Friday, July 16, 2010

Border Traffic

The United States has to get serious about what is happening on the border or worse is coming. From what I have read, not all those smugglers are Mexicans. I believe that too given what I saw in the area around Nogales my last trip down there.  The smugglers are using our own rules against us and laughing at us as fools. We can change those rules, and Congress better if they seriously intend to do anything about the problem. For those who want to block Arizona's law, I suggest they put real pressure on their own Congressmen to deal with this!

36 comments:

Ingineer66 said...

Rain linking to a Newsmax article. The apocalypse may be upon us. :-)

And this is going on every single day all along the border. I watched a show about the Border Patrol on Nat Geo the other night, it is just amazing how many people are coming across.

Rain said...

hey I have always said I read left and right wing sites-- You didn't believe me? *hurt look* lol

Ingineer66 said...

I believed that you looked at them but actually linking to one. :-)
But I know you have a conservative view point in this issue.

Anonymous said...

The border leaks like an old pipe and Washington knows it !

Rain said...

Well I am not prone to link to rants and a lot can be that way whether right or left. If I want a rant, I'll create my own. This had the appeal because it is showing Americans (who are willing to look) what is going on. It's unfortunate that the left isn't interested in revealing that. I don't know what the reason for that is. The reality of what is happening on the border seems remote to people who don't go down there. They might find someday it's anything but remote.

Ingineer66 said...

It is amazing to me that the entire country can be thrown into a tizzy over something so stupid as who paid for Sarah Palin's dress or that some publicity hounds snuck into a State dinner. But we are literally being invaded by criminals and drug smugglers from the south and nobody really seems to care.

If I were President I would send the National Guard and the Marines to the Border and lock it down. Maybe 30,000 troops. We sent them to every major, minor and Podunk airport after 9/11. Then we could sort out all the other stuff.

I mean if we can pass 2500 pages of legislation on health care and then find out what it says why can't we close the border and then solve the related problems.

Rain said...

I agree on fix the border first and then figure out the rest. If we don't, it won't happen as it didn't after 1986. On your examples though of what people care about, I think both had reasons beyond the superficial. Palin's wardrobe was because she presented herself as a woman of the people and then here comes what that costs, BUT she didn't really do it as much as was talked into doing it probably. The people she needed to appeal to weren't going to care that she wore designer clothing. She had a good enough figure to make Target look good; so it was kind of silly but it was about hypocrisy. Then the slipping into the party meant that security was way lax. given all the threats against presidents, that was serious.

What though gets me is the amount of time they put into nothing stories or stories that have nothing new about them. A good example was the blow out in the Gulf. Big story and anytime something new happened, it was worthy of being covered but nothing new as happening most of the time; so we were bombarded by the same poor little birds covered in oil over and over and over, not even different birds. They do that too often and ignore what is likely to impact people's lives more and frankly the border fits that better than most seem to know. They are caught up in one end of it and losing track of the other.

I think the economy deserves more coverage than it gets but people don't find that interesting and would rather hear the latest on Mel... Which by the way I also find interesting in a human interest way, like a real life movie unfolding, but it's not as important to most of our lives as what happens with the economy... or is it in terms of as an example of what can happen-- to either sex and I don't mean just abusive language but falling into a trap. His story is what they write books about and call them noir...

Greybeard said...

Let's play a game:
Let's assume your intent is to destroy the country gradually, from within.
How would you do it?
You'd divide the citizens, get them to call one another terrible names and hate one another.

You'd attack and weaken where you could...
Businesses, large AND small.
The workforce.
The economic system: Banking and Insurance.
The Healthcare system.
The system of Justice: The courts and other Law Enforcement functionaries. (Whenever you can, point out our Police are acting "Stupidly".)

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Nothing to see here. Move along now.

Rain said...

Once again, Greybeard, I agree with you. What can we do about it?

Greybeard said...

Well, I'd start by refusing to vote for Socialists, Rain.
But I'll give you this much...
Neither party is serving the country well now. What is now bein' called "The Polical Class" serves their own agenda and tries to make us believe they're working for us.
The illegal immigration/suit against AZ is a prime example...
Dismissing the (already won!) Black Panther case is another.
Our Government is SERIOUSLY broken.

We need a "bottom up" cleansing.
Go to a Tea Party gathering!

Rain said...

By socialist, do you mean someone who favors continuing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, VA Hospitals, federal highways, regulations on banks, food safety, and pretty much anything the federal government does except the military and maybe border control?

See this is where we run into a rock wall. I think a lot of social programs are needed and good. I do not believe all taxes are bad. Where I might not like to pay them, I also know that without them, a lot of people would have no safety net.

