He Asked Obama For 3000 Troops, He Got 15 Signs

[skyrider 0]

The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.

The signs were posted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.

They warn travelers that they are entering an "active drug and human smuggling area" and they may encounter "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to "use public lands north of Interstate 8" and to call 911 if they "see suspicious activity."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.

"Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona," he said. "They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.

"This is going on here in Arizona," he said. "This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."

He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government's "continued failure to secure our international border," saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.

In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them "an outrage" and telling President Obama to "Do your job. Secure our borders."

BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.

Story Continues →





http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/31/signs-in-arizona-warn-of-smuggler-dangers/?page=1

[billvon 3,133]

>He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National
>Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.

D'oh! from FOX News:

================================
As Guard Units Head for Border, Obama Takes Heat for Shift in Deportation Policy

Published August 30, 2010

As the first of more than 530 National Guard troops deploys to Arizona to help local officers secure the border, those clamoring for more federal assistance say the latest immigration policy change out of Washington shows the White House is still falling short on enforcement.

. . . .

The policy shift comes as the Obama administration starts deploying 1,200 National Guard troops to the southwest border. The first wave moves out Monday with successive waves to continue arriving there each Monday. They will not serve in a direct law enforcement capacity, but will operate surveillance posts and computer systems, calling in border agents when they spot illegal immigrants and smugglers.

In addition, a bill signed into law by President Obama this month will provide Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with $600 million to spend on 1,500 new Border Patrol, ICE and DEA agents -- combined with the National Guard deployment, the administration is committing close to 3,000 troops to the border battle
================================

[Kennedy 0]

"As of September 1st, we will have the technology to ignore more border crossings from 5000 feet than ever before..."
[URL]]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100830/ts_nm/us_usa_immigration_security[/url]

So when does watching turn into actually stopping them? You know, since they don't want locals making the arrests, and the troops won't make arrests, and the border patrol is terribly understaffed, underfunded, and unsupported by Washington DC.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,133]

>So when does watching turn into actually stopping them?

Does seeing a cop make you think about slowing down? Do you think seeing a cop in a liquor store might deter a criminal from robbing it?

But in any case I was just responding to the original post that claimed Obama refused to send troops. That is incorrect; they are indeed being sent.

>and the border patrol is terribly understaffed, underfunded, and
>unsupported by Washington DC.

====================
$600M border-funding bill clears Congress

By Marisa Gerber
Published Friday, August 13, 2010 10:28 AM CDT

After weeks of congressional ping-pong, a $600 million bill to bolster border security is finally headed to President Barack Obama.

The Senate approved the measure for the second time Thursday after the House OK’d it Tuesday. The Senate initially passed the plan last week after rejecting two House versions.

Locals active in border-related issues expressed satisfaction that the bill, which funds 250 additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, 1,000 extra Border Patrol agents and more unmanned drones along the U.S-Mexico border, had finally made it out of the legislature.
====================

But in any case, I'll add "But Obama isn't spending enough!" to the list of GOP complaints. Right under the "But Obama is spending too much!" complaint.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

But in any case, I'll add "But Obama isn't spending enough!" to the list of GOP complaints. Right under the "But Obama is spending too much!" complaint.

If my family was starving you could say I wasn't spending enough on food. You could also say I was spending too much on crack. You get the idea.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

In addition, a bill signed into law by President Obama this month will provide Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with $600 million to spend on 1,500 new Border Patrol, ICE and DEA agents -- combined with the National Guard deployment, the administration is committing close to 3,000 troops to the border battle

Sorry, Border Patrol, ICE, and DEA don't count as troops. They are law enforcement under DOJ (and maybe DHS). Try apples to apples Bill. Troops are military, you know, DOD, the folks tasked with defending our country.

Quote

Does seeing a cop make you think about slowing down? Do you think seeing a cop in a liquor store might deter a criminal from robbing it?

Well I tend to drive close to the speed limit and don't often consider knocking over liquor stores, but I get your point. However, the week point in your analogy is that no one will ever see the troops being sent south. They will be manning posts dozens of miles from the border. Not exactly high visibilty at the point of entry, eh?

Quote

But in any case, I'll add "But Obama isn't spending enough!" to the list of GOP complaints. Right under the "But Obama is spending too much!" complaint.

See, there's that whole "devil is in the details" thing. Or are you going to claim that most folks leaning to the conservative side don't support defense and security spending? Your arguments used to be a lot more sensible.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skyrider 0]

Quote

>So when does watching turn into actually stopping them?

Does seeing a cop make you think about slowing down? Do you think seeing a cop in a liquor store might deter a criminal from robbing it?

But in any case I was just responding to the original post that claimed Obama refused to send troops. That is incorrect; they are indeed being sent.

>and the border patrol is terribly understaffed, underfunded, and
>unsupported by Washington DC.

====================
$600M border-funding bill clears Congress

By Marisa Gerber
Published Friday, August 13, 2010 10:28 AM CDT

After weeks of congressional ping-pong, a $600 million bill to bolster border security is finally headed to President Barack Obama.

