1.1. In for a penny, in for 3/4 of a cent?

In the battle on the U.S.-Mexico border, the fight against illegal immigration often loses out to environmental laws that have blocked construction of parts of the “virtual fence” and that threaten to create places where agents can’t easily track illegal immigrants.

Documents obtained by Rep. Rob Bishop and shared with The Washington Times show National Park Service staffers have tried to stop the U.S. Border Patrol from placing some towers associated with the virtual fence, known as the Secure Border Initiative or SBInet, on wilderness lands in parks along the border.

In a remarkably candid letter to members of Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department could have to delay pursuits of illegal immigrants while waiting for horses to be brought in so agents don’t trample protected lands, and warns that illegal immigrants will increasingly make use of remote, protected areas to avoid being caught.

The documents also show the Interior Department has charged the Homeland Security Department $10 million over the past two years as a “mitigation” penalty to pay for damage to public lands that agencies say has been caused by Border Patrol agents chasing illegal immigrants.

By all means, let’s protect our nation from illegal immigration and terrorism, but let’s do so only where it coincides with the precious concerns of the enviro-weenies.

Maybe the government can strike a deal with the coyotes to smuggle their illicit human cargos only in areas first approved by those whose environmental concerns take precedence over the lives and wellbeing of Americans, and make a similar arrangement with any terrorists or MS-13 gangs wishing to come into the U.S. to wreak their havoc.

Dipstix…

2. Our esteemed Ego-In-Chief:

PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends” that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.” He referred to “tyranny,” but never identified the tyrants — he never uttered the words “Soviet Union” or “communism,” for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan — or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

Of course he did. He is, after all, his favorite subject.

It’s been a point of debate between Chuck and I whether he was this big a self worshiper before he ran for his present position (Chuck’s opinion) or his ego was hyper-inflated by the messiah building PR showered upon him by the mainstream media, and the adulation he received from millions of gullible mental zeros or overreactive Bush-haters who elected him (my opinion).

If I’m right, my flashback to Peter Finch as Howard Beale in Network (you know, “Go to the window…”) is almost spot-on.

“Few would have foreseen,” declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.”

As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for “Ich bin ein Berliner,” still less another “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat. Obama couldn’t be troubled to visit Berlin to commemorate a momentous milestone in the history of human liberty. But he was glad to explain to those who were there why reflections on that milestone should inspire appreciation for the self-made “destiny” of his own rise to power.

Was there ever a president as deeply enamored of himself as Barack Obama?

The first President Bush, taught from childhood to shun what his mother called “The Great I Am,” regularly instructed his speechwriters not to include too many “I’s” in his prepared remarks. Ronald Reagan maintained that there was no limit to what someone could achieve if he didn’t mind who got the credit. George Washington, one of the most accomplished men of his day, said with characteristic modesty on becoming president that he was “peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”

Obama, on the other hand, positively revels in The Great I Am.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” he told campaign aides when he was running for the White House. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.”

At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal “we” — “We will build the roads and bridges . . . We will restore science to its rightful place . . . We will harness the sun and winds,” he declaimed at his inauguration.

But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, “By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked ‘I’: ‘As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.’ ‘I called for action.’ ‘I pushed for quick action.’ ‘I have told each of my cabinet.’ ‘I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.’ ‘I refuse to let that happen.’ ‘I will not spend a single penny.’ ‘I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves.’ ‘I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half.’” In his speech on the federal takeover of GM, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. (”Congress” he mentioned just once.)

The writer of the linked column, Jeff Jacoby, knows his subject:

At this rate, it won’t be long before the president’s ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.

Yeah, by him I mean former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a Dem left over from the years before the far left bought and paid for the Democratic Party. Granted, he’s somewhere on the liberal side of things, but he doesn’t lick the hind quarters of the anti-America crowd like most of the other Democrats do these days.

In a September 22nd editorial, The New York Times renewed its opposition to the construction of a fence to deter illegal crossings from Mexico to the United States.

The Times speculates that the current decline in border arrests “could be because of the bad economy as much as the fence.” They are probably right. What I object to is the Times’ insistence that a better solution to the problem of illegal immigration is “for Congress to reform the nation’s immigration laws. No fence can keep a determined immigrant out or absolve Congress of that responsibility.” The Times’ version of reforming our immigration laws means providing amnesty and a path to citizenship to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now living in the U.S.

The Times refuses to use the words illegal aliens when referring to people crossing our borders without permission. Instead, it calls them “immigrants,” or “migrants.” If people entered The New York Times building without permission and squatted there, would the Times call them migrants? Or would it call them trespassers and have them evicted?

If people entered The New York Times building without permission and squatted there, would the Times call them migrants? Or would it call them trespassers and have them evicted?

Have ‘em evicted, of course. Do as we say, not as we do, right?

The pro-amnesty liberals are, after all, the same people who live in gated communities that won’t be having any of these amnestied aliens living in them, anyway, so they can wish whatever they want on the rest of us.