Because I really do not know, given those signs (see links in earlier comments for what I mean) at their rallies, what do you think the tea party stands for in terms of values? When I have seen their gatherings, listened to their speakers, they sound like an anti-tax bunch more than anything else with no real clue what government is currently doing or what they depend on it continuing to do.

I am fine with the tea party group morphing into a real political party (without my help) but as best I have heard their thinking, people like Rand Paul, they really have no clue what it'd be like if they got their way.

Wanting government to be more responsible, to not fight wars it doesn't need to fight, to not be corrupt, to protect our borders, is a long way from thinking like what I have seen from the tea party.

Now to me it was a good thing when I saw the tea party group condemn that one guy who had said some racist things. If they continue on that way, they might surprise me and become a party those outside it can respect, but it's going to take condemning of the element they have drawn that is racist even if the bulk of them are not. Right now I feel they are unrealistic and that one guy who has been a big part of their growing, Dick Armey, he's as corrupt on the right as they come and yet there is he has been putting money into this new group to either control it or use it.

I want a party who is fiscally responsible and socially stay out of the business of individual people who are not hurting others. For now the ones who lead the tea party, who seem to be most listened to within it (think Michelle Bachmann) are complete turnoffs to me. But I don't mind seeing it develop into a responsible political movement. I'd like to see more new parties rise up with agendas more close to my own. Like you, I don't trust either party currently in power. But I vote for the lesser of evils and that is not the Republican party in my veiwpoint.

Greybeard said...

No, by Socialist I mean someone who from the outset promises to "Spread the wealth around".

Rain said...

Well they all do that whether they tell us or not, Greybeard. Whether it goes to the rich through fat contracts that are no bid with no oversight, whether it's paying more than required to contractors, whether it's regulations that give more to the financial sector. They all do it. The question is do they come in with stealth (planning to attack Iraq but not telling us) or do they admit it up front. It's as much socialism when it goes to the richest as the poorest. What are farm subsidies who only go to the biggest farms? It's invasive and the idea that we had pure capitalism, with free markets, well we probably never did but sure don't now.

Greybeard said...

Name one other pol of either party that announced he'd take the Socialist path BEFORE the election, Rain.
Please!

Rain said...

Socialism is a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Obama did not say he would do that and he has not. What he did say is that he favored some redistribution of income through taxation as a means of social justice. Agree or disagree with that but it's not socialism. We have the tax system and the usage of money for those purposes already. He did NOT increase taxes as of yet. Although eh obviously should and someday right or left will have to. The nuttiness of the right to have this year be a non-tax year on huge estates is a good example of how the two sides see it. One sees that any rich person made their fortune on their own and should pay no taxes on the estates. The other side sees it that they got there due to the country as a whole and as a means of social adjusting, they take that tax. Whether you like that or not, it's not new.

The take over of GM was purely temporary and will end. It was done to keep jobs going in an area already hard hit. Agree or disagree but the government will not permanently run the company and for those who did not want to see it happen, what did you think would be better?

IF Obama goes off the deep end and really does try to control all guns like that article said, it is a fear that has been out there as has been the fear that we will lose our ability to buy supplements like vitamins because of Europe's set of regulations where you can't even buy Vitamin C in any size (Farm Boss ran into that in Netherlands one business trip).

There is always fear of the bigger taking power over the littler. We certainly felt it when we saw what Bush did during his 8 years.

As many people have said, maybe there is a man behind the curtain who we don't even see who is pulling all the strings. If I was a tea partier, I'd sure not trust that it might be Dick Armey for their movement.

Rain said...

Isn't it ironic how we on the left worry about fascism which is the manipulation of people through religion and patriotism to consolidate power in one body, to get people to give up the rights they are entitled to for a greater good (rights like trials); while the right worries about socialism where the poor will end up dictating what happens to everybody else.

Both can lead to dictatorships although the most likely result of socialism as Europe has been practicing it will be bankruptcy... which could lead to chaos and again end up with a dictatorship to recreate order... Mankind is not wrong to fear concentration of power and yet one side trusts their side to manage the power wisely and not the other.

Rain said...

Rarely are they totally honest when they run for office. Can you imagine the result if Bush had said during the campaign against Gore that he planned to invade Iraq as soon as he found an excuse (something that Richard Clarke wrote that he learned as soon as Bush took office). That election would not have been close enough to have a corrupt result in Florida decide it. Obama has been pretty upfront about what he would do and he's done a lot of it. So if people don't like it, they can vote otherwise in 2 1/2 years-- assuming Republicans offer them a real choice.

Rain said...

