First, a definition:
mercenary
[mur-suh-ner-ee]

adjective
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
noun, plural mercenaries.
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.

I have been blogging for years on the current administration’s dereliction of their duty to secure national boundaries at the borders. It comes, however as an unpleasant surprise to find theses stories in today’s Drudge Report:

Say again?

Under the Dreamers Act, as many as 1,500 recruits per year

will have an opportunity to join the military for the first time in decades under a new Department of Defense policy unveiled Thursday.

The new rules will expand an existing program allowing recruiters to target foreign nationals with high-demand skills, mostly rare foreign language expertise or specialized health care training.

Earlier this year, other headlines read, U.S. visa backlog leaves Afghan interpreters in limbo, while

the class of 2014 … will face more difficulty qualifying for the armed services than ever in the 40-year history of the all-volunteer force

as the service cuts the active force by 20,000 soldiers in 2015.

On the one hand, as many as 1,500 recruits per year (for starters?) may be illegal aliens because of an executive action; on the other hand, 20,000 experienced soldiers will be laid off because of budget cuts in these times of the rise of SPECTRE.

It makes you wonder what the priorities are, but the rule of law is not one of them.

I had quoted the estimable Mark Steyn in a prior post:

One of the reasons why so many Americans oppose amnesty and a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens is because, even if one buys it in utilitarian terms, to accept that an honorable American identity can be born from an illegal act seems to mock the very essence of citizenship and allegiance.

Compound that feeling with the news about the dreamer recruits.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news and culture at Fausta’s blog.

Yesterday in the media and on the internet the only subject anyone seemed to be talking about was Eric Holder’s decision to resign.

We’re written sufficiently about Mr. Holder that his misdeeds do not need to be re-listed here but there seems to be an aura of unreality in the celebratory mood at Mr Holder’s impending/eventual departure from this administration.

I don’t mean to be a party pooper, after all given Holder’s complete and utter disregard for the law and the constitution he was certainly unfit for the office he held, but in the interest of reality left me offer one basic challenge to test your political IQ:

Hands up all those who think that Barack Obama’s choice to replace Eric Holder will be a person who respects the Constitution and will vigorously enforce and uphold the laws of these United States? 

If your hand is up right now you’ll be pleased to know that Amazon.com has the perfect Christmas gift for you.