Napolitano to aid Afghan Border Security?

Sometimes, like Alice, I am tempted to mutter, "we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto."  Reading an article on Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano's visit to Afghanistan, I actually did say that out loud.  But at least I was not overheard.

Ms. Napolitano arrived in Kabul this morning and ostensibly will meet with senior U.S. and Afghan officials to discuss security progress.  At first I was impressed that Ms. Napolitano was going to people who had experience in security measures, both in country and on the borders, and could give her guidance on how to handle our own difficulties in both travel and how to protect our borders.  Alas, I was to learn that I was in error...and that I had left Kansas (Well, actually I didn't start in Kansas, but I hope you will allow me the metaphor.).

Allow me to quote what came next in this morning's news article...ready?

"Napolitano also is accompanied by six DHS customs and border security agents who will join already personnel in Afghanistan to provide civilian security assistance to local officials. These officers work with the Afghan government to try to secure the country’s borders from militants, as well as from weapons and drug smugglers."(emphasis added)


The person who cannot bring herself to assign more personnel to our Borders to stop smugglers, gun runners and illegal aliens from coming unchecked into the United States is going to provide training to the Afghans on how to accomplish that?  What is this, a parallel universe?  I have never read anything so preposterous in my life.  This is akin to having an illiterate teach another how to read.

Not only that, but when we need additional agents on our own border, why is she sending 6 of ours to another country?  Can we take care of our own border first, thank you?  This is so wrong words cannot begin to do it justice.

I will give the Secretary points for accuracy...at least she used the word "try" rather than promise an absolute result...but that is probably just a political habit thing to leave the door open for escape in the event of failure.

What are the odds....

The UAE said Sunday it will block key features on BlackBerry smart phones, citing national security concerns because the devices operate beyond the government's ability to monitor their use. Officials in neighboring Saudi Arabia indicated it planned to follow suit. That was the obvious story...but there is a bit more to be concerned about. Remember Iran? Growing unhappiness with the Shaw finally led to his overthrow and establishment of an anti-American regime.

Would any of us like to bet on what this administration's reaction would be if either or both Saudi Arabia and the UAE governments fell to Islamic Extremists? Think it can't happen? Want to bet your oil prices on that?

For the sake of arguments, consider what the Office Temp and the Sycophants (sorry, the President and Congress) would do if such an event took place. What would Reagan do? Probably tell them if the oil stops, so will their hearts.

What would this administration do? My bet is that, after a bit of hand-wringing and speeches at the United Nations, Obama would point out the good news that we now have an obvious need to develop new power sources and that the cost of doing that is much below the sudden pricing of gasoline at $13 a gallon. That's my bet...and I will even give odds...(slow down, cowpokes. I haven't set them yet. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid)

Fallacy of "Immigration Reform"

I am mystified by the acceptance of the term "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" as a label by anyone (other than those in favor of amnesty for those in our country illegally) as a description of the discussion of the failure to secure our borders along with the questions posed by so many people in America illegally.

They are totally different questions and history has proven that they must be discussed and a workable solution found separately.

President Reagan got a so-called comprehensive reform package passed, but Congress reneged on the requirement to secure the borders. Those of us who remember this governmental failure and dereliction of a Constitutional duty will rebel if Congress were ever to try to con us again.

I do not know what constitutes appropriate action on the part of the federal government, but I suspect that most people feel that current law required the Federal Government to control our borders. The are not doing that. Seems to me some smart person who was also a lawyer (or knew of a smart lawyer) might bring a writ of mandamus to require the Federal Government to do its sworn job.

Same thing holds for those in the country illegally. Perhaps a writ to require that Federal Officials track down those in the country illegally and deport them and to track down those in the country who hire them and fine and jail them might be in order? I dare say that if all employers who hire those who are not here legally were fined and jailed, those who could no longer find jobs and were here illegally would leave or take whatever action our law required to become legal. So...exactly what is meant by "reform"?

And...what is with this "if your born here, you are a citizen" stuff. No other country in the world, as far as I know, allows this. Sort of akin to "if you break into the bank and give birth to a child while there, you will be arrested, but the kid can take whatever he or she likes...and later can get you out of jail." Seems just a tad illogical, doesn't it?