We’ve already seen the Nobel Peace Prize folks render their offering moot in the last few years, but this exemplifies its Cracker Jack box prize significance.

Five Norwegian politicians sent a surprising but unambiguous message Friday, bestowing one of the world’s most coveted honors on President Obama as a signal of the Western world’s repudiation of the presidency of George W. Bush and its embrace of a softer but still untested American foreign policy.

As word of the stunning Nobel Peace Prize selection began to take hold Friday, Americans struggled to digest the news that some first mistook for a prank and others saw as an overreach, given that the president had been in office only 12 days when he was nominated for the award.

“Stunning”, that’s one way to put it.

The award was “a sigh of collective relief that George Bush is no longer here,” said Aaron David Miller, an adviser on Middle East issues to six presidents. More than any concrete contribution Mr. Obama has made to world peace, the prize embodies “the international community’s love affair” with a young, charismatic president who “listens, not lectures,” he added.

What “a sigh of collective relief that George Bush is no longer here,” signifies is that we no longer have a President who does what he believes is the right thing to do, rather than what a bunch of spineless socialist countries in Europe want us to do in order to save their collective skins.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon agreed that the Nobel announcement represented a symbolic welcoming of the new American approach.

“President Obama embodies the new spirit of dialogue and engagement on the world’s biggest problems - climate change, nuclear disarmament and a wide range of peace and security challenges,” he said.

Cap ‘n Trade, Government as an ultimately failing super-bureaucracy to replace HMOs, kindness to terrorists and terror sponsoring governments, plundering of the taxpayer to provide “stimulus” for every liberal concern, agenda, project and pipe dream in existence…

The president’s political supporters welcomed such sentiments as a sign that Mr. Obama was delivering on his promise to rekindle relations between the U.S. and its top allies. To others, though, the shock of the announcement came in seeing so esteemed an award handed out before Mr. Obama even had time to build a tangible record of accomplishment that might justify it.

Mark Salter, an author and longtime adviser to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, called the decision “morally reprehensible,” even if Mr. Obama himself was not at fault.

“No president’s statecraft, whether you agree with its direction or not, can be expected to bear fruit in less than nine months,” Mr. Salter said. “I think the morally correct and politically shrewd response from the White House would have been to refuse the honor.”

Well, Saddam Barack Hussein is politically shrewd, otherwise he wouldn’t have been able to be elected dog catcher, let alone president, but morally correct? Nah! You have to possess some sense of morality to be morally anything, exccept, of course, for morally bankrupt, and O, well…

What struck an especially ironic chord with some Republicans was the Nobel committee’s suggestion that Mr. Obama’s call for a nuclear weapons-free world “has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.” It was Mr. Bush, they said, who persevered with dramatic reductions in the world’s nuclear arms stockpiles begun under President Clinton.

So what? “The One” doesn’t mind borrowing from past POTUSes when it suits his purposes, even from the Bush Administration, witness the surveillance policies he retained, the same ones he deplored during his election campaign.

Of course, the usual suspects could be counted upon to see sense in O’s getting the prize.

After recovering from their initial shock, leaders around the globe applauded Friday’s surprise award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, saying they hoped the prize would spur his efforts on nuclear disarmament and peacemaking in some of the world’s most violent places.

Calling the honor “well-deserved,” NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen hailed Mr. Obama’s “strong commitment to help build peace and defend fundamental human rights, including through the Atlantic alliance.” Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called it “an unexpected but inspired choice.”

Inspired, huh? Yeah, if the Nobel Committee hadn’t already degraded the value of the prize over the last few years (I’m surprised they haven’t issued one to Howdy Doody by now), I suppose one could ask, “What the hell inspired them to give it to Obama!?”

But reaction to the news was mixed both at home and abroad, with some critics calling the award political and others calling it premature. At least one former Peace Prize laureate said that the president - nominated for the prize just days after he entered the White House in January - had not earned the honor.

“Who? Obama? So fast? Too fast - he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet,” said Poland’s Lech Walesa, the 1983 winner who spent a year in jail after he helped found Solidarity, the Soviet bloc’s first independent trade union.