You know I am filling up my own comments here and none of this relates to the border but one of the most scary socialist parts of our economy, to me, is not what the federal government does but property taxes. We control it (with zoning to limit even that) but never really own our own property. The city, state or county owns it and if we don't pay them ransom each year, we can lose it. I understand the basis of why property taxes have been used. People voted to allow it, but it really does mean we never own our own property-- but neither does the federal government as this is all a local deal

Greybeard said...

Temporary?
Let's make a wager, Rain.
I'll bet GM NEVER recovers from this downturn.
If they continue as an entity, it will be with TONS and TONS of taxpayer money infused intermittently as a reward to Obama's Union thug cronies.

Same with this catastrophic health care bill.
Unless and until we can reverse its course, it will soon be a government controlled program and horribly changed from our present system. (Docs are already fleeing in droves.)

Name your risk.
Who'll hold the cash?

Rain said...

Do you consider the VA to be a bad program, Greybeard?

If you consider health care to be something the government should stay out of, how do you like the new MD VIP program? Basically where the richest among us can pay a fee for concierge service from the best doctors and everybody else can be shoved into whatever care is left? Does medical care, where most doctors receive a lot of government help to get their educations, really not seem like something we should care about? And as an individual, what can you do about it?

On GM, I heard they are close to being out from under the government thumb but time will tell.. I do not bet *s*

Union thugs, huh? Well having grown up in a union home (Teamsters), I have seen the advantages and disadvantages but I would bet that the income most middle class workers make today, the income that is going down as we speak, would be much lower without unions. They abused their power without a doubt (show me any examples of power that does not corrupt) but without them, the individual doesn't have any bargaining power against the power of wealth. It's too bad unions have been so vilified but they brought on some of it themselves with shortsighted policies.

Greybeard said...

Don't put words in my mouth, Rain.
I'm a Union member myself.
But they beat up Kenneth Gladney and shouted racial epithets at him, and because they were Obama thugs they got away with it, didn't they?!!

The country is coming apart at the seams because of the hypocrisy.

Rain said...

When you use the words union thugs, it tends to sound like you are thinking that about unions.

Just out of curiosity, where do you get your news, Greybeard? Do you believe what Glenn Beck says? Stick to Fox for the news? How do you decide that Obama ordered a beating that there is no evidence he is even connected to? You keep referring to Obama as a thug but where do you get your evidence? Right wing sites? Do you happen to also believe the Clintons ordered murders in Arkansas? Just curious...

I am not saying that leaders cannot be involved in conspiracies but where we get our information determines a lot of what we believe. The fact that someone was beaten up does not tie the ones who did it to Obama but people on both sides will believe what seems logical to them. To me it would be ridiculous for obama to let himself be tied to something like that when it was obviously not going to get him anywhere. This guy wasn't even important until the beating. But to you Obama would risk it all to order sucha thing? I heard the same things about Clinton when he was in power.

What we believe and where we get our evidence is obviously what suits our prejudices. Some think Bush was behind 9/11 or if not him, then Cheney and they lay out plenty of 'evidence' as they see it for believing he would do such a horrible thing. It's all in what people want to believe most of the time as rarely is there solid evidence on any of it...

Greybeard said...

This is too easy.
Google "Obama, The Chicago Way" Rain and take your pick of the several hundred articles that will appear.
Thug behavior.

Want more?
It's pervasive!
Read here.
Read the comments too.
Do you honestly think they think they can get away with such thug behavior if they're not getting orders from headquarters?

Yeah, I watch Fox News, and therefore I knew instantly why Van Jones quit. I knew instantly why Anita Dunn resigned. I knew about the Black Panther fiasco before you did.
What news sources do you use besides the NY Times, Andrew Sullivan, and The Huffington Post?

I've been pleased at much of your openness to the fact that this administration is destroying the country by way of its disgusting immigration policy, Rain.
It's time now to open your eyes to the truth of the fact that someone who counts as friends Tony Rezko, Rahm Emmanuel, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright is just NOT A NICE PERSON.
Like the rest, he's a THUG.

Heaven help us.

Greybeard said...

Updated:
Remember the lies CBS News/Dan Rather told about Bush's National Guard Service?
And remember how, when caught in their lie, they tried to justify it by telling us it was "Fake, but accurate"?

Now, more and more, we're finding our left-leaning media are trying their damndest to cover up the feces in Obama's past...
To whitewash things and try to keep him "Messiah-ish".
Take a look here everyone, then ask yourself...
All these "nutters" watching Fox News that end up knowing more than you do about current events...
Should you maybe think about joining them? Or are you happy with your "Pravda" news sources trying to toe the party line?

Sheesh.

