Our Borders Are An Open Highway For Terrorists

| | Comments (66) | TrackBacks (0)

The open border we share with our neighbors to our North and South is a huge security risk. A terrorist, meaning us ill, with a suitcase could and might or already may have walked across the border. What is in the suitcase? This terrorist is probably disguising himself as an immigrant looking for work. How do we pick him out of the crowd?

We already witness the Border Patrol’s inability to stop the flow of drugs over the border given our current arrangement. Why should the border Patrol be expected to fare better stopping terrorists with Nukes?

Our government’s laxity in this area approaches criminal negligence. The United States is in a war. This is a war not of standing armies but of assassins and saboteurs. During WWII we deployed the Civil Defense and Civil Air Patrol to watch our border between Brownsville TX and Douglas Arizona to cope with the threat of spies. Since at that time Canada was a staunch ally in the war against the Germans, Italians, and Japanese, we did not deploy patrols on our northern border; we need to do so today although it does not have the imperatives of the southern border.

The Civil Air Patrol, CAP, numbered over 100,000 personal and flew over 80,000 missions during the war. Approximately 1/8th of the missions were on the Mexican border. These air patrols augmented a force of 1400 border patrol agents. This was all done in the name of preventing sabotage. Sabotage of factories and bridges, while grim, pales in comparison with the mayhem and death associated with a small nuke’s getting smuggled across the border and deposited in a city. We currently have fewer than 5,000 National Guardsmen supporting an anemic Border Patrol force. Why is our current response so small to what is a far greater threat?

The problem today is compounded by the fact that the south west is far more developed today than it was back in 1941. There were large empty regions that had no roads to speak of. Today I-5 and I-10 and a host of state and other federal roads make crossing the border region far easier. The Mexican government back in those days did not facilitate ‘migration’ north (Vicente Fox’s words, not mine). Also, now we have immigrant smugglers (coyotes) and those useful idiots who provide water, food and directions for the ‘migrants.’ All these factors lead to a situation in which we have thousands crossing the border every night.

This is a war. If we continue to fail to recognize the fact that this enemy we are facing is as evil as any we have ever seen, we are lulling ourselves into a false sense of security. Jihadist Islam is its name. Please read Suras (Chapters) 5&9 of the Koran for an idea of what is in store for us if we do not take this seriously.

The terrorists are out to kill us and impose their world view upon us. This world view can be found under Sharia law in the Koran. To merely say it is not a pluralistic view of the world is itself deception. The history of Jihad is replete with massacre, rape, and enslavement in the name of furthering a religion. This behavior is codified and justified by Sura 9:

[9.5] ‘So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.’

Unless we surrender to Islam we are in for violence of every description. Violence has been committed be every group on earth. This one however has the violence codified and the perpetrators immunized from rebuke for their violence as shown again in Sura 9.

[9.1] ‘(This is a declaration of) immunity by Allah and His Apostle towards those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement.’’

The idolaters with whom the Jihadist has made an agreement have four months to convert. Failure to do so in the given period makes them the targets of licensed (immunized) aggression. You will not find such in ANY other monotheistic holy document. In this respect Islam is unique.

The way matters stand, trying to catch the terrorists as they cross the border is akin to trying to catch piranha in a school of goldfish. It is hard enough to catch someone crossing a 1000-mile border at night without trying to pick him out of a crowd. With thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the border each night, the terrorist can blend in with the horde.

The illegal immigrants are coming here because of our incredible economic success and they want to be part of that success. I applaud their goals if not their methods. The odd thing is that our government is complicit in the illegality of their being here. To make the problem of catching the terrorists something other than ‘mission impossible’, we must first drastically reduce the immigrant flow.

1400 boots on the ground with serious air support was thin back in WWII, when the number of illegal immigrants numbered in the scores per month. Now that the number of illegal immigrants runs 3000 per night, 800 agents supported by a few thousand NG troops is a pitifully insufficient gesture. The likes of Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to ship us a nuclear package over this porous border. Why are we inviting disaster?

In the 1950’s President Eisenhower instituted “Operation Wetback.” During the course of this operation, over 1.3 million illegal immigrants left the United States. Interestingly enough, most illegal immigrants left of their own accord. For each one arrested, 7-8 left in order to avoid arrest. Most notably, the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border fell. It appears that we do not need to arrest all 10.5 million illegal immigrants. The power of deterrence has not been explored in our current public discourse. Why does the current discourse not recall Eisenhower’s actions in the 1950’s, or their impact?

History shows that a concerted effort to deport illegal immigrants leads to reverse migration. History also shows that there is a deterrence effect associated with determined immigration enforcement. By draining the swamp, we can more readily find the terrorists who are here for reasons other than economic. Why are we making it easier for the terrorists to come in and slay us?

