"Free movement vs Immigration "

 Still OCONUS, saw this on Farcebook, guy named Michael Smith published it. Im using my kinda smart phone.

I was intrigued by a conversation reported on X yesterday between an American and an American citizen living in Germany. The American in Germany complained he just couldn’t return to America due to the rise of Fascism here. When asked why he just didn’t stay in Germany indefinitely, he replied that “You can’t just stay, that is illegal. They will kick you out, there are requirements to immigrate here!”

I’m not sure if that was a real exchange, but the irony of it sure is. Even if it was made up, it is unfortunately illustrative of the red-hot debate raging in America right now over immigration and illegal immigration.

A familiar argument appears whenever immigration enforcement becomes politically contentious: Human beings have a right to movement. From this premise, some conclude that borders themselves are immoral, and that any nation which limits entry is acting unjustly—if not outright cruel. But this argument quietly collapses two very different ideas into one: the right of movement is a human right, while immigration is not.

Every modern nation recognizes this distinction in practice, even if activists prefer not to. Canada does not prohibit its citizens from leaving. Mexico does not bar its people from traveling abroad. Neither does the United States. Freedom of exit is widely acknowledged as a basic human liberty, enshrined in international law and reflected in most democratic constitutions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own.

Yet Canada tightly regulates who may enter, and so does Mexico. Virtually every sovereign state on earth does the same. Are these countries evil? Of course not, they are doing what all legitimate governments do: they are exercising sovereignty.

Movement refers to the ability of individuals to travel, relocate, and seek opportunities. Immigration refers to the legal process by which a sovereign state grants permission to non-citizens to enter, reside, and participate in its civic and economic life —and to have the opportunity to become a citizen and fully participate in the duties and responsibilities as an assimilated citizen. The first is rooted in human dignity, while the second is rooted in political authority and conflating the two is a category error that all too many people make.

A person may have every moral right to leave Honduras, Haiti, or Venezuela, but that does not automatically generate a corresponding right to enter the United States. Those are separate claims governed by different principles.

This distinction is not controversial historically, it is embedded in philosophy, religion, and law. John Locke argued that governments exist to secure the rights of their people through consent. Thomas Aquinas recognized the legitimacy of political communities organizing themselves for the common good. Even biblical traditions distinguish between welcoming the stranger and dissolving national boundaries entirely. Hospitality is praised, but anarchy is not.

The modern international system is built on this understanding. Nations recognize one another’s sovereignty precisely because borders matter. A state without the ability to regulate entry is not fully sovereign. It cannot plan infrastructure, manage labor markets, provide social services, or maintain public order. It cannot meaningfully represent its citizens. To deny this is to deny the concept of self-government itself.

Yet in contemporary American discourse, immigration enforcement is often illegitimately framed as uniquely immoral. The United States is portrayed as exceptional in asserting border control, while activists speak as though open borders are the moral baseline and enforcement is some kind of deviation. This framing collapses under even casual scrutiny.

For example, Mexico deports hundreds of thousands of migrants annually. Canada maintains a points-based system that prioritizes skills, language ability, and economic contribution. European nations increasingly restrict asylum claims and reinstate internal controls. Japan remains famously selective. Australia intercepts boats at sea. America is not an outlier—it is the norm.

What is unusual is the insistence that only Americans are morally obligated to surrender sovereignty in the name of abstract universalism. Rights exist within political communities. They are secured by institutions. They require enforcement. Without borders, laws become optional and citizenship becomes meaningless. That does not mean compassion disappears. Nations can, and should, offer asylum, humanitarian aid, and legal pathways for immigration, but compassion does not require abandoning the rule of law, and charity does not require dissolving the social contract.

Movement may well be a human right—but immigration is not a right, it is a legal construct, it is admission granted by sovereign states. It is like a ticket to a movie; it comes at the behest of the authority issuing it and it is specific and time limited. Confusing or conflating the two doesn’t make us more humane, it makes us less honest, and it makes it far more difficult to have a productive conversation about the issue.

A country that controls its borders is not cruel; it is functioning by living up to its duties and responsibilities to its own citizens, upon whom its power and authority depend.

"Why Trump Was Elected"

     I also clipped this from farcebook and preloaded this by my scheduler thingie

Senator Chris McDaniel 

tsredSoopnt9faur9: 0t5g3a1945t99aP8am8a1eMm7 l6Y01i 9yds6e76 ·

On social media, I keep hearing a question from the Left, usually asked with a kind of contrived confusion: How did Americans elect Donald Trump?