Rain said...

Although Blogger just gobbled all that I wrote, I will try again. I do not watch much television for news but if you think Fox is a fair and balanced news source, you are missing the boat. I suggest you try to read newspapers and source links before you go there at the least. From what you aid,I'd guess they get their news from right wing bloggers which explains why you read it first. Think blogs are opinion not facts and you will do better whether it's left or right.

I read Google news usually first for headlines and it takes you to many papers for the stories, usually three versions of each. I check Drudge regularly for likewise headlines to read the stories when I want. Same with Newsmax. For newspapers, it's city papers like LA, Tucson, Portland, Denver, two from Washington DC. I used to read WorldNetDaily until I couldn't stand the birther rants and conspiracy talk and deleted it likewise I feel breitbart has only one idea and that's make Obama and liberals look bad.

You know the righties aren't the only ones with blogs that supposedly expose the evils of the other side. Try this one to make your blood pressure rise-- feeling how unfair it is, of course: The Immoral Minority is pretty much all about the corruption behind Sarah Palin's curtain. It covers everything and anything about her but from the opposite perspective of the tea party adorers.

Or you might give Joe Bageant a look although he doesn't write often. Try Tom Degan's Rant also for how the left thinks. But they are all blogs and blogs are about opinions (including mine) sometimes with links to newspapers but then it's which newspapers and what slant?

We on the left did read plenty about Bush and the National Guard but not what you read probably. About how he didn't show up for duty his last months; how he got out of Vietnam (as did others) by going to college; how his records mysteriously disappeared; how his wastrel years led to a Jesus moment; his pride that he could be president as a C student-- of course it might have helped that he had a president for a father and a political family that is is even now lining up their next candidate.

What the media didn't cover is Bush buying a ranch just before he started his run, a ranch where he could pose as a cowboy but without cattle, tractors or horses. The media ate up him being that rural lover which worked much better than frat boy goof off. The left is pulled in by images as much as the right.

As for who someone is connected to, the stories about all those names came out in the left, evaluated how serious the connection, what proof they related to the administration he would have. Naturally we saw it opposite the righties. But then the righties had similar stories about the Clintons when he was president as murderers and brutal thugs themselves. Same story different people being accused by interestingly often the same spin machines.

My point in this is that you read and get your info one place and believe it because you want to. We all do that and even though I do read left and right pieces, I find some registers as true and some as lies.

What I had hoped for here is that we could look at specific issues that arise like the environment or even religion and how it impacts people's politics. They are controversial but get us farther than your disdain for Obama or mine for Bush (where i still haven't forgiven his father or the ones he put into his administration for Iran Contra and the damage that began in this country). It is hard to get beyond that for any of us.

Rain said...

oh and I do read New York Times, NYPost and NY Daily News but mostly the opinion pieces on the Times. I get more articles from them from Google to be honest when they put up their idea of what is going on...

What I don't like about television for news is the repetition and the drumbeat to make people angry. I don't often watch CNN because it bores me. I understand the appeal of Fox. They know how to keep it interesting BUT they are run by a man who doesn't have our best interests at heart. Think of the trash he runs on his Fox station which corrupts people, sends them into reality television nutdom and then condemns it with people like Glenn Beck who is borderline nuts if he's not totally over the edge but lately seems to be heading into evangelism country. Fox is creating what they are then profiting from. Just take a look at their regular TV roundup of 'entertainment' and tell me what you think Murdock is all about. At the least, it's the dollar and at the most, it's ruination of this country.

Greybeard said...

Your comments about Bush and the National Guard show your ignorance about that program during that period of time, Rain.
Were you in the Guard?
I was.
And that story don't hunt, believe me.
It's why I normally ignore the stuff I read from folks like you trying to make a big deal of nothing.
Just. Plain. Crap.

I watch Fox but don't take it as Gospel until I have read the whole story elsewhere. I've dealt with the media enough in my field of expertise to know how they screw things up, and "trust but verify" virtually everything I read.
But when I watch as almost 100% of the major media ignore a story important as this New Black Panther Party story, and see it covered on Fox News, I know where my information needs will be best covered.

I said it before...
Pravda.
"All the news that fits our agenda."

Rain said...

My brother was in the army during that time and likewise cousins but nobody I knew could even get into the Guard. The issue here though isn't what is true as without records, you don't know the truth either. It is what someone believes. I personally didn't care if he avoided going to Vietnma because a lot did that including Dick Cheney. The issue is people who won't fight themselves and send others to do it with glory talk.

And I told you what I read. Unless you think only right wing blogs and Fox tell the story, then it's a mix of things. I don't watch Fox that's true but I can't stand it. How much do you watch MSNBC?