The questions above are not rhetorical. I am truly dumbfounded that we as a nation are not demanding more of our leadership in this regard. On 9/11, we inherited a laughable border policy; it needs to be fixed. To say that it has not been addressed adequately is a grotesque understatement. This problem transcends our partisan bickering.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Our Borders Are An Open Highway For Terrorists.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/544


zimzo said:

Sometimes I am amused by the buffoonery of the religious right, but then I read something as ignorant and dangerous as this and I am terrified. If you want to turn this war against extremist Muslim terrorists into a war against all one billion Muslims, then you can certainly count me out. Basically you have taken some words from the Quran that dealt with a specific histoical event completely out of context and distorted their meaning. There are plenty of examples in the Old Testament of the Bible of God making similar pronouncements about the enemies of Israel as anyone who has actually read the Bible knows. In addition, the "idolaters" referred to in these passages are not Christians or Jews, who are considered to be People of the Book, so only an ignorant Muslim extremist who knows as little about the Quran as some ignorant Christian extremists know about the Bible could possibly interpret these passages as justification for terrorism against Christians and Jews.

I have been seeing this meme on a lot of Christian right-wing sites lately: that the enemy is Islam itself. This attempt to conflate extremists with the overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims is dangerous, bigoted and stupid.

As if you could not go even more over the top in your fulminations, you then invoke in a positive way "Operation Wetback" (not to be confused, I suppose, with "Operation Hebe," an effort at transporting Jews attempted ten years earlier in a certain European country, and "Operation Darkie" an effort by some southern states, including Virginia, to repatriate people from a certain continent across the sea).

Here is a description of what a great success story "operation Wetback" was:

"The object of his intense border enforcement were "illegal aliens," but common practice of Operation Wetback focused on Mexicans in general. The police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states. Some Mexicans, fearful of the potential violence of this militarization, fled back south across the border. In 1954, the agents discovered over 1 million illegal immigrants.

In some cases, illegal immigrants were deported along with their American-born children, who were by law U.S. citizens. The agents used a wide brush in their criteria for interrogating potential aliens. They adopted the practice of stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification. This practice incited and angered many U.S. citizens who were of Mexican American descent. Opponents in both the United States and Mexico complained of "police-state" methods, and Operation Wetback was abandoned."

I'm sorry if I don't believe that al Qaeda members are disguising themselves as Mexican workers to get into the country but I just don't and no one has ever come up with any examples of this occurring. The 9/11 hijackers came here on airplanes. The terrorists that were caught by the Clinton administration in 2000 came through Canada. Your attempt to conflate the problems with the border with Mexico with terrorism is as bogus as the Bush Administration's attempts to conflate the War on Terror with the War in Iraq. It's idiocy like this that will cause us to lose the War on Terror. I can't wait until November when you guys, who are about as competetent at solving the immigration problem as you have been at capturing Osama Bin Laden, are finally thrown out on your asses.

"Us guys" haven't had a shot at the immigration problem at the federal level yet, and we likely won't with the crew that's in there now. We need a different Senate and likely a different Executive, so 2008 is the first real chance to accomplish anything at the national level. That's why the current focus is local and state.

Jack said:


At least Jacob is trying to come up with solutions. You never answer a single question. So that you can dodge them again, I will post them again:

1) The reality is that we cannot absorb everyone who wants to come here. Do you disagree?

2) Assuming we cannot take in everyone who want to be here (never mind the national security issues), we must then have quotas. How do you propose to stop the flow when the quotas are reached?

3) What would you do with those who come in illegally, even with realistic quotas?

4) What do YOU think are realistic numbers?

While we're at it, why don't you answer my questions about the Lautenberg/Torricelli case?

Why don't you answer ANY questions?!

How about this article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24987. Those hundred Iranians were just here for work, but we cannot take that chance. We know there are terrorist cells in Canada. Do we leave the borders open until we DO get a terrorist attack, or do we close the borders BEFORE the attack?

Nevermind, Zimzo, you don't answer questions.

As for ignorant Christians and ignorant Muslims, I don't know of any Christians strapping themselves with explosives and killing innocent civilians for their religion.

WorldNetDaily won't work with Zim. If it wasn't reported in the NY Times or PBS, it didn't happen.

Jack said:

I have not noticed that ANY facts work with him.

Jack said:

BTW, I have written my congresscritters and volunteered to adopt an anchor baby whose parents are deported.

Of course, the anchor babies are always allowed back in when they are of legal age. THEY are not being deported, their parents are -- it was the parents' choice to come here illegally, and it is the parents' choice whether to take their kids with them when they are deported.


You are a great American. That anchor baby provision is a mess, though. Like about 100 years overdue for review.

zimzo said:

If I recall correctly, Jack, my job description does not require me to answer your questions or even to respond to anything you say. When I have some time I'll go back and check it to see if there is something in the fine print I missed.