“For the time being, Obama’s just making proposals,” Mr. Walesa said.

Yeah, along with burying our economy, force feeding us socialism, kissing hindquarters in enemy territory…

…,this one purportedly by a Law student, that sounds like a GREAT idea to me!

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.

I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model 20 separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a
bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens.

We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values…You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain.

You can also have the U.N…but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickledown economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot.

Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

P.P.S. I would like to include the following addendum:

Again, in the spirit of this Divorce Agreement, we will also keep the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States of America since the current administration, from President through all those listed above have ceased to use or abide by it. You can keep the writings of every anti-American you choose to follow.

Works for me!

Hat Tip to the illustrious B.J.S.

…a few minutes to check my email before being obligated for the rest of the day, and right off the bat, ran across a perfect example of a liberal elitist in action can be found here.

Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore told CNSNews.com “it’s absolutely a good thing” for government to drive private health insurance companies out of business and replace them with a single-payer system.

President Obama, Moore said, should stop trying to sneak a single-payer health care system through the “backdoor” and come straight at it instead. Moore said he would advise the president to tell the American people: “Look, we should be like every other Western Democracy and have a single-payer health care system. Pure and simple.”

Do you think that extreme leftist, disgusting, fat tub of treasonous combination of lard and excrement Michael Moore will, if the “single payer” system is passed, victimize himself with it as he is so determined to see the unwashed masses© so victimized?

Of course not!

A corpulent human balloon like that would no doubt be terrified, given his certain future of heart problems and other obesity related ailments, of subjecting himself to the government controlled healthcare he wishes on the rest of us, and I’d bet that if he wasn’t a very rich man (wealth “earned” by means that only a traitor could lay claim to), we wouldn’t hear a peep from the blimp-like son-of-a-bitch about this.

Later.

…from today’s Washington Times Online. I’m somewhat pressed for time this morning, I have some people to meet, but figured I’d share them.

Here we have a fine example of the term, “haste makes waste” in action, in this case mongers of political agendas in such a hurry to blow our hard earned tax money that they misinformed the public, largely through failure to do their homework and largely to get their itinerary pushed through in a hurry, in an un-thought-out, unconstitutional, just plain stupid act, part of the idiotic and ill advised TARP program.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. misled the public about the financial weakness of Bank of America and other early recipients of the government’s $700 billion Wall Street bailout, creating “unrealistic expectations” about the companies and damaging the program’s credibility, according to a report by the program’s independent watchdog.

The federal government last October loaned Bank of America and eight other “healthy” financial institutions a total of $125 billion - the initial payout from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP - in an attempt to avoid a series of major bank collapses that would push the sputtering economy into a free fall or depression.

The rationale for giving money to stable banks and not failing ones, regulators said, was that such institutions would be better able to lend money and thus unfreeze tight credit markets - a major factor in last year’s Wall Street losses.

Right. Now the American taxpayer gets to pay the price for the blatant miscalculations due to political agendas and faulty thinking of a number of general purpose assholes.

Moving right along, we have the messiah Barack Hussein, whose military expertise evidently outshines that of his generals, coming up with excuses as to why he’d rather allow U.S. servicemen and woman to die than to commit more troops where General McChrystal says they are needed. What does McChrystal know, anyway, right? He’s just a general, whereas Obama, the guy who once, for campaign reasons, said the war in Afghanistan is justified in order to compare it to Iraq (according to his excellency, unjustified) is so much more knowledgeable about warfare that, well,

One day after an attack in Afghanistan killed eight American soldiers, President Obama’s national security adviser downplayed both the importance of U.S. troop levels and the possibility of a Taliban return to power.

National security adviser James L. Jones suggested that Gen. McChrystal’s call for more troops must be tempered by diplomatic considerations as the president weighs how to deal with the 8-year-old war.

“Well, I think the end is much more complex than just about adding ‘X’ number of troops. Afghanistan is a country that’s quite large and that swallows up a lot of people,” the retired Marine general said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Right, let’s here more, Jones. What else did Obama instruct you to say, and being an ex-military man yourself, how does it feel to be a party to it?

