Saturday shorts

| June 15, 2024 | 24 Comments


We thought we were making  bit of progress on the border…Biden only wants to admit 2500 a day before he shuts the border down (but notice his folks keep count and it has to average that for a week before kicking in) and we actually caught the only 8 baddies who have crossed the border out of the previous 40 million illegals. Yeah… well, the joys of effectively having no border. Now, Fox reports obtaining a Border Patrol memorandum, from the San Diego sector, one of our busiest:

Details in the memo, first reported by the Washington Examiner’s Anna Giaritelli, instructs agents that all single adults from the Eastern Hemisphere are to be processed via “NTA/OR,” which means Notice to Appear/released on Own Recognizance, except for migrants from Russia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan – which are “mandatory referral” countries.

There are more than 100 countries in the Eastern Hemisphere, meaning that despite the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and President Biden’s threats of consequences and promises to remove migrants who cross illegally under the new executive order, the overwhelming majority of the migrants in the San Diego sector are being released into the U.S.  Fox News

Quick translation from bureaucratese: unless already forbidden by law, turn ’em ALL loose.

In a related story, CBS host Margaret Brennan seemed puzzled by a recent poll showing 67% of Americans wanted illegals deported. Right now.

“Homeland Security says that President Biden has already deported or repatriated more people in the past year than any year since 2010. And then, depending on the details of what’s talked about on the campaign trail, some of what Mr. Trump talks about could be illegal,” Brennan said.

She continued, “It doesn’t seem practical, in some sense, to round up children. And then we know that the courts have questioned whether local authorities would have the ability to do it, and federal authorities don’t have the resources. So what exactly do people think they’re supporting?”

A CBS News/YouGov poll found that 62% of registered voters said they would support a government program that would deport all migrants living in the U.S. illegally. The poll, conducted between June 5-7, also found that a majority of registered voters supported Biden’s latest executive action at the southern border.  Fox News II

Well, I’m just gonna take a wild stab at it here – maybe suggesting that all illegals take a powder? Hit the bricks? Make tracks? Get the hell gone? Or get thrown out, as apprehended, as the songs say “Just as You Are”, On the Road Again”?

Wonder if any of the above resonates with voters. Here’s what a poll from FiveThirthyEight says per Business Insider:

On Monday, Biden notched the unpleasant distinction of recording his lowest-ever mark in FiveThirtyEight’s weighted tracker, which found he had a 37.4% approval rating.  Business Insider

In the same poll Trump got a 41.6% approval rating, about 1.25% per felony charge.

In most elections, I find I rarely vote FOR someone. Usually I hold my nose and vote for the least worst alternative. I see no reason to assume this year will be any different (and suspect unless you are hyper-partisan, that you are probably planning on doing the same.) Know what I want for my next birthday? Two new candidates. Three if you count Kamala.

Category: 2024 Election, Biden, Border

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Major Tuddy

If the two parties had any brains, the election would be Ron DeSantis vs. Kamala Harris.


Watch, Democrats will replace Biden with Hillary.


‘Fraid so…

Prior Service (Ret)

Democrats with brains would not nominate Kamala. Of course, if they had brains, I guess they wouldn’t be Dems.


I would like to see this brought up for a vote. Those that vote no have something to hide, either by using the fund, or somebody has dirt on them.

Either way, it’s a win for all as they would then have to explain their vote.


The primary function of the federal grubermint is “…to provide for the common defense…” They have failed miserably and We, The People are paying for it. I agree, the only thing the illegals are entitled to is deportation.

No one is coming to save us. Not even Trump on the off chance that we even have an (s)election in November. It will be up to you and you alone to defend yourself and your’s from the coming storm. If you haven’t already done so then you need to…



Indeed. The big disturbance (or “The Event”) they’ll create for Democrats to confiscate guns, impose “social justice”/Great Reset, etc. will be more than left/libtards expect. Stock up on guns/ammo they hate; they won’t and bad people like soft targets that can’t shoot back.
comment image

Last edited 27 days ago by Anonymous

UK media (not ours) maps the gangs, narco-criminals and terrorists over-running our country with Democrats’ open borders:

Last edited 27 days ago by Anonymous

10% to the “big guy”.