Joe, I read a wide variety of sources from the right, left and middle as you must know by now, and weigh the credibility of each individually. I even read the World Net Daily on occasion for a laugh but I don't think it's a credible source any more than the National Enquirer is. And I certainly don't believe everything in the Times, whose lies and bad reporting helped get us into this mess in Iraq after all.

I see from your discussion of so-called "anchor babies" (a subject you might want to ask Michelle Malkin about since she is apparently one) you've decided to add another amendment to your hitlist, the 14th Amendment, which granted slaves citizenship and explicitly reaffirms what was already in the Constitution, one of the founding principles of our nation, the principle of jus soli. I wonder if there will be anything left of the Constitution when you and Bush get through shredding it.

Jack said:


I was unaware that this was a paid position for you. What is you job -- court jester?

You inability to answer any questions, or to try come up with any solutions, makes one wonder why you are bothering to post at all.

Since you are such a staunch supporter of ALL of the Constitution, I am sure you are in favor of restoring the 2nd Amendment rights of people in DC, NY, and CA. Perhaps also you might be able to explain how the Campaign Finance Reform law is NOT a violation of the 1st Amendment.

But there I go again, expecting you to be able or willing to explain anything.

Jack said:

P.S. Yes, that's an ad hominem attack -- it seems to be the only form of discourse you understand.

Jack said:

Bill Garnett lamented, "I don't see Socratic debate."

How can we have Socratic Debate, Zimzo, when you won't answer questions?

Jacob Ash said:

I did not realise you were employed. With all the time you appear to have on your hands, I thought you where getting your breakfast in a soup kitchen. My mistake, I apologise.

I stopped a bit ago to see what is going on w.r.t. the posting and I see you were the first to respond, 10:52 pm on a Friday night. I will get around to responding to your statements later. In the meant time, play nice with Jack.

One more thing, if you are going to spend so much time and energy making statements you might want to defend them by addressing what is written. Your habit of building straw men and knocking them down in public reminds me of the some of the homeless in Washington Square park screaming at the benches. It's ammusing, but hardly effective.


Zimzo, uh, yeah, I understand the slaves have been taken care of by now, right? A quick check of the calendar would suggest as much. So that clause is no longer necessary.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

terrorists with nukes!

snakes on a plane!!

lions and tigers and bears, oh my!!!

everyone should bookmark this thread for the next time some conservative type tries to say that the problem with the left is that they use scare tactics to further their agenda.

Jack, I'd like to take a stab at your 4 questions:

"1) The reality is that we cannot absorb everyone who wants to come here. Do you disagree?"

yes, I disagree, which makes your other three questions moot.

13 million undocumented workers. that's an approximation we can agree on, no? where do those 13,000,000 people eat? buy their food? buy their clothes? put gas in their cars? send their children to college? pay their taxes?

add 13,000,000 to an economy, and what happens? businesses open to provide those people with food, clothes, etc.
more people = more jobs.

imagine if you took the population of the US and doubled it. from 300,000 to 600,000. Do you think that would result in 300,000 jobless people who simply could not be absorbed? NO. the unemployment rate would stay the same, there would just be twice as many of everything, including jobs.

so we have 13,000,000 people who want to play the game of american life. we can scream bloody murder about how they're going to wreck havoc on our economy and teach our children immodest dances, or we can work on getting them employed, housed, and cycling their incomes back into local economies. That's integration, baby!

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

correction: the US population is not approximately 300,000, rather it is approximately 300,000,000 and doubling it would make it approximately 600,000,000.

thank you

General! Welcome back. I get your point, and while I can't quite follow the math I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

(By the way Jacob Ash and I were discussing you over beers the other night, all positive).

Question: What about the fact that so many of them are not here to "play the game of American life" but are simply economic migrants? Doesn't that change the "integration" picture?

Jack said:


Jax Question: The reality is that we cannot absorb everyone who wants to come here. Do you disagree?

Puffy's reply: Yes, I disagree, which makes your other three questions moot.

Thank you. Now, while we disagree, I will go with your assertion for the sake of argument. Now I ask the follow-on question:

Should we screen the immigrants for infectious diseases, criminal records, and terrorist links before we allow them in the country?

I'm sure you know the follow up to that: Assuming we have the resources to do that screening, how do we secure the borders to prevent the unwanted (diseased, criminals, and terrorists) from coming over the borders?

Furthermore, even assuming we let all in who will pass the screening, is it fair to those waiting to immigrate legally to reward the illegals by placing them ahead of those trying to come legally?

If "more people=more jobs," why isn't India a paradise? If we can support so many unskilled workers, why is the unemployment in the Black community so high?

BTW, the latest government estimates are 10.5 million illegal immigrants, so I'm sure it's at leat 15M. :-)

Jack said:


"Basically you have taken some words from the Quran that dealt with a specific histoical event completely out of context and distorted their meaning."

I am reading the Q'uran now, there is not mention of the specific historical event you mention. It looks more like a Leviticus/Deuteronomy-style outline of Sharia Law to me. What specific event does this refer to?


Jack said:

Dang, I did it AGAIN!! There I go trying to get answers out of Zimzo.

zimzo said:

I have a suggestion for you, Jack. Why don't you look up what historic event is referred to and then report back to the class? I assume you have access to the Internet, which incidentally is installed at a lot of work places nowadays.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Joe, to you I ask, aren't all immigrants who aren't refugees 'economic migrants'? that's the history of this great land, ever since the first prehistoric folks wandered out of eurasia and across that land bridge on their quest for scarce resources.

it's America's grand narrative and raison d'etre, and if it doesn't bring a tear to your eye you're a communist!


I'm going out of town, so will respond to your post later. for now, suffice it to say that any patrolling of the border would be more manageable if the only people who had to sneak in were these terrorists and diseased criminals, and not practically everyone South of the border who is looking for a better life.

Jacob Ash said:

Glad you are back.

I comepletely agree with your point regarding the misery south of the border. Those folks by and large are here looking for a better life.

As a son of immigrants, I am very sympathetic to those who desire to come here.

Please email me at jacob@novatownhall.com, I have something I want to ask you.


Jacob Ash said:

As for scare tactics, go find some articles of the sermons in the mosques in Iran.

Granted, YOU cannot trust anything I say because I am an ignorent Chirstian right wing evangelical, according to Zimzam.

But can you at least beleive what the mad mullahs are saying when it comes to us (the great satan). Face it, I don't think this is tough talk and they are actually planning to give us a big sloppy kiss.


Jacob Ash said:

A few more links ...
in support of terrorists, the destruction of Israel, and how the US is responsible

Jacob Ash said:

the Iranian electical program

Jacob Ash said:

a call for peace (of the grave)

Jacob Ash said:

commentary regarding free speech

oh and the death fatwa on Rushdie has been reinstated.

There is facism afoot Marshmallow. We have so degenerated in this country that we politicize our foreign policy. This is suicide in slo-mo.


Jack said:


I DID look it up -- in the Q'uran. The statements Jacob quoted are NOT, at least in the Q'uran, related to any historical event. Since YOU made the assertion that they were associated with a historical event, YOU should be the one to back up that assertion with references.

Assuming you cannot or will not provide such references, we must assume that you are lying yet again.

Jacob Ash said:

Don't hold your breath waiting for him to back his claim up. The one time I really did engage him, he switched gears so fast I think he burned the clutch.

zimzo said:

I know the Internets are hard for conservatives to navigate with all those tubes:


Jacob, I suppose if you can interpret the Quran through the statements of a few crazy Mullahs, then we should interpret the Bible based on what Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson says.

General, no, that's not what I refer to by 'economic migrants.' I mean those who have not come to become Americans, but to remain foreign nationals and send the money home. See the two paragraphs about halfway down here:


This is what could be behind the phenomenon - the common complaint - that many of them seem to have no interest in assimilating, thus seem to be not on 'best behavior' here. This is a huge difference from the situation from 1840-1920 when the vast majority of immigrants retained ethnic identity for a couple generations at least, but retained basically ZERO nationalistic ties to the old country.

I know the history in much more detail than the above paragraph conveys, but I'm trying to watch the Bristol race and type at the same time, and the race is winning.

Zimzo, I don't think Jacob Ash is the one we have to worry about in relation to the interpretations of a "few crazy mullahs." It's the Muslims with bombs, guns and knives, who I believe were the subject of Jacob's point about border security. They seem to justify their attacks with reference to their religion.

I've spoken with Jacob and, get this, he personally doesn't take that book of theirs very seriously AT ALL, no matter who's doing the exegesis.

Jack said:


Considering ANYONE can edit Wikipedia, I'm not impressed, especially since it has no attribution. We cannot know who wrote this article. Nevertheless, I will accept it as fact until I see something to the contrary.

Your second link does provide interesting historical details, but makes no mention of Sura 9, so is irrelevent to the discussion.

Now, you highlight an interesting point: the Q'uran does not mention these historical references at all. This may be the key to the interpretation of the Islamist Jihadists. Since there is no historical context in the Q'uran, there is no context to their interpretaion, and they assume it applies in all future situations.

In any event, it is the Jihadists' interpretation that is the problem. They are the ones that want to kill us, based on their interpretation of the Q'uran. If their interpretaion is so far from mainstream Islam, where are the denunciations from mainstream Muslims?

I know Pat Robertson, actually. My aunt worked for him for many years, and he offered to perform my uncle's eulogy. When he suggested assassinating Chavez, many moderate Christians denounced him, even though Chavez is no innocent. Where are the moderate Muslims denouncing the suicide bombers?

I have never heard of Fred Phelps.

All that aside, Jacob's premise is still sound -- terrorists can get across our borders. We know there are cells in Canada, and our border is porous there, too. I suppose you are trusting that, being one of their fifth column, you would be spared.