The rest of the story can be found here.

…that says it all.

The sad part is - this is 100% correct

This should be read and understood by all Americans—Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official—you are ALL corrupt morons:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775—you have had 234 years to get it right—and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935—you have had 74 years to get it right—and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938—you have had 71 years to get it right—and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964—you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”—and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965—you have had 44 years to get it right—and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970—you have had 39 years to get it right—and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, it has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before—you had 32 years to get it right—and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars—AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

Are you crazy, or do you just believe all Americans are morons too?

Truly, the inmates are running the asylum—and what does this say about us, as voters who put such idiots in office?? If we do not vote against EVERY incumbent currently in office—we are ALL morons, regardless of our political leanings.

Thanks and a great big hat tip to B.J.S.

One trend I’ve noticed for quite some time is that of the mainstream media’s OpEds tending to echo whatever the agendas of our farthest-left politicians happen to be. The farther these anti-America intentions list to port, the more likely the MSM is to “go for the gusto”.

That said, the Grey Lady is at it again.

The next big thing in heart surgery are replacement valves, which can be implanted without open-heart surgery. But instead of evaluating this as a straightforward boon to humanity, the Times maintained its year-long push for health care rationing, emphasizing the new technology as a “costly valve for the frail” that may drive up health care spending even further with costly new procedures.”

Okay, they’ve said it, a “costly valve for the frail” that may drive up health care spending even further with costly new procedures.”

They’re not concerned with the damage done to our economy by massive illegal immigration, cap-&-trade legislation, government controlled healthcare or any number of social services that gouge the taxpayer, but here they are complaining about the cost of a specific procedure for “the frail”, which can only, or mostly, mean senior citizens.

A race is on to develop the potentially next big thing in heart surgery: a replacement valve that can be implanted through thin tubes known as catheters rather than by traditional open-heart surgery.

The contest pits two major companies, Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Analysts estimate a market for the product that could exceed $1.5 billion within six years. But if the valves catch on, their benefits for the nation’s aging population could be substantial — even if the impact on the nation’s health care bill may be hard to calculate.

Our “compassionate” liberals evidently feel that since the old folks are beneficiaries of the system (never mind all the Social Security taxes and so forth they’ve had extracted from their paychecks over the years, like it or not) and no longer paying into it, they are some sort of parasite better expunged.

God protect Grandma and Grandpa from the New York Times and their ilk…

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.

Remember when B. Hussein Obama promised that his administration would be transparent?

Well, it certainly is…Profoundly transparent in its falsehoods. The man speaks through both sides of his mouth at once, blatantly (and yes, transparently) lies.

For example.

“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security…I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran.… Across the political spectrum, Israelis understand that real security can only come through lasting peace. And that is why we - as friends of Israel - must resolve to do all we can to help Israel and its neighbors to achieve it.”

[Obama Speech at 2008 AIPAC Policy Conference, 6/4/08]

While his website hands us one thing, his deeds demonstrate something entirely different.

From Atlas’ post:

The United States called on its close ally Israel on Tuesday to conduct credible investigations into allegations of war crimes committed by its forces in Gaza, saying it would help the Middle East peace process.

Michael Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, said that Hamas leaders also had a responsibility to investigate crimes and to end what he called its targeting of civilians and use of Palestinian civilians as human shields in the strip.

The U.N. Human Rights Council was holding a one-day debate on a recent report by Richard Goldstone, a South African jurist and former U.N. war crimes prosecutor.

His panel found the Israeli army and Palestinian militants committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity during their December-January war. Israel did not cooperate with the U.N. inquiry and has rejected the report as biased.

“We encourage Israel to utilise appropriate domestic (judicial) review and meaningful accountability mechanisms to investigate and follow-up on credible allegations,” Posner said in a speech to the Geneva forum.

“If undertaken properly and fairly, these reviews can serve as important confidence-building measures that will support the larger essential objective which is a shared quest for justice and lasting peace,” he said.

Pure and simple, the gist is that any Israeli effort at self defense of any definitive nature is “disproportionate”. If x number of Palestinians are killed in the course of such an enterprise, then x number of Israelis have to be killed as well. Meanwhile, it’s perfectly acceptable for Hamas to fire rockets into Israeli cities and towns, destroyiong property and killing innocent civilians.

Going back to a meeting between B. Hussein and a couple of his Islamic butt buddies:

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama privately expressed his support for a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders, including eastern Jerusalem, during his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah this summer.

According to a report published Tuesday in the Lebanese newspaper al-Ahbar, Obama told Abbas that he supports a PA state, and Arab “rights to east Jerusalem” as well. The sources said Abbas and PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad “heard the best things they ever heard from an American president” during the meeting. However, said sources quoted in the report, the candidate asked them to keep his declaration a secret.

East Jerusalem has no holy standing for Muslims like certain anti-Israel revisionists would have us believe, but Obama’s got that covered by grouping it in with the West Bank, rendering it a part of the “real estate” dispute.

The man attended an anti-Israel, pro-Islamic terrorist church in Chicago for over twenty years.

By backing Hamas and friends here against our old and faithful ally Israel, he is showing us, also, that no matter how hard the liberal media that got him elected tried to cover it up, the President’s name tells us exactly where he’s coming from and where he truly belongs (I’ll give you a hint: They have camels there — moooo!).

His words on one level call the Israelis friend, while on another level, along comes the kick in the groin.

Could it be that Barack Hussein Obama’s actual ambition for all of us is something like this?

…and see a more secure America.

From 2 August, 2009:

The Obama administration is looking at creating a courtroom-within-a-prison complex in the U.S. to house suspected terrorists, combining military and civilian detention facilities at a single maximum-security prison.

Several senior U.S. officials said the administration is eyeing a soon-to-be-shuttered state maximum security prison in Michigan and the 134-year-old military penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., as possible locations for a heavily guarded site to hold the 229 suspected al-Qaida, Taliban and foreign fighters now jailed at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba.

The officials outlined the plans — the latest effort to comply with President Barack Obama’s order to close the prison camp by Jan. 22, 2010, and satisfy congressional and public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil — on condition of anonymity because the options are under review.

The best way to satisfy public fears about incarcerating terror suspects on American soil would be to leave them incarcerated at Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay, and try them there, as well!

Getting that bit out of the way,

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Obama administration is working to recover from missteps that have put officials behind schedule and left them struggling to win the cooperation of Congress.

Even before the inauguration, President Obama’s top advisers settled on a course of action they With four months left to meet its self-imposed deadline for closing the U.S. military prison at were counseled against: announcing that they would close the facility within one year. Today, officials are acknowledging that they will be hard-pressed to meet that goal.

The White House has faltered in part because of the legal, political and diplomatic complexities involved in determining what to do with more than 200 terrorism suspects at the prison. But senior advisers privately acknowledge not devising a concrete plan for where to move the detainees and mishandling Congress.

Truncating…

Craig said Thursday that some of his early assumptions were based on miscalculations, in part because Bush administration officials and senior Republicans in Congress had spoken publicly about closing the facility. “I thought there was, in fact, and I may have been wrong, a broad consensus about the importance to our national security objectives to close Guantanamo and how keeping Guantanamo open actually did damage to our national security objectives,” he said.

the importance to our national security objectives to close Guantanamo and how keeping Guantanamo open actually did damage to our national security objectives

Is that convoluted thinking, or what?

One of the chief concerns in the whole “what to do with the terrorists imprisoned at GITMO” kerfuffle is a typical liberal concern, of course: Other countries, particularly European countries, disapprove of our holding them there.

American liberals, for the most part, are more concerned with the approval of the European Union than they are with what’s actually in the best interests of the American people. Shame on them!

Durn, I forgot — liberals have no sense of shame.

However, I haven’t read anyplace where the EU countries have pledged to take the detainees off our hands and accept them into their own societies.

Q:Why is that?

A:Old fashioned good sense!

Maybe our President needs to GITMO of that!

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.