of engagement where they shoot at bad guys?  Gosh, I wish I had thought of that!

Watertown Daily Times:

North country residents have mixed views — and strong opinions — about the value of traffic checkpoints routinely set up by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents assigned to monitor the American side of the U.S.-Canadian border.

Based on random interviews, several said they believe border checkpoints are necessary to keep illicit drugs, illegal immigrants and other unlawful activities out of the country.

However, many also said they’re concerned that too many law enforcement officials — including border patrol agents — unlawfully stretch their authority by using aggressive tactics when interrogating law-abiding citizens traveling in their own country.

Last week, Jessica A. Cooke, 21, Ogdensburg, was pulled over at a border checkpoint in Waddington by border patrol agents who wanted to search her car’s trunk. During an altercation that followed, Ms. Cooke allegedly was subdued with a stun gun.

The incident, which was captured on a cellphone video taken by Ms. Cooke, has prompted a spirited debate on social media sites. Ms. Cooke, a SUNY Canton criminal justice major who graduated Saturday, claims she was wrongfully assaulted and has threatened to file a lawsuit.

Several people said they believed both parties deserve some blame for the altercation: Ms. Cooke for provoking agents with an uncooperative attitude and the agents for using excessive force to restrain her.

Here’s a sampling of opinions of area residents and visitors:

■ William C. Hill, Edwards, said he has driven through checkpoints on several occasions and never had a problem. Usually, agents ask drivers where they’re from and where they’re going. Occasionally, they ask drivers to pull over for further questioning or to inspect their vehicle.

“I’m all for border patrol checks. Look at the drugs seized weekly by these that would otherwise go right onto the streets,” Mr. Hill said in an email. “If you have nothing to hide, why be a jerk? Just cooperate.”

■ Heather M. Wells, 29, Ogdensburg, said she and her husband pass through checkpoints occasionally on Route 37 when they’re heading to the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation to purchase cigarettes.

“I think we’re close to a border so we should have checkpoints,” Mrs. Wells said. “If you don’t give them a reason to stop you, they won’t.”

■ In Watertown, Antonio F. Gigliotti said he does not consider road checkpoints set up by the Border Patrol to be cause for concern.

“They don’t bother me,” he said.

Mr. Gigliotti said he has traveled through checkpoints before without an issue. He said since he does not have anything to hide, he never feels worried when he passes through one.

■ Tonya Fulmore, Watertown, agreed. She said road checkpoints are necessary to keep our border secure.

“I think if they are protecting the border, they have every right to be there,” she said.

■ William R. Wagstaff Jr., Massena, said he believes border patrol agents at times abuse their power by asking to inspect vehicles without having reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

“This woman had every right to refuse to open her trunk,” Mr. Wagstaff said in an email. “I have refused several times to let them search me and put their K-9 in my vehicle.”

Mr. Wagstaff said he filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C., and received a letter of apology. He also filed a complaint with border patrol officials in Swanton, Vt.

“Now I don’t get harassed anymore,” he said.

Example of reactions continue and you can read them all at Watertown Daily Times.  It isn’t necessary for views to be mixed on anything about this report.  Every stop by the U.S. Border Patrol of a U.S. citizen, unless it is a so-called “Terry Stop” with evidence of a crime, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

If the Border Patrol wants to catch criminals, international terrorists or other trafficking perpetrators, they should do so at the border.  The fact that the border isn’t secure is a sorry testimony to the degree the politicians want it to be open and porous.  It is an obscene pointer to crony capitalism that the only thing the border patrol believes they can do is harass American citizens.

They have become powerless to stop the cross-border flood, and they are taking it out on American citizens.  It is as much Kabuki theater as TSA checks at air ports.  Nothing the U.S. government is doing is helping to keep American citizens safe.  Every program I can think of is designed to foist more control on the American people rather than ensure their freedom and safety.

The saddest part isn’t that all of this is true.  It is that people are still conflicted over these programs.  If we wanted to secure the borders, we could shoot the invading hordes on sight, close down most of the checkpoints on the border, search every vehicle, disallow aliens from driving U.S. transport trucks, implement e-verify, and tell the LEOs to have the courage to go where the gangs are and shut them down rather than bust in doors doing SWAT raids.  Things would change overnight.

None of that will happen because the politicians don’t want to secure the border.

Mike Vanderboegh recently relinquished support for Rand Paul because of Paul’s stance on immigration.  Rand Paul is basically an open borders advocate.  Mike also calls himself a Christian libertarian.

I wouldn’t propose to speak for Mike, and he wouldn’t want me to even if I could.  Mike can speak for himself.  But I also consider myself both an opponent of open borders and a Christian libertarian.  How then can I take the positions that I do and be consistent?

I have long opposed Rand Paul because of his stance on the border and immigration, and the only Senator I find to be clearheaded on this issue (thus far) is Ted Cruz (and to some extent Mike Lee (to some extent because I need to know more about him).  To the extent that Ted Cruz repudiates my ideas in the future, I will oppose him.  But his views on immigration are far stronger than Paul’s views.  It’s one reason why John McCain and Lindsey Graham hate him so much.

But before we deal with immigration, let’s deal with broader doctrines like libertarianism and what I do and don’t believe.  Let’s deal with the issue of legalization of drugs and one example.  While as a Christian I should say that I care about my readers concerning their spiritual and physical health, from a legal standpoint I don’t care one whit what you put into your body.  That’s from a theoretical standpoint.