Jacob Ash said:

With regard to your first posting …
First of all, you completely missed the point entirely. Let us review the basic grammar involved here. “Jihadist Islam is its name. Islam here is the noun, were Jihadist is the adjective modifying the noun, “Islam”. I believe that is the possible source of you confusion leading to you statement “If you want to turn this war against extremist Muslim terrorists into a war against all one billion Muslims, then you can certainly count me out.” The extremists and the Jihadists are one and the same. Now that your apparent reading comprehension skills have been augmented, such hyperbole on your part won’t be necessary.

As for your statement: “In addition, the "idolaters" referred to in these passages are not Christians or Jews, who are considered to be People of the Book, so only an ignorant Muslim extremist who knows as little about the Quran as some ignorant Christian extremists know about the Bible could possibly interpret these passages as justification for terrorism against Christians and Jews.” Ignorance is lacking knowledge, allow me to give you some from Sura ” [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” and “[5.14] And with those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of, therefore We excited among them enmity and hatred to the day of resurrection; and Allah will inform them of what they did.” And then 5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

“I have been seeing this meme on a lot of Christian right-wing sites lately: that the enemy is Islam itself.” Please point to the websites, I would like to see this. I do not doubt that there is a right wing equivalent of the dailykos or the democratic underground, but I would like to see what you are talking about.

As for "Operation Wetback", that was the name the government gave the operation; your additional anti-Semitic and racist musings not withstanding. The government bozo in the 50’s who did come up with the was almost as racist as your writing.

Then you proceed to write “Your attempt to conflate the problems with the border with Mexico with terrorism is as bogus” argument by assertion again. I recommend a classes in logic and debate.
“I can't wait until November when you guys, … , are finally thrown out on your asses.” What will get the bums thrown is the open border issue. It is a distinct possibility.
With regard to one of your later posts …
As for the number of mullahs engaged in anti-western anti-Semitic sermonizing, it is to be found in many more countries and mosques than a “few”. As for Pat Robertson, he is a clown and an embarrassment, I have never heard any Christian from my peer group, at church or at work him, however I often here liberals parroting him every chance they get.

Who is Fred Phelps? He must be SO famous and influential I never hear of him. Do you know who Ayatolla Khohmeni(sp?) is?


Jack said:


That Phelps guy sounds like a real jerk. I emphatically denounce the idea that God hates homosexuals. I will tell you what I DO believe:

1) Homosexual acts are sinful.
2) I do not know whether God made them that way, or whether it is a choice. (I suspect the former may be true for some, and the latter for others.)
3) #2 does not matter. Gays are called change or be celebate.
4) If they do this -- if they make this sacrifice for His sake -- they will have their reward, and a far greater one than I can hope for.

2nd link, very funny. Here's one for you:


Jacob Ash said:

Zim, Jack,
Well, if we are going to go on a self improvement jag, I have one for every body:


Jack said:


You never let me have any fun.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. Remember, one day you will appear before Allah and answer for your deeds. So beware, do not astray from the path of righteousness after I am gone."

-from the final sermon of Muhammad, delivered on the Ninth Day of Dhul Hijjah 10 A.H (c. 630 AD)

Grand Pufti, We need to get you a bigger platform then. Your message is not getting out to the troublemakers.

Had Enough said:

mexico is opening a customs port in Kansas (to be run by mexico), the chinese are building ports in mexico, we are being flooded with cheap communist goods for walmart.

When the arabs were going to run the ports all hell was raised!

Why is no one screaming over the North American Union? bush has a plan! It is open borders, doesn't anybody get it!

mexicans and every other south american country will have a free pass to our country, drug runs and every other crime they choose.


A North American United Nations?
By Congressman Ron Paul, R-Texas, 8/28/2006 12:52:50 PM

Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.

According to the US government website dedicated to the project, the SPP is neither a treaty nor a formal agreement. Rather, it is a "dialogue" launched by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco, Texas in March, 2005.

What is a "dialogue"? We don't know. What we do know, however, is that Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.

According to the SPP website, this "dialogue" will create new supra-national organizations to "coordinate" border security, health policy, economic and trade policy, and energy policy between the governments of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. As such, it is but an extension of NAFTA- and CAFTA-like agreements that have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.

Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.

Let's examine just a couple of the many troubling statements on the SPP's US government website:

"We affirm our commitment to strengthen regulatory cooperation...and to have our central regulatory agencies complete a trilateral regulatory cooperation framework by 2007"

Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?

The website also states SPP's goal to "[i]mprove the health of our indigenous people through targeted bilateral and/or trilateral activities, including in health promotion, health education, disease prevention, and research." Who can read this and not see massive foreign aid transferred from the US taxpayer to foreign governments and well-connected private companies?

Also alarming are SPP pledges to "work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products." That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans' health freedom.

