« | »

Dems Attack National Guard Plan, Say Border Is Secure

From The Hill:

Dems push back against deploying National Guard to border

By Mike Lillis | July 22, 2014

House Democrats are lining up in staunch opposition to the Republicans’ push to send the National Guard to the southern border… "The last thing we want to do is to put armed troops on the border," Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) told MSNBC Tuesday. "That is not the purpose of our military."

Really? We thought that was the primary purpose of the military. Apparently, our copy of the Constitution is outdated. (By the way, lest we forget, Ms. Sanchez is only in Congress because of ballot stuffing by La Raza.)

"It is a costly misuse of our highly skilled National Guard to demand its service as a mere referral agent for children seeking refuge from abuse," Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said in a statement. "Doing its job effectively, our Border Patrol does not need interference from either Governor Perry or vigilantes."

Earth to Mr. Doggett: The Border Patrol is not doing its job effectively. That is the problem.

Democrats… contend the border is more secure than Perry and his congressional supporters are claiming. The Democrats say the resources would be better spent on increasing the number of immigration judges, lawyers, healthcare workers and other personnel who could expedite the processing of the new arrivals.

Which will only encourage even more illegal aliens to come to the US. Which, of course, is what the Democrats want.

"It is not so much a security problem as it is people showing up and saying, ‘I’m here. Take  me in. Arrest me or take me into detention,’" Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md), the Democratic whip, said Tuesday. "That’s not a security problem. That’s a problem [of], ‘OK, what do we do?’

"We are not going to ignore people who are … knocking on the door and saying, ‘I’m hungry.’" …

Really? So anyone who claims to be hungry will now be admitted to the US? Is Mr. Hoyer as insane as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. (That is a rhetorical question.)

Sanchez also rejected the notion that the border is insecure. "We have increased our border patrol. … We’re apprehending people. They’re not getting through," Sanchez said.

Are we to believe Ms. Sanchez or our lying eyes? How can anyone reason with people like this? The only explanation is they hate this country with every fiber of their being. And they want to see it overrun.

But speaking of insanity, we also have this via Townhall:

Chief POLITICO Columnist: Perry Sending National Guard Troops to Border So They Can Shoot Small Children

By Katie Pavlich | July 22, 2014

POLITICO Chief Political Columnist Roger Simon is accusing Texas Governor Rick Perry of sending National Guard troops to the border so they can "shoot small children."

Roger Simon [tweeted]: "Rick Perry sending 1,000 National Guard troops to border to shoot small children. Could make good headlines — in Russia." …

Similarly, once upon a time Mr. Simon might have been an good columnist — for Pravda.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Dems Attack National Guard Plan, Say Border Is Secure”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “That is not the purpose of our military.”

    Sadly, she may actually be right.

    Not in any legal sense or constitutional sense, but in a new-think, post-America think way.

    I am often inundated with commercials on TV these days featuring the SC National Guard…but it’s not the ones from even four years ago; It’s young people talking about being in the guard and waxing how rewarding it was to save fluffy from a flooded home or help put out wildfires (Yeah, we get a lot of those in the South, but they were showing those tall redwoods in the west).

    In other words, the new message is to portray the National Guard as an auxiliary to the fire and police department. All my friends in the Guard here think it’s ridiculous.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      We get the exact same ads here in NC.

      From the LawandLiberty.org:

      “The Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind for the new Republic they had created for a standing national army, but insisted that it be kept small, and although it might be the first force to be called out, and the only force to be sent abroad, the primary defense of the country was to be the duty of ordinary citizens, who would be kept in a state of military readiness while leading their normal lives, and who would be called up to “repel invasions, suppress insurrections, or execute the laws”, for limited periods of time.”

  2. GetBackJack says:

    Sweet Babbling Methuselah, somebody take Sanchez out to the desert and see how she likes MS-13

  3. Enthalpy says:

    Viligant National Guard members would most certainly be a positive move for all who value sovereignty.The fools who are critical of deployment of our National Guard are lying; they want open borders, they want America as we know it to fail, and they favor “reconquista” just as the Spanish did as they sought to overthrow the Muslims after the Islamic conquest ( how appropriate).

    Doggett can always be counted on for insightful analysis-not. At the moment, the Border Patrol is busy changing diapers and tending to sick children. They have no time to contend with MS-13 gang members and all of the other non Hispanic aliens who are invading our country.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »