Replies

I wanted to make sure you didn't miss this post from over on the other thread. He makes some great points:

To: joanie-f

Tremendous! Well said! And I agree fully!
An investment less than the annual cost of the problem which would alleviate the problem makes good sense. Even though I get images of the Berlin Wall, we do need to do something, and in contrast to that series of structures, this is not to keep people in, but to keep them out.

If enogh Mexicans (and others) were to be forced to remain in Mexico (and elsewhere), perhaps they would change the government which oppresses them, instead of coming here illegally and subverting ours.

Unfortunately, as those of us who work in the oil industry get our first real raises in a decade, people wail and gnash their teeth over the cost of fuel.

I am no defeatist, but the outcry over the increase in cost of goods and services in the niches filled by illegals would probably be greater than the outcry over the the current illegal immigrant problem.

By and large, Americans have become a self-centered and short-sighted lot.

Sadly, there are few of Sam Adams' fervor present in our modern society; people are too caught up in the acquisition of immaterial material wealth to pay attention to their own families, much less the dangers to our Liberty.

I would wager that even many of the members of Congress, themselves, in some way benefit, whether it be the gardener, housekeeper, or the guy who cleans the pool, directly or indirectly, by the presence of illegal immigrants in the labor force.

That is bad enough, but the theft of Nethercott's Ranch is being done, not just as a "damage" award to the "victims", but a way of definitively punishing someone who has been an outspoken thorn in the side of official agencies on this issue for some time. If Nethercott's ranch forfieture is intended as an 'object lesson' to those who would "take the law into their own hands", I fear that turf battle has only just begun.

Sadly, the man has been roundly demonized in the media, deservedly or not, and will garner little sympathy from those who refuse to see the greater issue at hand. DOubtless, that is no accident.

For starters, we need protection against the award of damages to someone who is injured in the commission of a criminal act by someone seeking to halt or hinder that act, not just to protect landowners in the border areas, but any and every citizen who choses to defend themselves, their property, or their family against criminals.

The ramifications of this would be broad indeed, as it would ensure that the average citizen can uphold the law using reasonable (including lethal) force without fear of civil recrimination by those allegedly injured doing their particular criminal act.

(In this instance, the lesson is that Nethercott would have been better off taking his chances and burying these people, rather than giving them water and a blanket.)

I can not understand why such liability protection is so freely tendered to those who act in an official capacity, but generally withheld from the average person. There is no 'equal protection' under these laws eliminating liability for officials only, which may be a Constitutional issue in and of itself.

As for securing the border, this is one of the Constitutional empowerments of the Federal Government, unfortunately abdicated by the Congress in the aim of securing votes from the numerically increasing and increasingly anti-American groups which espouse thwarting that objective.

Even in the face of the threat (and in some instances, the reality--MS 13 comes to mind) of terrorists infiltrating our nation through the highly permeable arrangement on our borders, these legislators lack the intestinal fortitude to uphold this mandate from the very document they are sworn to protect and defend, the very essence of our government.

For now, the battle is primarily within the system. There are credible attempts to sieze the property of judges who voted for Kelo, which I hope succeed, or at least come close enough to cause the Court to reconsider and overturn the decision. There is an outcry over the City of New London attempting to charge back rent to those whose property they have siezed, a real abombination, and again, a punitive measure, undertaken through the courts, with no doubt the objective of establishing precedent which is intended to intimidate any who would resist such property siezures.

These acts are not only in violation of the spirit of the Constitution, they are arguably criminal racketeering.

I cannot be convinced that those who have pushed these actions to sieze property and redistribute it to other private entities "for the purpose of increasing tax revenues" do not stand to receive some personal gain, whether through increasing the funding for their tenure in their present position through "contributions" or more directly.

Were this 1773, they would likely be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.

153 posted on 08/21/2005 2:32:45 AM EDT by Smokin' Joe (God save us from the fury of the do-gooders!)