Now for the practical side of things.  If you want to legalize drugs of all kinds, then be my guest, right after you turn around socialized medicine and forswear forever my fiduciary responsibility for support for any drug addict or funding of their medical care.  While my hard earned money is confiscated by the power of a badge and gun to support people who will not support themselves, then those people (the recipients of my money) should expect me to be involved in their lives.  My involvement will be as obnoxious and overbearing as I can possibly make it – right up until you no longer want my involvement, and then at that point I will assume you no longer want my money either.  I’m good on both accounts.  Leave me alone and I will leave you alone to do what you want.

This relates to immigration and migrant workers in the following way.  Migrant workers who “do jobs that no one else will do” are a cost to me and other ratepayers and taxpayers that the employer won’t pick up.  When these workers get sick they go to the emergency room, and my insurance premiums pick up the tab.  When these workers have automobile accidents without insurance, my premiums pick up the tab.  And when these workers refuse to pay taxes, I have to pay more.

You see, the existence of migrant workers is a subsidy to corporations, a form of corporate welfare that I pay.  I don’t want to pay welfare to corporations any more than I do to individuals who won’t work.  True libertarians don’t advocate for open borders and then ask me to pick up the tab for the workers.  That’s fake libertarianism, and it proves that the one who advocates it is a farce and hypocrite.   If you want to go libertarian, then go libertarian.  Don’t go half way.  Otherwise you’re just a liar.

There is a larger issue for the border.  I have advocated for Marines being deployed on the Southern border with arming orders and robust rules of engagement.  I see no contradiction here either, just as I advocated robust rules of engagement for Soldiers and Marines in combat in the various campaigns in which we find ourselves.  Leaving aside what one thinks about the campaigns, to deploy men in harm’s way for the purpose of nation building is immoral.  Iraq and Afghanistan were campaigns fought by the social planners (Afghanistan more so than Iraq).

But as long as there are thousands of transportation routes across the Southern border and as long as we are seen as one gigantic trans-American economy, there will be no border security regardless of what we do on the other parts of the border.  No party appears to want the close the borders.  Not the Democrats (it means votes to them), not the GOP (they are in bed with the corporate executives), and no even the so-called libertarians.

Marco Rubio, the erstwhile savior of the GOP, has weighed in on immigration.

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

“Let’s be clear,” Rubio said. “Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.”

And thus Rubio is advocating adding millions of new socialists to the voting rolls.  As I have explained before:

“For historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”

One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished.  South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology.  Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build.  This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.

Neocons like Krauthammer are liars.  The Mexican immigrant doesn’t naturally vote conservative.  He naturally votes collectivist.  So don’t expect me to advocate adding more collectivists to the voting rolls.  It runs contrary to my world view.

And it runs counter to Christian libertarianism.  That phrase accurately describes me, but not completely.  I am a consistent Christian libertarian.  That means that neither Ron Paul nor his son Rand Paul cannot trot out the rubric libertarian and expect me to fawn over them just because they want to return to the gold standard (and I do too), or do away with certain government programs and departments (I do too).  Flooding the country with more collectivists won’t do their own cause any good, but they’re too stolid to admit it.

As for Rubio, he is a progressive and collectivist, and his career is over except for the extent to which he allies himself with his natural friends, i.e., other collectivists.  As for me, I take my advocacy seriously.  Don’t expect giggles and grins from me because you simply say a few nice words.  I won’t whore my advocacy out to the lowest bidder.

So you lie to the people, rulers one and all.  Let the foreign nationals and socialists cross the border with impunity.  But as long as they transport their damn gangs across the border, I’ll keep my guns.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.  I leave for a few minutes and this is what I come back to?

Let’s recall that in A Terrorist Attack That America Cannot Absorb, I described in some detail an attack on the main step-up transformers of the fossil fuel power plants in the nation as being perhaps the most serious threat to the economy and infrastructure that this country faced.  I also linked two papers on Hezbollah fighters already being in America.  I described an attack in which fighters destroyed the transformers completely and thoroughly enough that they could not function.  For this article I relied on a colleague at work who knows far more than I do about the subject.

David Codrea discusses the Obama administration’s reaction to this same type of threat.

Rifles, even .22 caliber models many young people receive as their first gun, are “among the greatest threats to the reliability of the nation’s power system,” U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff claimed at a Tuesday Bloomberg Government Breakfast, Bloomberg News reported yesterday.

Citing “inadequately protected” transformers as easy targets, Wellinghoff told the group that terrorists in “coordinated” actions committed to destroying them “could get 200 yards away with a .22 rifle and take the whole thing out.”

A .22 rifle.  When I learned to shoot a .22 rifle, I did my target practicing in my back yard (we lived in the country) using our aluminum trash can lid as a target.  The .22 round would penetrate that lid, but not much more.  My dad would come home from work, inspect my targeting, and let me continue.

Has Wellinghoff ever shot a .22?  Rather than focusing on Hezbollah they are focusing on backyard shooting with a .22.  Rather than working to shore up the nation’s energy grid and its vulnerabilities, they have put their attention on 200 yard shots taking “the whole thing out!”  Nothing about Hezbollah, nothing about securing the border, nothing about additional security infrastructure around these components, but hand-wringing over .22 rifles.

This is unserious.  It isn’t adult-like analysis.  It’s juvenile and childish.  As soon as I turn my back, this is the kind of twaddle that the Obama administration comes out with.  See, this is why we can’t have nice things.  Everything gets broken.