Updates from June, 2013 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • RuralRebel 7:54 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Ed Meece recalls I986 

    I Recall the 1986 Immigration Act Rather Differently
    By Edwin Meese III June 13, 2013
    Karl Rove’s recollection of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (“Immigration Reform and the Hispanic Vote,” op-ed, June 6) is, shall we say, highly selective. That law, he writes, “essentially told those here illegally that if they had arrived in the U.S. prior to 1982 and wanted to become citizens, simply raise your right hand.” He asserts that the Gang of Eight bill is different because it “has plenty of penalties and hurdles for those here illegally who seek citizenship.”
    Well, I was there in ’86. I read that bill carefully. (We did that back then.) And I can tell you that Mr. Rove’s blithe description of the bill is way off the mark.
    The 1986 act didn’t turn illegal immigrants into citizens on the spot. It granted temporary resident status only to those who could prove they had resided continuously in America for five years. After 18 months, their status could be upgraded to permanent residency, and only after another five years could they become U.S. citizens.
    But advancement to citizenship was not automatic. Immigrants had to satisfy various requirements along the way. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.
    Sound familiar? It’s pretty much the same “penalties and hurdles” set forth by the Gang of Eight. Today they call it a “roadmap to citizenship.” Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.”
    The ’86 reform bill also had supposedly “rigorous” border security and immigration law enforcement provisions. So how did that pan out? On the day Reagan signed “comprehensive” reform into law, only one thing changed: Millions of unlawful immigrants gained “legal” status. The promised crackdowns on security and enforcement never happened. Only amnesty prevailed.
    Since the ’86 amnesty, the number of illegal immigrants has quadrupled. That should teach Congress a very important lesson: Amnesty “bends” the rule of law. And bending the rule of law to reach a “comprehensive” deal winds up provoking wholesale breaking of the law. Ultimately, it encourages millions more to risk entering the country illegally in the hope that one day they, too, might receive amnesty.
    On legislation as important as this, lawmakers must take the time to read the bill, not rely on others’ characterizations of what it says. We can’t afford to have Congress “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”
    -Edwin Meese III is a Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus.

  • RuralRebel 7:32 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Posted on Twitter…. 



    This is amazing!!! Who can afford to go to dr.?

  • RuralRebel 7:02 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Christian bashing   

    Did you hear him call schools in Middle East divisive? Of course NOT! 

    Obama offends Catholics in the UK, says religious schools are divisive

    June 19, 2013 

    The Catholic media is up in arms over comments President Obama made during a speech while in Northern Ireland for the G8 summit. Obama made what is described as “an alarming call for an end to Catholic education,” in spite of the fact that it is considered “a critical component of the Church.”

    In front of an audience of about 2,000 young people, including many Catholics, Obama claimed that Catholic education divides people and blocks peace, according to the Scottish Catholic Observer.

    “If towns remain divided—if Catholics have their schools and buildings and Protestants have theirs, if we can’t see ourselves in one another and fear or resentment are allowed to harden—that too encourages division and discourages cooperation,” Obama said.

    Catholic World News noted:

    Ironically, President Obama made his comments just as Archbishop Gerhard Müller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told a crowd in Scotland that religious education upholds the dignity of the human person. Archbishop Müller said that Catholic schools should promote “all that is good in the philosophies of societies and human culture.”

    Fr. John Zuhlsdorf quoted the Observer’s article on Fr. Z’s blog and added:

    Another example of what this man wants: total isolation of any religious values in the private sphere alone. Pres. Obama is working either to intimidate or legislate or even TAX religious freedom out of the public square.

    Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a foreign visit to a Islamic nation where he told people on his arrival that they shouldn’t have madrasas.  Can you?

    Did he when visiting, say, Israel, say “You Jews shouldn’t have synagogue schools and you muslims shouldn’t have mosque schools.”  I can’t remember.  Did he?

    Each of the articles drew numerous public comments, most suggesting that Obama be more concerned about the public schools in the United States than their parochial schools, which are working just fine.


  • RuralRebel 4:21 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: SOMALIA   

    We are training them well!!!! 

    imageThis is all a part of Obombers “Smarter” war……..

    Jun 19, 10:57 AM EDT


    MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — Seven al-Qaida-linked gunmen detonated a pick-up truck rigged with explosives at the gate of the U.N. compound in Somalia’s capital Wednesday, launching a bombs-and-gunfire assault that saw militants pour into the complex, killing at least nine people, including three foreigners, officials said.