The Senate approved the measure for the second time Thursday after the House OK’d it Tuesday. The Senate initially passed the plan last week after rejecting two House versions.

Locals active in border-related issues expressed satisfaction that the bill, which funds 250 additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, 1,000 extra Border Patrol agents and more unmanned drones along the U.S-Mexico border, had finally made it out of the legislature.
====================

But in any case, I'll add "But Obama isn't spending enough!" to the list of GOP complaints. Right under the "But Obama is spending too much!" complaint.

Half of what was asked for, and they have no arrest powers! Yeaaaaa....he is helping!

[billvon 3,133]

>Half of what was asked for, and they have no arrest powers!
>Yeaaaaa....he is helping!

Yep. Giving a greedy politician half of what he was asking for is pretty generous, no?

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Half of what was asked for, and they have no arrest powers!
>Yeaaaaa....he is helping!

Yep. Giving a greedy politician half of what he was asking for is pretty generous, no?

Ask yourself that question . . . you voted for him.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Kennedy 0]

Just in case anyone was working under the impression that it's just my opinion that border patrol is understaffed, underfunded, and unsupported...

Border Patrol Joins ICE Agents In Condemning Obama Administration

http://www.borderfirereport.net/latest/former-border-patrol-chiefs-join-in-no-confidence-of-upper-management.php

Pressure mounts for DHS as 'no confidence' votes continue and border violence grows

and so on and so forth...

PS- don't think it's limited to border patrol. Not only does the administration not want a fully staffed and functional customs and border security force, not only do they not want locals to do the enforcement job when Feds won't (do I really need to cite the AB 1070 issue?), but apparently the administration doesn't want colleges to even follow the law either. You know, that whole "making sure workers are legally allowed to work in this country" issue.
DOJ Sues Public Colleges Over Immigration Rule

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not only does the administration not want a fully staffed and functional customs and border security force...

Are you making a distinction with the previous administration? Or implying that the current administration is intentianally understaffing more than the previous administration?

- Dan G

[Kennedy 0]

No, this problem is a long time in coming. Don't make it left vs right. And considering Ramos and Compean happened during the last administration, I don't have a lot of positive things to say for them, either.

The only differences are (A) now the violence is getting worse and (B) it's an election year so they've got to do something they can hold up as an accomplishment to everybody, since several of their "accomplishments" were highly opposed by about half the country.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

So when does watching turn into actually stopping them?

When I was still in the Army, we used to send R.A. troops to the Mexico border to observe drug smugglers. Orders were to observe and report to the border patrol. I personally watched three crossings. We reported it as ordered and then watched as they switched drugs from one vehicle to another. Then they just drove away. Border Patrol showed up at least 45 minutes late each time. We have been watching and DOING nothing for years and years.

Dom

[DanG 1]

Quote

The only differences are (A) now the violence is getting worse and (B) it's an election year so they've got to do something they can hold up as an accomplishment to everybody, since several of their "accomplishments" were highly opposed by about half the country.

But the violence is not actually getting worse. The statistics just don't support that. It's been trumped up for political points.

- Dan G

[AndyBoyd 0]

I understand that this is a serious problem, and concede the federal government needs to do more to protect Arizona. However, the fact that certain areas are overrun by criminals is not terribly unusual in the United States, particularly in urban areas. I used to live in Chicago, now I'm in the suburbs. There are areas of that city I would never go into, because they are controled by gangs. An old friend of mine lived in the city, in a pretty decent area, but not far from a bad area. Coming home from dinner out once we took a shortcut through a dicey area. A Chicago cop stopped us and told us that a gang war was underway in the area, and that we should not be here. We thanked him and left quickly. My point is, the cop had basically admitted that the area we were in was not safe, and there wasn't much that could be done except to advise people to stay away. Again, I'm not minimizing the problem in AZ. I'm just saying that this is not unusual.

[Ion01 2]

On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd_9bcLhgH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUpW6lM958M&feature=related

http://www.newsmax.com/US/immigration-arizona-crime-kidnappings/2010/04/27/id/357099

I think this cartoon really says it all:
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/varv05012010a20100503030408.jpg


Harry Reid-
“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK?” Reid said. “Do I need to say more?”

How is this not racist or at least pregidous by grouping a whole race of people into a single group or mindset?

Lets not forget it was a progressive president Wilson who started segregation and he claimed he did it to remove racial tension.

Lets also not forget the wonderful progressive interment camps of WW2 where germans and japanese were rounded up.

[jakee 1,611]

Woodrow Wilson started segregation?

That's brilliant.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 3]

It's the more shameful - segregationist - side of Democratic party history, one which it didn't fully shake off until the mid- to late 1960s. It's also a stain on Wilson's legacy. And it stems from the American hyper-propensity, since the mid-19th Century, toward a strict two-party system, in which third parties never really have a chance to become truly viable and competitive (and thus are not only margianilized, but are effectively discouraged from forming in the first place).

