Biden’s Invasion Of America

Welcome to Biden’s invasion of America through our southern border.

First of all, why does it matter what you call it? I don’t think it does. Everyone knows what it is. We say it is a crisis on the border but to the Left it is a plan, made to order. Why does their refusal to call it a crisis matter? The fact that they will not only reinforces it is a plan.

Terms don’t matter. That is just a debate of semantics. Why do we need them to call it a crisis anyway? We know what it is, a synchronized invasion.

Isn’t it amazing how the people who can go on world apology tours for the faults of America, can choreograph and facilitate a planned invasion of our country against the will of the people? It sort of shows what they think of America. If they don’t appreciate it and respect our borders, then why in the hell should foreigners from other countries?

Whatever Joe Biden or his propagandists say, take seriously the word of those coming. They say they were invited by Biden and told to come. So even when it became a crisis, his Homeland Misinformation minister said “you can still come, just don’t come right now.”

But what good does even that backhanded invitation do when Biden and company already told them over months to come? He telegraphed he would be doing something in his first 100 days. When Joe enticed them with his rhetoric and then put out the welcome mat, what did he expect would happen? That’s why it is a crisis only to us, but a plan to them.

Why does that matter? It is not an accident; these are not unforeseen circumstances. Technically, it is planned open borders policy unfolding. Some of the incoming are being released without even a court date. Remember when Biden argued at the debate that most illegal immigrants showed up for their court appearances? That was a big lie.

So what do they say when they are asked? They say and believe that Joe Biden said they could/should come. They believe the president will assist their desires. Is that not enough proof of conspiracy for what Biden is doing? He told them to surge the border. They did.

The real issue here is Joe and his administration are facilitating foreign groups, cartels, traffickers and drug runners in this open borders plan. He is collaborating, either directly or indirectly, with them. Then he is foisting the expense of it all on our country –our people. We are to pay for their medial treatment, and give them money. We are to transport them across our country.

He is not only aiding and abetting hostile groups to our country; he is orchestrating an invasion on our people. He is doing everything he can to facilitate it while doing almost nothing to prevent it. The security and protection of our people is part of the job. Joe is failing not only that but inflicting harm on the people. He is far worse than King George.

It would be an impeachable offense of the first order if one were facilitating an invasion of our country. And he is.

And he is obfuscating the laws of the country and opposing the will of the people. He is issuing decrees and fiat law to assist invaders. All aimed at the people. He is defying Congress, the Constitution and rule of law. It is treasonous.

But don’t stop there. He is frustrating the will of the people to do anything about it or prevent it. Then he tries to blame it on his predecessor and political opponents. But, in fact, his opponents were trying to prevent it and calling attention to border security — not denying it is a problem like Biden is doing.

Does it even matter what the purposes are? It is intentional; he is facilitating an invasion. It is a plan. Then he is undermining and making it hard as possible for border officers to do their jobs. In fact, he is preventing them from doing their job to protect our borders.

Then the administration issues orders not to provide information to press or media, not to give them statistics, to frustrate their ability to report on it.

So if he is capable of all this within only 6 weeks of taking office, what else is he capable of doing? How far will he go?  He is intentionally frustrating the will of the people to preserve our sovereignty as a country.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Sponsor of DOJ

And now a word from our acting Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein:

“From now on, our Department will not usurp Congress’s job of making the rules. We will stick to enforcing them.”—Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

Either this is the all-time best spoof on you’ve been pranked. or the guy who gave that speech in Florida is being held somewhere in seclusion against his will.

I have an idea, while we are at it. Hey Government, DOJ and FBI et al, we the people have a taint team that needs to review government documents.(our documents) ASAP.

At the very same time DOJ stonewalls and refuses to cooperate with simple document requests from Congress, they handed off to the Southern District in NY to break in and seize Michael Cohen’s documents. They don’t have any problem with blatant hypocrisy.

Rule of law has sort of a ring to it.

Hillary does NAACP

Out in front of the Republican Convention, and pandering as usual, Hillary gave a speech to NAACP. (I wonder if she charged them 250K?)

She lectured on the rule of law and accountability. Her hypocrisy really has no bounds.

So is the message or the messenger the problem?

And as president, I will bring the full weight of the law to bear and making sure those who kill police officers are brought to justice. There can be no justification, no looking the other way.

That’s why our laws treat the murderers of police so seriously, because they represent the rule of law itself. If you take aim at that and at them, you take aim at all of us.

We must reform our criminal justice system because everyone is safer when there is respect for the law and when everyone is respected by the law.