    The seven al-Shabab militants were from what the militia called its martyrdom, or suicide, brigade. They all died in the assault, an official said, bringing the overall death toll to at least 16.

    The attack comes only six months after the United Nations expanded its presence in Mogadishu, where it had kept only a small operation because Islamic insurgents had controlled much of the capital until being pushed out in an offensive in 2011.

    Al-Shabab said on its Twitter feed shortly after the 11:30 a.m. attack began that its fighters “are now in control of the entire compound and the battle is still ongoing.”

    African Union and Somali security forces responded and took control of the compound by 12:30 p.m. The U.N. staff who sought refuge in the compound’s secure bunker then were evacuated to the secure military base and airport complex across the street, said Ben Parker, a spokesman for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia.

    Two South Africans from the company Denel Mechem who were doing demining work for the U.N. died in the attack, said Vuyelwa Qinga, a spokeswoman for Denel, a manufacturer of defense equipment.

    A U.N. official who insisted on anonymity because he was not an official spokesman said he believed two U.N. personnel from Kenya and Somalia were also killed.

    “There was not very much time to get into the safe area,” said Parker.

    The top U.N. official on Somalia, Nicholas Kay, also works out of the building but was not inside the compound when it was attacked. Kay said he was shocked and horrified by the attack.

    “The United Nations Common Compound houses U.N. personnel working on humanitarian and development issues for the Somali people. This was an act of blatant terrorism and a desperate attempt to knock Somalia off its path of recovery and peace building,” said Kay.

    A U.N. statement said it was verifying its casualty numbers. “There are certainly some injured and most likely worse,” it said.

    Speaking to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday, Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson called the attack outrageous and said the U.N. remains committed to achieving peace and keeping Somalia on its path to recovery.

    At 11:30 a.m. the compound was rocked by the car bomb blast that blew down the compound’s front gate. At least two other blasts followed, Parker said.

    Dozens of staff from U.N. humanitarian and development agencies were in the compound and many were moved to the secure bunker, he said.

    Mohamed Ali, an ambulance driver, said he transported five dead civilian bodies and 10 people who were wounded.

    An Associated Press reporter who went inside the U.N. compound after the battle saw two dead bodies of what appeared to be al-Shabab attackers wearing Somali military uniforms. An official said seven attackers died in total.

    The compound’s interior walls were scarred with bullet marks.

    Somali Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon said he is appalled that “our friends and partners” at the U.N. who are carrying out humanitarian activities would be the victims “of such barbaric violence.” An African Union official, Mahamet Saleh Annadif, condemned the “cowardly” attack and sent condolences “to those who had lost loved ones.”

    The U.N. has had only a small presence in Mogadishu in recent years. In December, though, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon touched down in Mogadishu wearing a bullet proof jacket to announce a return of the U.N.’s political office to the seaside capital.

    The attacked compound just across the street from the secure airport complex, where U.N.-backed African Union military forces are based. The U.N. compound is used by agencies like UNICEF, WHO and UNDP.

    Mogadishu fell into anarchy in 1991 and is just beginning to move past years of sustained conflict. The U.N. and foreign embassies were absent from Mogadishu for close to two decades.

    African Union forces pushed al-Shabab out of Mogadishu in August 2011, meaning residents didn’t have to live through daily battles for the first time in years. An international presence slowly began to return and the U.N. began the process of moving its personnel from the nearby capital of Nairobi, Kenya, back to Mogadishu, a process that has accelerated in recent weeks.

    International embassies – from Turkey and Britain, for example – followed. Wednesday’s attack underscores the fragile security situation and will force the U.N. and embassies to review their safety plans and decide if they have enough defenses to withstand a sustained al-Shabab assault.

    Fadumo Hussein, a shopkeeper who was sitting inside her shop near the scene of the attack, described a narrow escape.

    “It started with an earsplitting explosion, followed by heavy gunfire,” she said, showing holes made by bullets on her shop. “I crouched and then crawled like an animal. I am very lucky. It was a shocking moment.”

    Straziuso reported from Nairobi, Kenya. Edith M. Lederer contributed from the United Nations.

  • RuralRebel 4:12 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Wait til this catches on here! 

    imageCan we get anymore metrosexualimage


  • RuralRebel 3:00 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Todays look around 





    We need a break once in a while


  • RuralRebel 12:46 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    After an Easy Hearing,…..beer? 