The power of the internet is the only reason the Black Panther story got any traction at all. Two black panthers stand outside a voting booth, one has I think a night stick. It is implied that threatens those going inside so much that even though the votes are secret, they will vote how the Panthers want them to vote which obviously must be black since they are black. That was a non-story and got more coverage than it deserved anywhere. If it was a crime, it was a local crime and it had nada to do with Obama period. That's not how the right wing bloggers feel though because it suits their fears of some kind of rise of the blacks maybe to join together with the browns even though both sides fight against each other usually.

The difference between you and me is I can see both sides even if I dismiss one. You don't even give the left a break because what you read is all how we are parasites trying to suck this country dry and destroy it to turn it over to... well who knows turn it over to who.

The issue for this blog is trying to stay with the issues which isn't easy given we both dislike the other side so much and believe me, we do both dislike the other side so much! It's mutual disdain and it keeps us from working effectively on the things where we might agree.

Rain said...

Incidentally I don't know how many righties and lefties you know but I know both and they are all, righties or lefties damned (Yeah sometimes a swear word suits me and in this case, better than something milder) good people. That's the frustrating part of all this. I can see that the people on the right and left are good but just see a different world. It's like we look at the same event and interpret it totally differently. Is there anyway we can work together or do we just let ourselves be continually screwed by the ones who benefit the most from our division.

Ingineer66 said...

Rain, I think the rub on the New Black Panther case is not so much the original crime, just like Watergate, it is the cover up and response by the Justice Department. If it is true that Holder told them not to follow up on Civil Rights cases where the defendants were minorities then we have a major problem.
What do you think the response would have been if a couple of Bubbas were standing outside a voting place in Alabama telling people they better "Vote the right way"?

Rain said...

It would not have even hit the newspapers other than maybe locally. You have to be kidding that it would even be a story. As for cover-up. What cover-up? It was in all the papers. You really want Holder to be prosecuting that level of crime at the Justice Department? He has nothing better to do like maybe prepare for the trials of the terrorists?

I am no fan of Holders but if he said they wouldn't prosecute crimes by minorities, he's a nut and should be thrown out of office as much for what he was doing as for being so ignorant as to say it in this atmosphere where too many people did think that the minorities were set to rule once a half black took office. That would be crazier than when he said he didn't like the Arizona law but he only knew what was in it from the news programs probably like Maddow's. Keep in mind that a lot of this becomes huge stories because of the email blitzes and bloggers who don't check for what was really said but just believe it because it suits them.

Rain said...

You know some are equally angry at him for not prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes... just saying...

Greybeard said...

Oh, the Black Panther issue is a "non-story"?
Good grief Rain.
Thank you for making me realize how much time I'm wasting here.

In answer to your question, "Is a revolution coming?"
I'm damned tired of watching history repeat itself because of stupid people.
The answer, unfortunately, is yes.

Rain said...

yes, i feel the same way, Greybeard. You think two guys standing outside a voting booth, not under orders from the Panthers but just standing there with a club was going to actually make someone going in afraid to cast a secret ballot? If you believe that, then yes, it is beyond imagining to me.

If it should have been prosecuted, it should have been by somebody besides the top justice office in our country. For heaven's sake, that's all they have to do there is worry about two yahoos?

When a person does a search on it, all you can find is a ton of right wing bloggers in an uproar over it, stirring each other up with their fear that those two guys were so scary that they deserve to be put on the highest priority list for prosecution. I can't even relate to someone who thinks that way and the very idea of communicating is clearly impossible.

This whole lack of ability to relate to each other is even worse when it's within families and I know such. Parents, children, brothers, sisters. There simply is no way to relate to how the world looks; and it's not as easy as you and I find it as we can just stop reading each other's blogs. When it's in the family it's very tough and far more painful.

Rain said...

And what gets me the most with this is what I have seen implied by some at those tea party rallies, that if it doesn't go our way at the ballot box, we'll start shooting. It means those people never had any idea what this country was about nor what the Constitution stood for. If that happens, it will be ugly but it won't give the ones wanting it what they think. Using violence to get one's way never does even when they think they win. The question is what do you win! I am not a pacifist but I am someone who believes violence is a last resort and not a threat to scare people into doing it their way.

Logic and not emotions should decide things and when we don't like how it is, we run somebody who can win to change it. That can be done from the grassroots level but guns won't turn this country around. It will destroy us and for what? Because the person cannot make their case logically and win over voters. Because they cannot bear the idea that they might have to agree to disagree on some issues.

Anonymous said...

I would like to exchange links with your site www.blogger.com
Is this possible?