Truth is, it’s not complicated.

For years, a political and cultural class decided regular Americans were the problem. Not by accident. On purpose.

They mocked American traditions like they were embarrassments. Treated faith as something outdated or foolish. Raised taxes while lecturing folks that it was for their own good. Turned white, working-class men into a punchline, then acted stunned when those men stopped listening.

They went even further. They argued America itself was rotten. That its institutions were inherently racist. And if you dared disagree, even calmly, even respectfully, you weren’t just wrong. You were a racist. A sexist. A bigot. Before long, the words got uglier. Nazi. Traitor. Enemy.

Disagreement wasn’t answered. It was condemned. People weren’t debated anymore. Instead, they were simply dehumanized.

They didn’t do it alone. They had lots of help. The press nodded along. Universities eagerly enforced the rules. And before long, those ideas were pushed straight into classrooms. Kids barely old enough to read were being told what to think about their country, their history, and even their own parents.

All the while, the sneer never went away. Folks in coastal cities looking down their noses at anyone from a flyover state. Calling whole regions a landmass. Acting like places like Mississippi were something to apologize for rather than call home.

They scoffed at the country’s founding as if it were an old mistake. Talked openly about tearing down America’s basic structures and rebuilding something new. Then they flirted with socialism like it was progress, acting confused when people who value independence recoiled.

They pushed social experiments into schools, workplaces, and private spaces without asking. Bathrooms. Locker rooms. The idea that biology doesn’t matter anymore. And not just acceptance, but celebration. Go along, or be branded hateful.

And always, there was the tone. Forever the tone. The lectures. The scolding. The moral superiority. The message that disagreement wasn’t just incorrect, it was immoral.

Eventually, Americans had enough. Not in some revolutionary way. Just worn down. Tired of the never-ending drama. Tired of being told they were evil for believing what they’d believed their whole lives. Tired of being told to change just for the sake of change.

I’m from Ellisville, Mississippi. Just another small town dotting the landscape. But down here, folks know what that feels like. Like anyone, we are flawed people. But we work. We raise families. We go to church. We mind our business. And we don’t take kindly to being called names by people who’ve never set foot in our towns but somehow think they know better.

Trump wasn’t a philosophy. He wasn’t a manifesto.

He was a correction.

A blunt response to a ruling class that refused to listen. A way of saying enough is enough. Not because Americans wanted chaos, but because they wanted respect. And maybe to be left alone.

That’s it. No mystery. No hysteria.

Just cause and effect.

So you wanted drama, and boy, did you get it. You pushed. You scolded. You sneered. And in the end, the rest of us should probably be thankful.

Because nothing opened the eyes of average Americans like being lectured to by unemployed twenty-something-year-old hipsters and perpetually disgruntled liberal women. And nothing could have done it faster than watching them do it in real time. You liberals didn’t persuade people. You woke them up.

You didn’t win hearts. You hardened them.

And without ever meaning to, you became your own undoing.

"What is going on in Minneapolis "

This I am trying to post off my kinda smart phone.

I also believe that this was kicked off to cover the billions of dollars stolen by fraud and the people involved funnel a lot of money to the donks.

 This is going to be long and I know most people only have a 30 second attention span, but if you will read it thoroughly, it will make sense. 

What is unfolding in Minneapolis is not protest activity.

It is the deliberate construction of a coordinated, low-level resistance infrastructure designed to interfere with federal law enforcement operations. The organization, discipline, and operational security being observed are not consistent with spontaneous civil unrest.

Multiple indicators point to structured command-and-control, segmented communication cells capped for scale control; assigned operational roles including surveillance, vehicle tracking, dispatch coordination, and rapid mobilization; standardized intelligence reporting formats; vetting procedures; timed message deletions to frustrate forensic recovery; and decentralized coordination nodes to avoid a single point of failure.

These are not accidental behaviors. They reflect study, rehearsal, and intent.

When civilian networks conduct real-time surveillance of federal officers, compile and share vehicle and personal data, coordinate pursuit and obstruction, and escalate from observation to direct interference, this surpasses civil disobedience. It constitutes organized resistance activity operating below the threshold of overt violence while still producing real-world harm.