Even more troubling are reports that under this new "partnership," a massive highway is being planned to stretch from Canada into Mexico, through the state of Texas. This is likely to cost the US taxpayer untold billions of dollars, will require eminent domain takings on an almost unimaginable scale, and will make the US more vulnerable to those who seek to enter our country to do us harm.

This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

the point is that islam isn't inherently violet. of course, none of the big players in the world really give a rats ass about what Mohammed or Jesus or anyone else ever said. It's all just power-politics. Wars have been fought in the name of Jesus, who was the archetype pacifist. It wouldn't make sense to read a book on the crusades and then conclude that the christian religion was inherently violent, would it? Religion is a powerful tool for organizing people, and that's been exploited for good and bad, that's all.

that was an interesting article, Haddy. are you a regular reader of the hawaiireporter.com?

i don't think NAFTA represents an expansion of the government's powers. setting tariffs is one of the original duties of the federal gov. and countries enter into bilateral negations all the time, so...

you seem to be confusing issues. are you anti-globalization or concerned about security? (what the hell is this thread about anyway?)

if you're concerned about the cost to taxpayers for building a big highway, imagine the costs we'd have to pay if free trade was cancelled. right now I can get a gallon jug of kosher dills at Walmart for 60 cents, and I gots to have my pickles.

Jack said:


Is there any armed conflict in the world right now that does not involve Muslims?

Jesus a pacifist?

Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Jacob Ash said:

Your point regarding Islam misses the mark. I am discussing Jihadist Islam. Which is represented today by all the various Islamic terrorists organizations and Wahabist(sp?) madrasas and mosques.

As for “what the hell is this thread about anyway?” I will summarize.
1. We are at war with Jihadists.
2. The Jihadists see it as their holy duty to kill as many of us as possible if we fail to convert to their brand of Islam.
3. We have effectively uncontrolled borders.
4. In light of the Jihadist threat, we need to control the borders.
5. The thousands of immigrants coming over the border makes the task of controlling the border impossible.
6. The immigrants are not terrorists, but, they are inadvertently giving the terrorist a herd to hide in. Can one separate the sheep from the goats in the dark of night?
7. Therefore the two issues are linked, unfortunately.
8. We also have a long border to the North that in light of the Jihadist threat needs to be controlled.
If you would like these kinds of ‘cliff notes’ more often, I will understand. I bet you are the only kid on the block who has a mountain bike with training wheels. ;-)

As for your pickles, I did not advocate closing the border to trade, but, simply to control who actually gets into the country in a manner that is more effective than what we have currently.

On a side note, if I recall correctly, Christianity, with the notable exception of Latin America, spread peacefully through evangelists, as did Buddhism and Zaroastroism(sp?). Islam’s explosive spread was entirely at the point of the sword, or its threat.

This first was done the under the Arabs and then into Anatolia, the Balkans and Italy under the Turks. Frankly, the Turks were at war with Austria, Poland or Russia nearly continuously for well over 800 years. There was the conquest of Iran, by the Arabs, and the invasion of India by the Moguls. Before all that the Arabs conquered all of the Levant, North Africa and Spain. It could probably be reasonably argued that the trick of forced conversion, as employed by the Spanish in the New World, was learned from their Islamic adversaries.


Jack said:

"When the missionaries went to darkest Africa, did they ask permission? Hell, no! They went down there, pulled 'em out of the trees, dragged 'em down to the river, an' held 'em under 'til they say the light." -Archie Bunker

Jack said:

Sorry, Jacob. I guesss I'm not helping, am I?

Jacob Ash said:

This is what happens when you quote an idiot.

zimzo said:

You keep saying that you are only talking only about "Jihadists" and then you make claims about Islam in general and back up your points with quotes from the Quran. Forgive me if I'm a little confused in thinking that you are attacking not just Jihadists but the Muslim religion itself.

jacob said:

The documentation that the Jihadist are using is the Koran. To understand them one must go to the source. To otherwise is to engage in willful blindness.

To refuse to quote the Koran, when explaining the motivation of the Jihadist is to ignore the obvious. They are using the Koran to justify their actions. If this is not correct then provide an alternative explaination.


zimzo said:

That they are misinterpreting the Quran just as you are, and as many right-wing Christians misinterpret the Bible.

Jack said:

Funny how the new interpretations of the Q'uran and mis-interpretations, but the new interpretations of the Bible are correct.

jacob said:

Once again you are barking at the benches in the park.

On one hand, you are very earnest not to insult or malign the Muslims of the world. Heaven forfend that they ought to be in any way connected to the likes of Hezbolah or the muslim brotherhood.

But, given any opportunity you take a cheap shot at all the Christian beleivers out their. Tell me Zimmy baby, why ain't you so earnest and worried in that regard?