Wilson didn't "start" segregation in the post-Civil War US; but in 1913, just after he took office, he did order the segregation of the US civil service, as the price for the support of white, segregationist Southern Democrats, without whom he would not have been elected (and could not be re-elected). Wilson basically whored his principles to get elected and stay in power, and then rationalized it after-the-fact.

Since shortly before the turn of the 20th Century, socially-progressive, pro-labor, anti-poverty Northern Democrats existed uneasily under the same large roof as white segregationist, Southern Democrats. Had they existed in your country, they would probably have split from each other into two separate parties, the way the Labour party split off from the Liberal party in Britain in the early 20th Century. But the American political landscape simply made that impossible.

So segregationist, socially-conservative Southern Democrats in states with principally agrarian economies co-existed with socially- and economically-liberal Democrats in heavy industry states until 1968, when Richard Nixon successfully brought them over to cross parties and help vote him into office. By the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, conservative Southerners, except for a few aging politicians like Robert Byrd, had almost completely made the switch over to the Republican party (but note: never formed a third party of their own; Strom Thurmond tried in 1948, and George Wallace tried in 1968, but both failed). That's why, today, most Southern states in the US are now predominantly Republican.

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

Wilson basically whored his principles to get elected and stay in power, and then rationalized it after-the-fact.

Oh for sure.

But to state that Wilson 'started' segregation - and to imply that it was a 'progressive' policy... it's just brilliant rhetoric.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,133]

>Ask yourself that question . . . you voted for him.

No, actually I didn't.

But assume whatever you like.

[billvon 3,133]

>The only differences are (A) now the violence is getting worse

That's actually a lie used by people who try to use fear to advance their political agendas. Looks like it worked on you.

===========================
Crime rates in Arizona at lowest point in decades. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the violent crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 -- the most recent year from which data are available -- than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona was lower in 2006, 2007, and 2008 than any year since 1968. In addition, in Arizona, the violent crime rate dropped from 577.9 per 100,000 population in 1998 to 447 per 100,000 population in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,997 to 4,291 during the same period. During the same decade, Arizona's undocumented immigrant population grew rapidly. The Arizona Republic reported: "Between January 2000 and January 2008, Arizona's undocumented population grew 70 percent, according to the DHS [Department of Homeland Security] report. Nationally, it grew 37 percent."

The BJS data further show that violent crime rates and property crime rates in California, New Mexico, and Texas dropped from 1998 through 2008 -- the most recent year from which data are available:

* In California, the violent crime rate dropped from 703.7 in 1998 to 503.8 in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 3,639.1 to 2,940.3 during the same period.

* In New Mexico, the violent crime rate dropped from 961.4 in 1998 to 649.9 in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 5,757.7 to 3,909.2 over the same period.

* In Texas, the violent crime rate dropped from 564.6 in 1998 to 507.9 in 2008; the property crime rate dropped from 4,547 to 3,985.6 over the same period.
===========================

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It's the more shameful - segregationist - side of Democratic party history, one which it didn't fully shake off until the mid- to late 1960s. It's also a stain on Wilson's legacy. And it stems from the American hyper-propensity, since the mid-19th Century, toward a strict two-party system, in which third parties never really have a chance to become truly viable and competitive (and thus are not only margianilized, but are effectively discouraged from forming in the first place).

Wilson didn't "start" segregation in the post-Civil War US; but in 1913, just after he took office, he did order the segregation of the US civil service, as the price for the support of white, segregationist Southern Democrats, without whom he would not have been elected (and could not be re-elected). Wilson basically whored his principles to get elected and stay in power, and then rationalized it after-the-fact.

Since shortly before the turn of the 20th Century, socially-progressive, pro-labor, anti-poverty Northern Democrats existed uneasily under the same large roof as white segregationist, Southern Democrats. Had they existed in your country, they would probably have split from each other into two separate parties, the way the Labour party split off from the Liberal party in Britain in the early 20th Century. But the American political landscape simply made that impossible.

So segregationist, socially-conservative Southern Democrats in states with principally agrarian economies co-existed with socially- and economically-liberal Democrats in heavy industry states until 1968, when Richard Nixon successfully brought them over to cross parties and help vote him into office. By the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, conservative Southerners, except for a few aging politicians like Robert Byrd, had almost completely made the switch over to the Republican party (but note: never formed a third party of their own; Strom Thurmond tried in 1948, and George Wallace tried in 1968, but both failed). That's why, today, most Southern states in the US are now predominantly Republican.

Great post Andy.....not that I expect the usual suspects to actually understand that. It does amaze me how many people who actually beleive that the Party of Lincoln still exists. It was co-opted long ago

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

>Ask yourself that question . . . you voted for him.

No, actually I didn't.

But assume whatever you like.

So you voted for mccain? Nice.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,133]

>So you voted for mccain? Nice.

Nope again. You know what they say about assumptions!