The structure closely mirrors early-stage urban insurgent models observed in foreign conflict zones like we saw in Iraq.  Such as cells, redundant communications, narrative shielding, and the avoidance of identifiable leadership. The objective is not immediate confrontation, but sustained pressure, intimidation, and operational paralysis.

The most serious element is that this activity is domestic and enabled by individuals and institutions within the same society the targeted law enforcement agencies serve. That normalization creates strategic risk. Once such infrastructure is established and validated through perceived success, it does not dissolve organically. It certainly doesn’t help when you have a lieutenant governor and other politicians involved in this dangerous activity. 

History shows that failure to identify and address this insurgency phase early allows the network to mature, expand, and entrench. Right now just like you saw with Cam Higby, their command station appears to be on signal. 

This is not a call for escalation.

It is a warning grounded in precedent.

If this continues to be mischaracterized as mere activism, the structures will harden, replicate, and spread, making eventual containment far more difficult and far more costly.

What is often missed is that this kind of network can be countered, but only if it is correctly identified and treated as organized interference rather than protest activity. We are well beyond the protest phase. We’re in the military phase. 

Law enforcement already has lawful tools for this phase, but they must be used deliberately and early.

First, disrupt the infrastructure, not the crowd.

The center of gravity here is communications, coordination, and logistics, not mass participation. Court-authorized investigations and arrests focused on individuals coordinating surveillance, doxxing, obstruction, vehicle tracking, and harassment are lawful and effective. When those nodes are removed, the network degrades quickly.

Second, treat coordinated interference as conspiracy, not speech.

Speech is protected. Organized efforts to surveil, track, obstruct, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers are not. Existing statutes already cover conspiracy, obstruction of justice, interference with federal operations, stalking, and the use of interstate communications to facilitate criminal conduct. These cases must be built carefully and prosecuted visibly to restore deterrence.

Third, restore information dominance.

These movements rely on narrative control to maintain public tolerance. Silence creates space for misinformation. Law enforcement leadership must clearly explain what is happening, what laws are being violated, and why enforcement actions are necessary. Transparency preserves legitimacy.

Fourth, reassert jurisdictional clarity.

Federal operations cannot function under political ambiguity. Clear coordination between federal agencies, state authorities, and compliant local departments is essential. Where local institutions obstruct or enable interference, that failure must be documented and addressed through lawful oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Fifth, protect officers and their families.

Doxxing and vehicle tracking are not protest tactics, they are intimidation. Dedicated counter-doxxing resources, rapid response to threats, and protective measures for affected personnel are necessary. Allowing this behavior to persist signals vulnerability.

As for the military. The armed forces are not a crowd-control tool. However, military intelligence, training, and advisory capabilities exist precisely to analyze and counter organized, sub-threshold threats. Within legal boundaries, supporting civil authorities with pattern analysis, infrastructure assessment, and threat modeling is appropriate when domestic actors adopt foreign-style resistance structures.

None of this requires escalation.

It requires clarity, resolve, and early action.

History is consistent on this point, once these networks believe they can operate with impunitonce, hesitation is interpreted as weakness and the cost of restoring order rises exponentially.

Recognizing what this is does not make it worse.

Failing to recognize it does.

Tori Branum 

Marine Veteran

Republican candidate for George’s congressional district 12 

"Ah Leah" By Donnie Iris

   This song is also loaded on my scheduler thingie.   

 I heard this song on the way to work this morning, the 80's channel on my Sirius/XM was playing the top 40 from February 10, 1981.  It was an interesting time for 80's music, there still was disco on the chart, a lot of what is called "Yacht Rock", Think Christopher Cross for example.    I couldn't get a whole lot of stuff on this video or the song.  That happens with older songs, before MTV became popular, a lot of groups didn't make music video's or explain what the song was about leaving people to make up their own reasons for the song....Well This is my opinion what prompted the song.

"Change my Mind..."

"Ah! Leah!" is a song by Mark Avsec and American rock musician Donnie Iris from his 1980 album Back on the Streets. The song was released as a single in late 1980 and reached number 29 on the US Billboard Hot 100, 22 on the Cash Box Top 100, and 19 on the US Billboard Top Tracks chart. The song is widely considered to be Iris' signature song and was most popular in Canada, where it became a Top 10 hit. 