What I want in a President:
deport illegal’s. eliminate birth right citizenship
don’t raise taxes
no gun law legislation
stop giving money to foreign countries.
let the market decide electric vehicle use
nuclear energy to power homes
stop dei
transform schools to include firearms training and archery.
Advocate for term limits to all government jobs. Both elected and hired.
Agencies must have all rules and regulations approved by congress.
Religious prayers allowed in schools and accommodations for those who don’t believe to go have a smoke or whatever.
punish people for crimes. Jail pending trial or a high bail appropriate for the crime.
we are a republic, I want someone to keep it that way. Balance the budget annually.
These are just my basic thoughts. It’s a starting point.

Major Tuddy

Although I agree about the Second Amendment, we must remember that one of its clauses is “a well-regulated militia”. Now, I may be wrong, and will be happy to stand corrected, but I understand this to mean “mature adults trained in the use of arms”.

I say regulate firearms as we do cars – mandatory insurance, training, inspection, and registration. Responsible firearms owners should have no problems with this. With rights come responsibilities; if one cannot handle the responsibilities, then the associated right does not apply.


Cars are not a Right. The 2nd amendment is. You’re not comparing the same. That thinking has no standing.


think of this:
You say regulate free speech as we do cars-mandatory insurance, training, inspection, and registration, responsible free speech owners should have no problems with this with right. Come rights come responsibilities if one cannot handle responsibilities then the associated right does not apply.
or how about being free from searches and seizure.

Remember our rights under the constitution. Does not require insurance or training to have or keep.


Try to tell that to the district of criminals. While guns are no longer banned, they had the craziest laws I’ve ever seen.


No. You have no right to own or drive a car, it is a privilege. All those mandatory things you list for cars are strictly revenue producing, in other , a tax. And thou shalt not tax a constitutional right. I don’t need to prove a need to exercise a constitutional right. Yes, you are correct about rights and responsibilities. Your last line scares me. Would you apply that line of thinking to the first amendment? The right to vote? To peacefully assemble? The right to a fair trial?


How many people carry mandatory insurance, do the required inspections or have current registration. Not everybody out there gives a shit about any of that. You’re assuming all car drivers, like all gun owners, are above board and on the up and up.

Even with regulations, not all will listen, let alone care.


If the government gets a complete list of all gun owners, that is step one to confiscation.


Get on the train, step to the rear and make room for more people. Summer time? Send the trains to the southwest. Winter, the trains go north.

With the current head of Transportation, they would not even bother to come look for where they were “misplaced”, or make any attempt to correct(see Palistene Ohio, Yellowstone river, etc..).


“Well regulated militia” is not an operative clause. If it were, then there would be no individual right It would instead be a state right (collectivist). State rights however are not covered until the 10th Amendment. The point of the Bill of Rights was to insure individual rights, not rights to the states.

There’s also a significant difference between “necessary to the security of a free state” and “necessary to the security of a state being free”.

If you were trying to ensure that the state was free then a collectivist right does make sense in the second context. But that isn’t what it says. It says “necessary to the security of a free state”.

Then comes the focus on the word “security”. Some claim they’re talking about police, which mostly did not exist at that point, or the military, which also mostly did not exist at that point. But the preamble to the Constitution makes it clear that they are trying to “secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity”. Security, as we see it today, was not really thought of as a government function back then.


You do come up with good suggestions. I agree that people should get training, they should get insurance to cover them if they get in a shooting. They should buy high quality equipment and gear and inspect and maintain everything well. If they want to carry a gun they should at least semi-annually go to the range and practice, monthly would be better. They should take a gun safety course and make sure that their firearms are secured when not in use.

These are all smart things to do and in the case of most people, reasonable. However; if you don’t have or do any of those things you are still guaranteed constitutionally to the right to own a gun. Otherwise there are governments, district of Columbia I’m looking at you, that use these tools and techniques to block gun ownership and violate people’s constitutional rights. Not for the purpose of crime prevention as is often stated. Lord knows the city of Chicago gives two s**** about crime prevention, but they use this to control the citizenry. Most often this happens because the actors in the state are corrupt and fear the citizenry because of this.


Perhaps, you need to read the three Supreme Court decisions that hold it is an individual right neither the states nor the federal government have power to unreasonably infringe, as it is a fundamental right.


I approve this message.


I don’t know how I missed the fact that the FJB administration is racist against Asian people. He is targeting everybody from an Asian country to to prevent them from entering the country illegally. Everybody else who breaks the law gets a pass.

This is clearly fascist in nature. Because the news media has not reported on it they are also Nazis.


Including Chinese. Oh wait, they prepaid.