I oppose the granting of amnesty except in cases demanding a compassionate response, e.g., children who are American citizens whose parents are illegals. My solution to illegal immigration is prison for American employers who knowingly hire illegals. I do not support jailing the aliens, but I would support paying their transportation costs back to their homelands. If their own countries want to give them a preference in applying for U.S. citizenship and allow them to jump ahead of those who have patiently waited in line, I would try in some way to accommodate that action. I doubt that will occur.

If such amnesty is offered again, as it was in 1986, it will make a mockery of our laws. The illegals will continue to come, hoping and expecting a subsequent amnesty. The Pew Research Center, according to the September 23rd Times, reported “one-third of Mexicans say they would move to this country if they could, and more than half of those would move even if they did not have legal immigration documents.” Those Mexican citizens seem to agree with the Times on open borders.

Personally, I agree with Koch that the Reagan amnesty of 1986 was a mistake (which only goes to show that even the greatest among us make a mistake now and then), but I disagree with the former mayor about anchor babies. If the parents are here illegally to begin with, the child shouldn’t have automatic U.S. citizenship. It’s a piss poor system that allows such flaws as the opportunity for people to use the creation of human life for the purpose of exploiting the legal system, not much different from a welfare mother who keeps on cranking out babies for the sole purpose of milking more money out of the taxpayer to support her drug or alcohol addictions.

The Times’ editorial is correct, however, to criticize the cost of the fence. It also tells us that “Investigators from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office report that the larger, actual fence-covering a 600 mile-plus stretch between San Diego and Brownsville, Tex.-cost $2.4 billion to build and will cost an extra $6.5 billion in upkeep across two decades.” It also notes that “Auditors reported last week that the high-tech, 28-mile “virtual” section of the fence was running a mere seven years behind this month’s planned opening.”

Ridiculous. Somebody, probably a lot of people, should be fired for incompetence. That is why when government officials tell us they intend to fund a new program like health care and save money by eliminating waste, fraud, and incompetence, nobody believes them. This single example explains why, but there are many others. The purpose of this article is to sound the alarm so that we can gird our loins and prepare for the next congressional battle over immigration which is likely to take place in the election year 2010.

The above emphasis is my way of shouting “Right On!!!!” from the rooftops.

Read the entire column.

Wolf here.

As Seth and Chuck are out and about on some skullduggery or other, I may as well pick up the slack, here. The sacrifices we make…

Just kidding.

Before I get started, here, a quick note on the Obama economy. Yes, well on the way to 12 Trillion smackers, there, with all kinds of expenditures on far left agendas, much of which will bounce back at election time to finance Democrat campaigns. Yeah, I mean the Obama Administration ripping off the taxpayer to bolster campaign warchests on the left side of the political picture. That would be considered a felony, except that the lefty media goes out of its way to ignore that sort of thievery, seeing as it’s being perpetrated by a liberal administration. God help a Republican president if he did the same thing!

There, now, with that out of the way, let’s move on to an article at CNSNews by Terence P. Jeffrey.

Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Why? Because funding that could have been used to keep the Border Patrol up to adequate strength is prioritized, instead, for those above mentioned sleazy, treasonous, criminal liberal agendas.

Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week–as I first reported in my column yesterday–that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.

More money, measurable in metric tons, was allocated to now discredited ACORN (only discredited because even the Mighty Mainstream Media couldn’t keep a lid on the recent release of videos in which certain ACORN employees showed their true colors), than they’d need to keep those agents on our southern border.

Easterling said the Border Patrol would be able to maintain the current number of miles under effective control on the Mexico border with fewer agents deployed there thanks to “force multipliers,” including new fencing, roads and other infrastructure that has been built in recent years. He also cited the assistance the Border Patrol receives from local police and sheriffs departments and community watch groups.

What a buncha’ bullshit!

But even if the Border Patrol is able to maintain or marginally improve on the current level of security on the U.S.-Mexico border, most of the border will remain effectively open to smuggling both contraband and persons.

Yeah, my emphasis.

The article, in its entirety, is here.

Wolf out.

…I was kind of tied up yesterday and so, since key aspects of the below described affair have been sources of outrage to me, both as an advocate of justice and an American, since two dedicated Border Patrol agents were railroaded into prison by a scumbag in Federal Prosecutor’s clothing.

The allegasd {Seth’s note: Obvious misprint, mispelling or typo of “alleged” — disgraceful editing} Mexican drug smuggler shot by Border Patrol agents as he tried to dodge arrest in 2005 will appear in federal court in El Paso, Texas, on Friday afternoon.

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, 27, was arrested Thursday on a drug smuggling offense at a U.S. port of entry. A federal grand jury handed down a sealed indictment on Oct. 17.