 
A full complement of eight musicians appeared in the early live performances of the song, including lead singer Iris, a drummer, three guitar players, one keyboardist and at least two backing vocalists, one female and one male.
The title of the song has been referenced in the form of puns on a few of Iris's later albums—the 2009 live album Ah! Live! and the 2010 Christmas album Ah! Leluiah!.

Back on the Streets is the debut album by American rock singer/guitarist Donnie Iris, released in 1980. The single "Ah! Leah!" was a hit for Iris, reaching #29 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 chart and #19 on the U.S. Billboard Top Tracks chart. 

Europe is falling faster than people think

 

   I snagged this off farcebook(Preloaded scheduler)

Europe is having a lot of problems right now and an identity crisis is part of it, they don't know who they are any more.  I believe that several countries will be Islamic caliphates within 20 years.

Europe fell faster than most people realize.

Not over years.

Not even over months.

In some cases—hours.

The last time a serious threat came from the east, Europe didn’t slowly crumble.

It collapsed at lightning speed.

And it didn’t happen because Europeans were weak.

It happened because they were hesitant, divided, and unprepared to respond with force when force was required.

Let’s remember what actually happened.

When Nazi Germany moved, it didn’t wait for consensus.

It didn’t care about public opinion.

It didn’t pause for moral debates.

It moved fast, hard, and with coordination Europe wasn’t ready for.

Here’s how quickly countries fell:

• Denmark – 6 hours

• Luxembourg – 1 day

• Netherlands – 5 days

• Belgium – 18 days

• France – 6 weeks

• Norway – Weeks

• Poland – Overrun in ~1 month

• Yugoslavia – 11 days

• Greece – About 1 month

These were modern societies.

Educated populations.

Established governments and standing armies.

They didn’t fall because they lacked culture or intelligence.

They fell because they underestimated the threat and hesitated to respond decisively.

Modern wars are often lost before the public realizes they’ve begun.

The uncomfortable parallel today

Much of modern Europe has embraced ideologies that prioritize comfort over strength, consensus over decisiveness, and moral signaling over hard power.

Policies shaped by woke, hyper-liberal frameworks often struggle with:

• The idea of national borders worth defending

• The moral legitimacy of force

• Rapid, unified military action

• A population mentally prepared for sacrifice

These ideologies don’t just influence culture they influence policy, military readiness, and public will.

And history is clear on one point:

Hesitation is an invitation.

Civilian disarmament matters more than people admit

Another hard lesson from history and from modern conflict zones:

When the state is the only entity with force, and that state hesitates or collapses, the population is left exposed.

Across much of Europe:

• Civilian firearm ownership is heavily restricted

• Self-defense laws are narrow or discouraged

• The idea of armed citizens is viewed as dangerous or outdated

But WWII, Eastern Europe, and modern resistance movements all show the same reality:

An armed population complicates occupation.

An unarmed population depends entirely on the state and the state can fail.

This isn’t about encouraging violence.

It’s about deterrence, resilience, and psychological resistance.

Occupation thrives where resistance is impossible.

Europe learned the hard way that standing alone doesn’t work.

That’s why NATO exists.

Not as a symbolic alliance.

Not as a diplomatic club.

But as a collective survival agreement.

And the part many people avoid saying out loud:

The United States is the backbone of NATO.

• Largest military force

• Global logistics and supply chains

• Intelligence dominance

• Nuclear deterrence

• Industrial capacity to sustain prolonged war

Without the U.S., NATO is dramatically weaker—not because Europe is incapable, but because modern war is about scale, speed, and sustained pressure.

The warning history gives us

If Russia or any aggressive expansionist power were to move west without strong, immediate U.S. backing, history suggests something uncomfortable:

Not that Europe would fall overnight.

But that things could unravel far faster than people expect.

Just like before.

Not because Europeans are weak

But because division, ideological paralysis, and underestimating intent are deadly flaws.

WWII didn’t start with tanks in Paris.

It started with:

• Political hesitation

• Moral confusion

• Belief that “it won’t happen here”

• Faith that diplomacy alone would restrain ambition

By the time clarity arrived, many countries were already lost.

This isn’t about fear.

It’s about memory.

History doesn’t repeat itself exactly, but it rhymes.

And the price of forgetting is always higher than the cost of preparedness.

Europe survived last time because the Allies stood together.

And at the center of that alliance was the United States.

That wasn’t accidental.

It was decisive.

Ignoring that lesson would be the most dangerous mistake of all.