Mexican Constitution, Chapter 3, Article 33:

"The Executive of the Union (The President) has the exclusive right to expel from the national territory, immediately and without necessity of judicial proceedings, all foreigners whose stay it judges inconvenient. Foreigners may not, in any manner, involve themselves in the political affairs of the country."

Now match this legality to the words of Vincente Fox:
)President Vicente Fox) was quoted on Dec. 14,2005, as saying the United States’ attempt to secure our southern border by building a wall was “shameful and disgraceful.” Fox also said the U.S. action was an “increasing violation of human rights.”

Media reports on Dec. 21 quote Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez as saying, " Mexico is not going to bear, it is not going to permit, and it will not allow a stupid thing like this wall.”

Hyprocracy isn't a stranger in the course of politics anywhere, but at least most U.S. polititians at least try to hide it (Kennedy exempted), and are often discarded at the next election when they are found out engaging in it...

The strangest thing to me is that groups such as La Raza are blatent in their goal of "taking back" a large portion of the American south-west and creating a new country known as "Atzalan", yet they bleat about their "rights" whenever they are confronted on anything. And that fact isn't stressed in any of the major media...after all, if you try to point out the hyprocracy of hiding behind "rights" while attempting to overthrow the basis of those rights, you'll be labled a racist, and that just isn't the thing to do in todays PC culture.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 11:50 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

Having just read a fisking by the undisputed master of the genre, I feel compelled to try my own feeble skills at it too, albeit on an easy target.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an outspoken gun control advocate, said Friday there is "nothing wrong with people having guns" for recreational shooting, and even recalled his days as a Boy Scout marksman.

Be careful there your Honor..."seeing nothing wrong with guns" won't sit well with your fellow travelers on your side of the gun control issue, and I guess they didn't inform you that the Boy Scouts are a totally "Politically Incorrect" group these days; admiotting you were once a member in good standing might just hurt you with the "Progressive/(un)Reality Based" set.

Bloomberg is convening a summit of big city mayors next week to discuss what he calls the "scourge" of illegal guns.

Yes...."ILLEGAL GUNS" ARE a scourge. But Your side of the gun control debate just can't seem to apprehend the simple fact that guns are "illegal" when used by CRIMINALS, and CRIMINALS ARE CRIMINALS because they don't obey laws. You can try to make the guns the focus all you wish to, but unless and until you hold the CRIMNALS to account, with enforcement of laws ALREADY on the books, that "scourge" will continue unabated.

On his weekly radio show, the Republican explained that he still supports the Second Amendment and said he has no problem with hunting and target practice.

Thank you SO much for allowing us to assert our 2nd Amendment RIGHT...Your smugness can't be any more evident than in that statement.

"You want to go hunting and have a gun _ you know, I'm not opposed to that," he said.

Smugness reiterated? How gauche!

The 64-year-old mayor, who grew up in Medford, Mass., and occasionally refers to fond memories of Boy Scout camp, said he participated in riflery there and also owned a .22 caliber rifle for target practice on a shooting range.

WHAT!?! A young "skull full of mush" was allowed acces to a firearm?!?! Those camps you attended must have been straight out mayhem as depicted in some horror movies; after all, isn't it the contention of the gun control lobby that if citizens were allowed free access to fire arms that there would inevitably be a "Wild West" scenerio with "blood running in the streets"? What, you say that that DIDN'T happen, and you all had fun? HOW can this be?!?!

"I see nothing wrong with people having guns, but that doesn't mean you can have a gun every place, and concealed weapons _ or even weapons out in the open in big cities on city streets _ does not make a lot of sense to me," he said.

Hmmm...nope, I just checked, your honor, and there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says, "you may bear arms, EXCEPT when you are _______"
I see why it "doesn't make sense" to you, since from your standpoint, guns that are used for self-protection are, ipso facto, "illegal". Ever stop to consider that "illegal" guns are the biggest problem in those areas where the average citizen isn't allowed to own/carry a weapon?

Next week's gun summit will bring together about a dozen mayors, including those from Boston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Seattle and Washington, D.C., to trade information and form a loose coalition for lobbying on Capitol Hill.

The other cities I understand, but Dallas?!? Hopefully those representatives from that fair city are attending just to let the other cities know just how full of crap they are in attempting to limit legal ownership/carrying of weapons they are. All the residents of my aquaintence from that fair city are definately on the opposit side of the issue from Mayor Bloomburg. Maybe he meant Austin?

"We want to talk about best practices, and how the mayors of all the big cities can get together and pressure Congress to do something about it, because it's a national issue," Bloomberg said.

Let's see "pressure Congress to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights".....Yep! JUST what I want MY local officials to do! Your correct in that this IS a National issue, Mayor. Just keep your nose out of it, YOU were hired to provide for YOUR city, not other cities.

My suggestion for "best practices"?

1) Provide supervised firing ranges for your citizens so that they may become proficient with their firearms. Training IS important.

2) ENFORCE those laws on the books pertaining to the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.

3) Let the average citizen know that HE/SHE is responsible for his/her own protection against crime in the final analysis. "911" police response is a great concept, but the Police CAN'T, and NEVER HAVE been able to protect you at the time that a crime is being commited against your person, all they can do is deal with the aftermath.

4) Again, enforce laws against criminal acts involving weapons with severity and surety. NO plea bargains in gun charges.

We are all responsible for ourselves; no matter how much we may think we live in a society where that is not true, to deny that fact is to deny reality, let us have the tools to accomplish that goal of self protection.

more...

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 06:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 6 kb.

DAMMIT! Seems that the Republicans aren't just SPENDING like Democrats, but now they want to legislate like them too.

I can agree with the intent, but as it's proposed; it's just the first step on that old "slippery slope".

I think the same intent can be much more easily accomplished by just requiring that all porno sites use a new type of URL address....insted of ".com", require that they use something like ". por". That would make the use of protective filters against porn all that more efficient. Those that want to view porn would have unrestricted access, but Parents could ensure that their "little skulls full of mush" couldn't easily come across it.

Posted by: Delftsman3 at 04:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.