Aldrete was granted immunity in 2005 in exchange for testifying against ex-border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

The two Border Patrol agents were sentenced to 11 and 12 years, respectively, for shooting Aldrete as he tried to sneak about million dollars’ worth of marijuana into the country. He was shot in the buttocks while running toward the Mexican border.

Right, the mutt was granted immunity by a legal representative of the United States Government, whom, unless he was on the payroll of a Mexican drug cartel, profoundly stupid or peaking on pure L.S.D. (actually, to be fair, I believe Sutton was kissing up to The Boss, who is paradoxically pro-homeland security and pro-an open border with Mexico at the same time), knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that he was calling to the witness stand a career criminal whose resume included felonies in at least two countries, including the U.S., to testify against and decimate the careers and futures of these two agents, Ramos and Compean, destroying their families at the same time.

I seem to recall, however, that while the testimony of felons (other than those willing to convict themselves — often with immunity to prosecution though more often a reduced sentence) as an incentive to testify against their own organizations or comrades is considered admissible, the same does not apply to those of questionable background in other circumstances.

I mean, giving official creedence to a drug smuggler who is testifying against a couple of people whose job is to catch and arrest them is beyond the absurd.

Aldrete now faces two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, one count of conspiracy to import a controlled substance and one count of conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute.

The alleged offenses happened between June 1, 2005 and Nov. 30, 2005, which is when the government gave Aldrete a pass to enter and exit the country unsupervised, primarily to get medical treatment for his bullet wound.

Aldrete and his co-defendant, Cipriano Ortiz Hernandez, conspired to import and distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana on Sept. 24, 2005, and again on Oct. 22 and 23 that same year, according to the charges. (The second alleged offense happened after Aldrete was granted immunity from prosecution in return for his testimony against the agents.)

I don’t know how anybody else feels about this (though I have a good idea where the sane are concerned), but this whole Aldrete immunity thing, to my way of thinking, makes the DOJ look pretty foolish. They grant immunity to a Mexican drug trafficker in exchange for his testimony crucifying American law enforcement agents and he uses the immunity as an opportunity to smuggle more drugs.

Sutton also is prosecuting the Aldrete case. He has been blasted by advocates of the border agents for not bringing charges against Aldrete sooner.

“I have repeatedly said that if we obtained sufficient competent and admissible evidence against Aldrete, we could prosecute him,” Sutton said in a statement. “Members of my office have worked closely with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration for many months to investigate Aldrete’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking.”

At a Senate hearing this summer on the border agents case, Sutton was non-committal in answering questions about the October drug offense by Aldrete. Some senators pressed Sutton to explain why Aldrete was allowed to enter and leave the country in the run-up to the border agents’ trial.

Advocates of the border agents also have complained that the Aldrete’s alleged October drug smuggling did not come up at the trial of Ramos and Compean.

So Sutton is reneging on his deal with Aldrete, if not in a letter-of-the-law manner, in a “sorry, pal, but you’re cooked… My career is more important than honoring any agreements I make with criminals.”

What a sleazeball this guy is! He sells out both sides in order to further his own career. This is as contemptible an excuse for a…

At any rate, the entire article is here.

There has been no excuse for GWB not pardoning Ramos and Compean without reservation.

Truth to tell and actually a repetition of what I expressed among my earlier posts on this situation, I actually believe that a mere pardon wouldn’t be anywhere near enough.

1. The two agents should be pardoned and reinstated, with all accumulated and earned seniority, to their jobs, and receive all retroactive pay.

2. They should be compensated by the gov’t for all their legal fees and,

3. They and their families should be restored, via full taxpayer expense, to the exact same situation (homeowners with X mortgage debts, etc) that they were in prior to the screwing they received from their own government, the one they served.

What these two guys are being screwed for, coming right down to it, is thinking on their feet.

When a bunch of bureaucrats who’ve never been in danger are empowered to make the rules for those who work in danger, this is what we get.

Fun example: Over 30 years ago, in the early stages of my security career, I worked undercover on the wharves in New Orleans (not that it’s applicable, but my CW was a Colt Python). This was not the same kind of post as the lobby of an office building or whatever, it was a perpetually violent situation. Whenever the job got exciting, both the New Orleans Harbor Police and U.S. Customs were also involved.

As a UC, I held supervisory authority over our uniforms on the wharves, and as such had to deal with management contact.

At one such meeting, I was actually told by a company founder/owner, concerned about liability, that the new policy was that should anyone pull a weapon on me, I should “shoot it out of his hand”.

After I was done laughing, I said, “I have a better idea. How ’bout if I call time out, call you and have you come down and shoot the gun out of the guy’s hand!?”

My point here is that when you hire and train people to protect you, you need to allow them to handle situations as they see fit…you know, think for themselves, as they’re there and you’re not, and you have to back them up.

If I were a U.S. Border Patrol agent, knowing that the Bush Administration condones prosecuting agents for doing their jobs, I would quit. There are too many other ways to serve our country without being punished for doing what we were told we were hired for.