Posted on 01/06/2007 8:31:55 AM PST by joanie-f
Yes, Joanie has a link to the same story right in this essay. We station our soldiers on the border, tell them that all they're there for is "administrative duties," and then expect them to face armed criminals who wouldn't think twice about offing them. Disgusting doesn't begin to describe this situation.
LOL! Well, it's certainly apparent you missed the other wasteful opportunities "Homeland Security" has in which to allocate that $1.2 billion fund besides physical fencing.
You apparently also missed the part that exempts any grade of one foot rise to ten foot run from the actual construction of any fencing structure at all, a greater grade often traversed by DC elite around Washington every day. Don't think for a second DC Stooges won't exercise that option fairly often to refuse building any barrier at all.
To re-quote; " Try actually finding out the facts next time before posting."
joanie-f,
Nice essay.
No feet. None has been. None will.
People who point to the money allocation in the budget are living in a dream world. When money is allocated for a reasonable project that is constitutional, that protects the citizenry, and that does nothing for the politician, most of the time it either goes unspent or gets allocated elsewhere, thanks to convenient codicils in the law.
Kipling's description is even more apt when applied to his Great Britain [or that of Post-WWI of T.E. Lawrence.] But even Churchill had it right:
How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
--Winston S. Churchill
Too late to work within the system.
Is it too soon to start shooting the bastards?
Excellent response.
I'd like anyone who finds comfort in this law, and the funding allocation, to read both in their entirety and then get back to us regarding the odds that a fence will ever be built.
It's so obvious that our 'leadership' has artfully inserted so many post scripts to this legislation that the money, if spent at all, will be spent on 'virtual wall' concepts (which are generally hollow efforts aimed at keeping us all quiet), simply because all of the stipulations regarding an actual physical wall cannot possibly be met.
The schemers are hard at work, and the majority of the citizenry hasn't a clue.
Just so. Now try some Don Marquis
In particular, this one:
A PoliticianLeader no more, be judged of us! Hailed Chief, and loved, of yore— Youth, and the faith of youth, cry out: Leader and Chief no more! We dreamed a Prophet, flushed with faith, Content to toil in pain If that his sacrifice might be, Somehow, his people’s gain. We saw a vision, and our blood Beat red and hot and strong: “Lead us (we cried) to war against Some foul, embattled wrong!” We dreamed a Warrior whose sword Was edged for sham and shame; We dreamed a Statesman far above The vulgar lust for fame. We were not cynics, and we dreamed A Man who made no truce With lies nor ancient privilege Nor old, entrenched abuse. We dreamed . . . we dreamed . . . Youth dreamed a dream! And even you forgot Yourself, one moment, and dreamed, too— Struck, while your mood was hot! Struck three or four good blows . . . and then Turned back to easier things: The cheap applause, the blatant mob, The praise of underlings! Praise . . . praise . . . was ever man so filled, So avid still, of praise? So hungry for the crowd’s acclaim, The sycophantic phrase? O you whom Greatness beckoned to . . . O swollen Littleness Who turned from Immortality To fawn upon Success! O blind with love of self, who led Youth’s vision to defeat, Bawling and brawling for rewards, Loud, in the common street! O you who were so quick to judge— Leader, and loved, of yore— Hear now the judgment of our youth: Leader and Chief no more!
You want to control DC's money? they'll either print more and borrow or confiscate what you have shorted them along with severe penalty and interest. To shut them down merely means those with "entitlements" and living off taxpayer aide will be the first to suffer the ill effects, not the Stiff Suit politician of DC who has feathered his own nest well. Since they hold the resource strings - it's probable their hold-out would endure far longer than the common person engaging in revolt.
I believe Claire's answer would now be 'no,' but you'd have to ask her. :)
Thanks for the excellent recent responses.
Am on my way out the door for the afternoon, but will digest them, and respond, later today.
bump
hey put me on your ping list I love reading your posts.
You can also mark this down: a physical barrier cannot simply be turned off when the public isn't looking - it will still perform the task of making it difficult to cross, buying time for offenders to be observed. OTOH, a barrier of the virtual type can be "turned off", ordered unmonitored, or simply abandoned as political pressure subsides.
The virtual fence is the US government's fence of choice.
Would you please explain to us all why 30% of our prison beds is taken by these *poor mexicans* who wish us no harm?
I know these *poor mexicans* are supposed to have wonderful family values and all that would make them great citizens.
Would you please explain to us all why so many of them refuse to cross at a Port of Entry and why they refuse to assimilate themselves to us?
Would you please explain to us all why so many of them were carrying the Mexican flag during their marches last fall?
Would you please explain to us all why so many of them refuse to learn the English language?
While you are at it, please explain why our President appears more interested in preserving the Mexican culture than he is the American culture.
Just a few more simple questions, are you Hispanic? If you are not, why are you so interested in helping the *poor mexicans*? Have you adopted any of these *poor mexicans* yet?
________________________________________________________
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...
There can be NO divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all.
We have room for but ONE flag, the American flag...
We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...
and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Well-written and provocative.
Misc ping list
SoCal ping list
Well, I do, in a sort of back-handed way. No fence or wall, left unguarded, is going to accomplish anything by its existance alone. It'll have to be backed up, whether by the Border Patrol or a military force dedicated to the task, like Germany's Bundesgrenzeschutze, technically a police organization with arrest powers, but armed and equipped in military fashion, to include armoured vehicles.
Among our southern border there are 24 U.S. counties contiguous with Mexican territory, spread along four states. I'd suggest that the posting of a battalion of troops [circa 750 personnel] in each county, with each state providing a brigade headquarters and support elements, would be a good initial start; from there it can be determined where more troops are needed, or less. Similarly, major Army posts are available in Texas [Ft Hood, Ft Bliss, Ft Sam Houston] and Arizona [Fort Huachuca and the Yuma Proving Ground] and Marine installations in California, [MCAS Miramar/and MCRD San Diego, Camp Pendleton, 29 Palms and the Marine Coirps Logistics Base at Barstow] so those services might be better suited to operations in those states.
The required force would thereby be around 17,700 troops, about divisional strength, in normal practice run by a Major [2 stars] General. With or without a fence/wall, such a force would require only a Presidential Finding that the incursions from Mexico represent a clear and present danger to the stability and authority of the United States; US troops have been so tasked before.
ICE/Homeland Security/Customs/Immigration personnel thereby freed up could then be set to the task of internal security efforts in cleaning house of the 20-million illegal invaders now present.
In short: we need troops along our southern border as much or more than we need a fence, and we REALLY need a President capable of taking that kind of leadership action.
I place the blame for the lack of security of the border squarely at the hands of the do-nothing Republicans.
They had 12 years - TWELVE YEARS - literally owning the government - all three houses. A president who as a former governor of a border state was/is well aware of the problems and only offers an amnesty program.
We only got the border fence as a desperate attempt to keep the base for this past election cycle.
There are only a handful of Republicans who are truly interested in securing the borders: Tancredo, Hunter and a couple of others.
The rest voted for it knowing it wouldn't be funded.
It just sickens me.
It's not a good idea to post this. Not even in jest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.