You do not need offer a shred of evidence of how all then big bad Christian are misinterpreting the Bible, but sure enough according to you they are. Care to put some meat on them bones? Would you care to provide an example? Or are you all flash and no show?

I would also dearly love to see a 'correct' interpretation of a Biblical passage from you looks like. One caveate, be prepared to discuss your musings.

Come on, I know you can do better than 'right wing buffoonery' or 'ignorent christian'. You must have something more in your bag than just labels? Or is that all that there is?


Jack said:


If these radical Islamists are so far off in their interpretation of the Q'uran, why is there no outcry from the mainstream Muslims, condemning the abuse of the Q'uran?

zimzo said:

See how easy it is to misinterpret. I wasn't taking "a cheap shot at all the Christian believers" just the right-wing zealots who use the Bible to justify their political agenda. When you misinterpret a passage from the Bible, I'm sure you will get ample opportunity to see my powers of exegesis.

As far as there being "no outcry" from mainstream Muslims, that's simply not true. Just as one example, you might want to check out the writings of one of the most brilliant Islamic scholars I know, who just happens to teach at the University of Virginia, Prof. Abdulaziz Sachedina.


The fact that he also had a fatwa issued against him by Ayatollah Sistani might give you some insight as to why many mainstream Muslims might be afraid to be outspokenly critical. http://justworldnews.org/archives/000440.html

zimzo said:

And one more timely example, one of my favorite writers who died today:


Jack said:

So you're saying moderate Muslims are afraid to speak out in defense of their faith? That's quite an assertion.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Jacob, my post was a response to "Had Enough" not you.

The border… back at Elis island, any old fool could come in and become a citizen. That’s all I want to say about the border right now. This thread has moved in a different direction, and I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss border security later. for the time being...

Jack is a nut, but a helpful one. He just used some quotes from the bible to make the point that Jesus was not a pacifist but was actually a warrior. Yet my whole life I've been taught that Jesus loved peace, taught that we should love our enemies and turn the other cheek when struck. This illustrates my point, I think. Yes, there is a radical new interpretation of Islam, and yes they are using the Koran to back up their ideology. But that doesn't really mean anything. You can use the bible to argue that Jesus both was and wasn't a pacifist, depending on your mood at the time. You get a thick enough book, with enough combinations of words in it, and you can use that book to justify anything.

think of the craziest, most twisted psycho thing you can think of and then go to an on line bible and I bet you'll be able to find a passage which you could use to rationalize the righteousness of that nutty idea.

So did Mohammed love death and violence? No. But it's all about interpretation, and it's like looking at clouds; anyone can interpret whatever they want to. Sometimes I think you conservative types get so caught up on the One True objective reality that you foget that it's perception that makes the world go round.

now, about history:

Jacob, I think you really could brush up on this period in history, especially if you’re going to be debating these issues. After Mohammed's death, Islam spread all over the region, The Muslims conquered lands with their swords, but it was not their policy to force people to convert. This religious tolerance was a key factor in the stability of the Islamic empires; the people they conquered didn’t feel oppressed. I’m not saying that everything was peaceful and happy all the time, but for Christ’s sake (lit.) the crusaders slaughtered everyone in Jerusalem when they first took it. What book did the crusaders use to justify their psychotic orgy of violence? No, not the Koran, I’ll give you one more guess.
We in Christendom also forget that Constantine used Jesus’ message to justify an expansion of Byzantine control over the Holy Land. The traditional Christian narrative about the vision of the cross and his conversion serves to rationalize the violence in that time which was committed in Christ’s name. Our violence was ok because it was ordained by God. We’re able to see Muslim expansion in the middle ages for what it is: violent conquest. But we tend to only see the violent acts of Christians in that time through rose tinted glasses.

Yes, in our modern world, Muslims blow themselves up more than followers of other religions do. But we need to remember that this is a modern movement based on a contemporary perspective, and any appeals to history these guys make only serve to rally the troops, they do not provide any insight into the inherent nature of Islam as opposed to Christianity.

Jack said:


I have heard an interesting interpretation of the "turn the other cheek" quotation, one version of which is Matt5:39: "But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

First, notice the conjuction "but," not "and." It is an important difference. When one is slapped on the right cheek, it is with a back-hand. This implied that the one struck was an inferior. By offering the LEFT cheek to be struck, one declares oneself to be an equal without overt retaliation.

My recollection is that Pope Urban II called for an army to relieve the Eastern churches after an attack on the Byzantine Empire by the Turks. Nevertheless, the slaughter in Jerusalem cannot be justified.

As to "the inherent nature of Islam," we cannot really know that, can we? So we judge them by their fruits. We see them repeatedly attacking civilians, but we never see a fatwa issued by the "moderates" against the "radicals," do we?

We see CAIR griping that tourists from Muslim countries might be being "profiled" at the airport.

Where are all the American Muslims lining up to help with translations of Arabic and Farsi, as we saw Japanese Americans helping in WWII?