    After an Easy Hearing, the NSA and FBI are Ready for a Drink
    If you were wondering how the NSA and FBI felt about the very friendly hearing the House Intelligence Committee invited them to today, a hot mic has your answer. “Tell your boss,” NSA Director Keith Alexander told the FBI deputy director, “I owe him another friggin’ beer.”

    Ben Doernberg caught the exchange, which we’ve clipped below. Alexander, being photographed at bottom center, is speaking with FBI deputy director Sean Joyce, to his left.

    Throughout the hearing the two worked together, with Alexander frequently setting up topics upon which Joyce expounded. When Alexander said that the government’s surveillance tools had stopped over 50 terror attacks, Joyce described four of them. And so on. Over the course of three hours, the two faced little in the way of critique.

    Nonetheless, they were ready for a brew. Their more informal exchange came after Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan banged the gavel.

    Alexander: Thank you, Sean.
    Joyce: Good to see you.

    Alexander: Tell your boss … tell your boss I owe him another friggin’ beer.

    Joyce: Him?

    Alexander: Yeah.

    Joyce: Tell him to give it to me. 

    Alexander: (laughs) You want him to give it to you?

    Joyce: Alright?

    After today’s performance, we’re pretty sure that either Rogers — or Obama — would be happy to buy a round for all three.

  • RuralRebel 12:23 pm on June 19, 2013 Permalink | Reply  

    Thomas Sowell hits it again… 


    Of course the low infos will not get this…..

    Gov’t surveillance & the loss of trust
    Last Updated: 12:45 AM, June 19, 2013
    Amid all the heated cross-currents of debate about the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance program, there is a growing distrust of the Obama administration that makes weighing the costs and benefits of the NSA program itself hard to assess.
    The belated recognition of this administration’s contempt for the truth, for the American people and for the Constitution of the United States, has been long overdue.
    But what if the NSA program has in fact thwarted terrorists and saved many American lives in ways that cannot be revealed publicly?
    Nothing is easier than saying that you still don’t want your telephone records collected by the government. But the first time you have to collect the remains of your loved ones, after they have been killed by terrorists, telephone records can suddenly seem like a small price to pay to prevent such things.
    The millions of records of phone calls collected every day virtually guarantee that nobody has the time to listen to them all, even if NSA could get a judge to authorize listening to what is said in all these calls, instead of just keeping a record of who called whom.
    Moreover, Congressional oversight by members of both political parties limits what President Obama or any other president can get away with.
    Are these safeguards foolproof? No. Nothing is ever foolproof.
    As Edmund Burke said more than two centuries ago: “Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.”
    In other words, we do not have a choice whether to trust or not to trust government officials. Unless we are willing to risk anarchy or terrorism, the most we can do is set up checks and balances within government — and be a lot more careful in the future than we have been in the past when deciding whom to elect.
    Anyone old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when President John Kennedy took this country to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, may remember that there was nothing like the distrust and backlash against later presidents, whose controversial decisions risked nothing approaching the cataclysm that President Kennedy’s decision could have led to.
    Even those of us who were not Kennedy supporters, and who were not dazzled by the glitter and glamour of the Kennedy aura, nevertheless felt that the president of the United States was someone who knew much more than we did about the realities on which all our lives depended.
    Whatever happened to that feeling? Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon happened — and both were shameless liars. They destroyed not only their own credibility, but the credibility of the office.
    Even when Lyndon Johnson told us the truth at a crucial juncture during the Vietnam war — that the Communist offensive of 1968 was a defeat for them, even as the media depicted it as a defeat for us — we didn’t believe him.
    In later years, Communist leaders themselves admitted that they had been devastated on the battlefield. But, by then it was too late. What the Communists lost militarily on the ground in Vietnam they won politically in the American media and in American public opinion.
    More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives winning battles on the ground in Vietnam, only to have the war lost politically back home. We seem to be having a similar scenario unfolding today in Iraq, where soldiers won the war, only to have politicians lose the peace, as Iraq now increasingly aligns itself with Iran.
    When Barack Obama squanders his own credibility with his glib lies, he is not just injuring himself during his time in office. He is inflicting a lasting wound on the country as a whole.
    But we the voters are not blameless. Having chosen an untested man to be president, on the basis of rhetoric, style and symbolism, we have ourselves to blame if we now have only a choice between two potentially tragic fates — the loss of American lives to terrorism or a further dismantling of our freedoms that has already led many people to ask: “Is this still America?”

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc