Solution that should satisfy both sides…

It occurs to me that the solution to the flow of illegal immigrants north from Mexico, the flow of drugs from (and through) Mexico and the supposed flow of weapons south into Mexico could be solved with one common solution:

Close the goddammned border NOW….
I mean
RTF now.

No more issues with Mexico. The guns won’t flow south, making the liars Hillary Clinton and the Brady Bunch happy that the Mexicans can’t get any guns (yeah, right) and the rest of us will be happy because the flow of drugs will be greatly reduced as well as the flow of Undocumented Workers Criminal trespassers Illegal Immigrants.

Where is the downside???

Thoughts

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ” all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Scary in today’s context of nationalized banks and such, huh?

When her lips are moving……

What complete and utter bullshit.

Either she is stupid, misinformed, or she thinks that you and I are stupid. Bet money on the latter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7966427.stm

“Mrs Clinton said the use of military-style assault weapons was a particular concern, and she would discuss reimposing a ban on their sale.

A previous US decision to lift a ban on such sales had been a mistake, she told the NBC television network.

Earlier on her visit she admitted that America’s appetite for drugs was helping to fuel the violence.

Some 8,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico over the past two years.

‘Insatiable’

Mrs Clinton said assault weapons did not belong on anyone’s street.

She was referring to a ban on the sale of such powerful guns which was in effect in the United Sates between 1994 and 2004.

“During that time,” said Mrs Clinton, “police in America were able to drive down crime because they didn’t have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members.”

More BS at the link.

This story is repeated over and over and over by the lapdogs of the DNC Mainstream Media despite the fact that it is obviously untrue to anyone who bothers to examine the facts. I own several “AK-47 assault weapons” all of which are legal to own. None of them are full auto, like the cartels are using. I cannot go into a gun store or gun show and buy a fully automatic AK. Nor can I buy a grenade launcher or a light anti tank weapon.

And that is what they are using in Mexico. Not what we can buy here in the US. We cannot even come close to that without breaking a whole bunch of laws.

The rest of the BS about the effectiveness of the Scary Looking Guns // Evil Black Rifles Assault Weapons Ban is just that, BS. And they know it. But they think you are stupid enough to believe them

But they never care about the truth, do they? You can tell when she is lying…look at her lips…..

ETA: “But Agent Austin Banks with the ATF says it’s people, not guns, who cause tragedies. “It’s not the guns. It’s the guns in the hands of the people who are prohibited from owning them that cause problems in America.” According to the FBI’s crime stats, the total crime rate in the United States dropped 1% when the ban was in place.”

Read more here

Drug test

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090326/D975MFE80.html

So the states are considering drug tests for recipients of public aid. About damned time! The rest of us are (generally) subject to random drug tests. In fact, over 85% of the private workforce is subject to random drug testing. If the source of your income or housing is the federal or state government, why should you be treated any differently?

“It’s not fair” cries the ACLU. Fuck ’em. If they want the money taken out of the paychecks of the hard working people who have to be drug free, then they can at least meet that same standard. If not, well then, maybe they can use their drug money to eat and pay rent. I really don’t care.

I’d like to see anyone getting food stamps or any aid “for the kids” like WIC to have to be held to the same standard. Same for publicly subsidized housing. It;s nto too much to ask that they pee in a cup once in a while to keep their freebies.

I see also that there is a small outcry for those who are on unemployment to be tested, and those that say that it’s not fair to the unemployed either.

If ya got time to smoke dope or crack or whatever particular chemical you like, then you got time to find a job.

Or starve. It’s all the same to me.

An hour without power

so this might be interesting:

http://www.earthhourus.org/

It’s worldwide: http://www.ireport.com/ir-topic-stories.jspa?topicId=235057

An hour without power. It won’t be anything but a “feel good” gesture, but it might make people think a bit.

How many people will realize how dependent we are on electricity?? (much less take steps to remedy that)….

Most folks couldn’t go a day without power, of that I am sure.

I am not grid dependent. I am hooked up to the grid, but I don’t need it, at least not for a while.. But most folks are not as prepared as I am.

How about you?

ETA: Lawdog has a slightly different take on this.

Thoughts

“There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”

Professor Bernardo de la Paz;
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress – Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)