Silence may not equal consent, but I sure don't see the moderates' helping us, either.

jacob said:

This entire discussion has drifted into musings on the nature of Islam. This is my que to say "Thank you all."

I am planning to shamelessly plagerize from any of the above comments and put together a posting summerising your comments above. This conversation is worth pursuing.

The fundemental observations I made were repeated in cliff notes fasion above in points 1 through 8.

Did it answer your question regarding 'What the hell is this all about?' I would appreciate your views on the 8 points. I do not current plan to respond to your observations here.

I will respond to your 'I think you really could brush up on this period in history', I will, even though I have read several sourcs on the topic already. But advice to go learn something will always be taken.

You are a big contributer to this conversation going down this path. Thanks. But please don't bitch about it later.

"Where are all the American Muslims lining up to help with translations of Arabic and Farsi, as we saw Japanese Americans helping in WWII?" Is a great question. I wonder if anyone will take a bite at that apple.


zimzo said:

First of all while there were certainly Japanese Americans who helped translate during World War II, I'm not sure where you get the idea that there were significantly more Japanese American tranlators then than there are Arabic translators now. There are about 3,500 Arabic-Americans in the military now and about 4,000 people fluent in Arabic. During World War II there were 6,000 nisei (second-generation Japanese-American) translators. First-generation Japanese Americans were not trusted by the military and even many nisei were not trusted. Much of the shortage was filled by non-Japanese Americans recruited from Ivy league colleges.

As to why there are shortages of Arabic speakers in the government today I think there are several reasons. Clearly, since 55 Arabic linguists have been kicked out of the military for being gay it is not as high a priority as it should be. And five years after September 11 there are 10 people in the State Department fluent in Arabic. It's hard for me to believe the State Department could not find more than 10 people who can speak Arabic in the United States, even if every Arab-American refused to work there. If it were truly a priority, that would not be the case.

Most important, I think the government made a strategic mistake after 9/11, which may have been understandable at the time. In order to stop another attack, the government put the Arabic community under a lot of scrutiny, made some arrests, interrogated a lot of people. For example, after the attacks the FBI questioned 8,000 Arab and Muslim men. Some of these became FBI informants. But for the most part Arab-Americans, whether correctly or not, saw the government tactics as heavy-handed. Instead of encouraging cooperation by the Arab-American community their tactics had the affect of alienating and instilling fear and paranoia in many Arab-Americans. And while many might have been eager to help in fighting Al Qaeda, once attention turned to the War in Iraq, many began to have foreign policy differences with the government. The perception that the administration has come down on the side of Israel and against Palestinians probably hasn't helped matters. I would have to agree that the government seems to be fighting the war on terror mostly militarily instead of with intelligence (in both of its meanings) with an all stick and no carrot approach. It's worth noting that the recent terorist plot in Great Britain was discovered because of a tip from a member of the Arab community in the UK, which seems to be making more of an effort to work with the community instead of seeing them all as potential enemies. Here is an article that illustrates some of the problems the government has had with recruiting. While you may disagree with some of the sentiments expressed, it seems to me it would be stupid to disregard them:


Jack said:

Interesting article. Apparently, they have met their goals for translators, but not for regular "G.I. Mo" that spaeaks Arabic.

There is, of course, a difficult line to tread here. Naturally, one would pay special attention to Arabic people, since that's who the terrorists are. At the same time, we have to cozy up to the Arabic community to get information, again because the terrorists are Arabic.

Our treatmant of the Arabic-American people now is far better than our treatment of the Japanese-Americans in WWII, but still we had 6,000 Japanese translators. There were 56,322 male Japanese aliens registered. How many Arabic translators, or volunteers of any kind, do we have now? 10,000? And how many Arabic aliens? (The U.S. Muslim population is about five million.)

The ratios seem to favor the Japanese.

One aspect of the problem is the Muslim populations' disagreement with our Middle East policy, specifically Israel. The Muslim population is sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbolla, at least enough that they will not denounce the terrorist attacks.

Twenty-two bombs were detonated in Thailand today by Muslim terrorists. Let's see whether there is any Muslim outcry against it.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

wait a second... you mean second-generation Japanese immigrants often weren't trusted during WWII? Did people think they might feel a strong attachment to their the motherland? Why, I thought all immigrants used to integrate seamlessly into American society. I thought it was only contemporary Mexican immigrants who failed to integrate.


now I'm confused...

Jack said:

No. Please excuse me if I did not phrase that well.

Only aliens had to register, and only aliens were interned. (Anyone born in the U.S. was not an alien, so there is no such thing as a second-generation immigrant, only second-generation Americans.) However, the aliens' families were allowed to go with them into the camps.

Sorry for the confusion.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

i was being facetious

Jack said:

OK. Tone of voice doesn't convey well sometimes.

We all need to get together with blue crabs sometime. General, when might you be coming south?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here