I don’t think anyone anywhere needs to connect what is wrong with messenger Hillary Clinton lecturing us on the rule of law and accountability, saying she stands up for the rule of law — while she trounces it every chance she gets. And lying is no problem either.

Obama’s touchstones, breaking badder


“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency”.

Touchstone:

(assaying tool), a stone used to identify precious metals; or (metaphor) a means of assaying relative merits of a concept

1: a black siliceous stone related to flint and formerly used to test the purity of gold and silver by the streak left on the stone when rubbed by the metal
2: a test or criterion for determining the quality or genuineness of a thing
3: a fundamental or quintessential part or feature — merriam-webster

There’s nothing wrong with transparency and rule of law. Just that Obama has to pervert them to suit his personal needs like he does everything else. Then, you probably thought you knew what “transparency” meant.

But in this case, transparency actually now means the opposite: spying on citizens, concealing the truth about Benghazi, or lying when convenient –especially for political gain, Obamacare and its roll out, denying scandals as “phony scandals”, or that IRS was engaged in political activism. Or ignoring and dismissing a problem he previously railed against as a priority.  

So  transparency can mean denial of a problem and necessary cover-up that one even exists. Luckily, transparency is also alive and well in the Dep. of Justice — not. Holder was held in contempt of Congress for failure to comply. Now it can mean selective transparency when you want something known, like details of the bin Laden mission or CIA chief in Afghanistan, accusations about your political enemies, or spying and accusations on a reporter, or revenge for an unfavorable documentary. And feeling politically justified for it all — even the contempt.
 

Rule of Law: one does not have to return to Blackstone commentaries to define rule of law. It’s sort of self-explanatory. (Wikipedia)

The Oxford English Dictionary has defined “rule of law” this way:

“The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes.”

The rule of law (also known as nomocracy) is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behavior, including behavior of government officials. The phrase can be traced back to the 16th century, and it was popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. The concept was familiar to ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, who wrote “Law should govern”.Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law, including law makers themselves. It stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for example by divine right.

In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men.”

O-translation: ‘whatever I say or decide the rule of law is at any particular time’.
 
Wikiquote

The term to “break bad” is American Southeast slang meaning to turn against one’s previously lawful lifestyle for one of criminal acts, usually at the cost of someone else’s life or well-being.

Obama could not abandon what he was never constrained by, so he’s ‘breaking badder’.

It sounded better than “cronyism, lies and corruption will be my touchstones.” Obama’s words fit his penchant for making factually inaccurate statements, then repeatedly lying to try to validate them. Benghazi and ObamaCare are text book examples. The border crisis demonstrates his lawlessness and insincerity for the “rule of law”.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary lays out anti-gun platform

Hillary Clinton: U.S. needs to ‘rein in’ proliferation of guns

Posted by
CNN’s Dan Merica | 5/6/2014

National Harbor, Maryland (CNN) – Hillary Clinton told an audience of mental health professionals on Tuesday that the United States needs to rein in its gun culture or risk a world where insignificant disagreements could lead to shootings.

Asked about the mental health aspects of guns, Clinton said “I think we’ve got to rein in what has become a almost article faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime. I don’t believe that is in the best interest of the vast majority of people.”

“We really have got to get our arms around it because at the rate we are going, we are going to have so many people with guns everywhere fully licensed, fully validated,” Clinton said, painting a picture of a country where small annoyances could lead to shootings.

Clinton, whose comments came during the question and answer portion at the end of her appearance, said because “we are living at a time when there is so much external stimulation and some much internal confusion in certain people,” it would be a bad idea to let people “go to bars with guns, let them go to schools with guns, let them go to church with guns.”

Referencing a shooting earlier this year where a 71-year old retired police officer shot a 43-year old man texting in a movie theater, Clinton said people thinking they “have the right to defend themselves against the gum chewer and the cell phone user by shooting the person” is reminiscent of countries she visited “with no rule of law and self control.”

But Clinton also gave an olive branch to gun owners, adding “I think you can say that and still support the right of people to own guns.” […/]

More http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/06/hillary-clinton-u-s-needs-to-rein-in-proliferation-of-guns/

The small annoyances she referred to were chewing gum or talking on a cell phone while at the theater. Out comes the straw men. She contends these incidents will happen on a wide scale. But what does happen on a hourly scale are drive-by’s and shootings in Chicago, a gun free zone. That never enters into her straw man arguments.

So somehow gun ownership translates to less self control and rule of law, to Hilary. But she doesn’t offer to explain how that works. With her premise, evidently less guns equals more self control and greater rule of law. Again, the murder rate in Chicago could disprove that.

RightRing | Bullright