Load speakers beam the word to the ‘Dear Leader’ telling the people of the North not to leave and those of the South to come and enjoy a better life.

However, hearing Chertoff’s voice for too long would make any sane person want to leave but I have ear plugs and the understanding of what is on the other side to keep me from leaving the country I love, respect, and served for 25 years .

As far as I’m concerned, a nonfence is nonsense.

Now, this 38% arrest rate is (I would think) an improvement over current border patrol capabilities. But what happens when the smugglers and migrants figure out how to evade the towers? As I wrote in my initial look at this technology last June, it seems like a guy in a ghillie suit with a .270 could easily blind our “unblinking eye” any time he wanted to.

Hey, I agree. 100% is the only acceptable arrest rate. Until then, no spending on silly anti-Mexican border fences, OK?

The Republicans, on the other hand, are afraid of losing those immigrants to the Democrats, and business lobbyists love getting cheap labor, so they also want illegal immigrants.

About the only way to really fix illegal immigration is to come up with some way to ensure that neither party can profit from bringing them in.

it seems like a guy in a ghillie suit with a .270 could easily blind our “unblinking eye” any time he wanted to.

Very good and interesting point.

CK MacLeod on February 23, 2008 at 3:09 PM

HA HA!!! Charecterize your own treason as “dissent,” then claim victimization!!

OMG, the marxian element has found its home here. Un-fuc*ing incredible.

How many TRAITORS does it take to destroy a country? Apparently, not too many.

ochiltree-

The ideal thing would be to have both.

And lasers.

/sarc

dmann on February 23,2008 at 10:25PM.

Dmann:Amen,I know Liberals literally hate coservatives,
but I wish they were more sympathetic to Americas
secruity,and crazy as it seems,another attack on
the United States——-and full circle, Liberal’s
are back to blame America for the attack,again!

ohn Gay’s Unholy Alliance
‘Big Immigration’ Terrorizes Washington
Published 05.31.06
By Tara Servatius

His name is John Gay and at the moment he’s the most feared man in Washington.

Politicians are so freaked out by Gay that a sizable segment of the Republican Party, including the president, is willing to risk the party’s control of Congress after this fall’s elections to keep him happy.

If Gay gets his way, within 15 years the GOP will have a hard time winning a presidential race again because the 60 million largely Hispanic immigrants Gay wants to bring to this country vote Democratic at least 60 percent of the time. Yet the GOP is still struggling to decide — Gay or the future of the party?

http://charlotte.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A40866

The Global Elite: Who are they?
Introduction

There are two common misconceptions held by those who are critical of globalism.

The first error is that there is a very small group of people who secretly run the world with all-powerful and unrestrained dictatorial powers. The second error is that there is a large amorphous and secret organization that runs the world. In both cases, the use of the word “they” becomes the culprit for all our troubles, whoever “they” might be. If taxes go up, it is “they” that did it. If the stock market goes down, “they” are to blame. Of course, nobody really knows who “they” are so a few figureheads (people or organizations) are often made out to be the scapegoats.

http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_global_elite%3a_who_are_they?_200511146/

After the 911 attack,it appeared to me that both sides of
the political spectrum wanted the border secured,days and weeks after the Twin Towers.

Both sides were a little uneasy at the prospect,and rightly
so.Then we get reports from FBI,that their are over-do visas
of foreign visitors,then more ominious feelings,2000 or so
visitors are unaccounted for in the country!

It amazes me from days,weeks,and months after 911,that the
fear of unknown,who was still in America that could do harm!

And unlike Republicans,Liberals don’t seem to concerned that
some bad guys could get mixed up in the illagal Mexicans
crossing the border,how comforting.

Some are politicians, some business people.

All of them are traitors.

Aiding infil-traitors.

It will take a nuke or bio-WMD before the dozing populace wakes and shakes these rats out of the branches of the Tree of Liberty.

And shoves their virtual fences up their literal a$$es.

This being a self evident fact, it makes you wonder what our elected officials are really trying to do.

doriangrey on February 23, 2008 at 7:43 PM

This is a post by a guy named Jon Sandor which I found on another site, I forget which one, but it speaks for itself, it’s long, sorry about that, but it’s VERY revealing:

1. When I aided the foreign relations of presidential candidate and president-elect Vicente Fox back in 1999 and 2000, I met with almost 80 U.S. congressmen and senators during numerous trips and at several events. With just over 50 of them, my colleagues and I spoke about immigration in some depth, as it is one of the important bilateral topics. My findings were reported in a Backgrounder published by the Center for Immigration Studies called “Politics by Other Means.”1 It is a dense and academic paper, but the basic finding was: Indeed, American politicians are overwhelmingly pro-immigration, for a variety of reasons, and they do not always admit this to their constituents. Of those 50 legislators, 45 were unambiguously pro-immigration, even asking us at times to “send more.” This was true of both Democrats and Republicans.
These empirical findings seemed to confirm what some analysts without that level of access termed as a political “perfect storm” of widespread political-elite support for immigration despite its general unpopularity with the average American. The paradox is that immigration is the only issue (perhaps besides trade policy) that represents a notorious discrepancy between elite and popular opinion in the United States.2 But this contradicts the established conventional wisdom of a representative democracy such as the United States. If mass immigration from Latin America has debatable benefits for the United States as a whole, if a majority of the American people is against it, and if immigrants cannot vote until they become naturalized (which can take years after their arrival), why would nine-tenths of the legislators we spoke with be so keen on increasing immigration?
Before these encounters, I believed that it was a problem of either diffusion of responsibility, “creeping non-decision,” or collective rationalization with those legislators, but that was dispelled the more of them we met. Most of them seemed to be aware of the negative or at least doubtful consequences of mass immigration from Latin America, while still advocating mass immigration.3
The familiar reasons usually discussed by the critics were there: Democrats wanted increased immigration because Latin American immigrants tend to vote Democrat once naturalized (we did not meet a single Democrat that was openly against mass immigration); and Republicans like immigration because their sponsors (businesses and churches) do. But there were other, more nuanced reasons that we came upon, usually not discussed by the critics, and probably more difficult to detect without the type of access that we, as a Mexican delegation, had.
Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called “usurpation.” Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the “natural” tendency of the political class to usurp power ─to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, “If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …”4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.5
While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with “converted” Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized “new” United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would “go away” after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also “unfairly” take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the “natural progress” of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a “high five” when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them “rednecks,” and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so ─enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the “just and constitutional laws” they devised.
One leading Republican senator over a period of months was advising us, through a mutual acquaintance, about which mechanisms to follow and which other legislators to lobby in order to ensure passage of the amnesty proposal. In the meantime, he would speak on television about the need to “militarize” the border. This senator was recently singled out by a taxpayer’s advocacy group as a leader in “pork”-related politics.
——————-
Comment by Jon Sandor

Seems to me that 700 miles of serpentine barbed wire would be a lot cheaper and a lot more effective than any “virtual fence”!!!

Minimal engineering and installation costs, too!!!

Of course this solution is much too simple, direct, and effective for a government to handle…or a politician to understand!

landlines on February 23, 2008 at 7:31 PM

This being a self evident fact, it makes you wonder what our elected officials are really trying to do.

Minimal engineering and installation costs, too!!!

Of course this solution is much too simple, direct, and effective for a government to handle…or a politician to understand!

Chertoff said the virtual fence already is working.
On Feb. 13, an officer in a Tucson command center — 70 miles from the border — noticed a group of about 100 people gathered at the border.

Well, if Chertoff says it is working, I guess we have nothing to worry about. Can we see some other examples of success, please? Or is this the one example worth crowing about?
I mean really, our fabulous wonderfence detected a group of about 100. Does it do as well at detecting smaller groups? If you’re going to dash across the border in those kind of numbers, might as well carry a sign that says “We’re over here getting ready to cross! Arrest us!”

When we hear that a BP agent 70 miles from the border consistently spots groups of a dozen or so and consistently intercepts them, and sombody other than Chertoff praises the system, I’ll ride shotgun on the bandwagon. Til then, Phbbbttt.