Muslims are coming from Mexico to murder you

Kent Brockman: Professor, without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it’s time for our viewers to crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside?
Professor: Mmm, yes I would, Kent.
The Simpsons, Season 5, Episode 11

In advance of his next big campaign, Perry is learning from his 2012 mistakes and working to perfect his mastery of the paranoid style in American politics. Look closely at Perry’s remarks at the Heritage Institute this week and you’ll see a perfectly formed appeal to the modern Republican primary base. Sure, the delivery was wobbly and he had trouble pronouncing some of the words, but whoever built that speech understood exactly what a Republican politician needs to say to win.

Perry attempted to tie the immigration debate to terrorism with the bizarre suggestion that Iraqi terrorists may be infiltrating the US along the fortified shores of the Rio Grande. Here’s the relevant portion of his remarks from the video of the event (starts at 1:25:20):

“Certainly there is great concern that the border between the United States and Mexico is unsecure and we don’t know who’s using that. What I will share with you that we’ve seen historic high levels of individuals from countries with terrorist ties.

“Over the course of the last months. I’ll give you one anecdotal picture of what’s happening. Three Ukrainian individuals were apprehended at a ranch in far West Texas within the last 60 days. So, I think there is the obvious great concern that because of the condition of the border from the standpoint of it not being secure and us not knowing who is penetrating across that individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be, and I think there is a very real possibility that they may have already used that.

“We have no clear evidence of that, but your common sense tells you when we’ve seen the number of criminal activities that have occurred, and I’m talking about the assaults, the rapes, the murders, by individuals who have come into this country illegally over the last five years, the idea that they would not be looking at and managing any of those types of attacks from that region is not a good place to be.”

Most people forced to listen to those comments would hear nothing more than a word salad with spicy bigot dressing. Look closer though, and you’ll see in Perry’s comments all of the crucial elements of an appeal to the most motivated Republican primary voters.

Let’s take this apart piece by piece and observe what’s going on.

“Certainly there is great concern that the border between the United States and Mexico is unsecure and we don’t know who’s using that. What I will share with you that we’ve seen historic high levels of individuals from countries with terrorist ties.

“Over the course of the last months. I’ll give you one anecdotal picture of what’s happening. Three Ukrainian individuals were apprehended at a ranch in far West Texas within the last 60 days.”

Any appeal to the primary base must be founded on fear. “Concern”, “unsecure” (which might actually be a word), and “terrorist” are words that should appear in every paragraph of every speech throughout the nominating campaign. What should we be afraid of? There are so many things, but few are as scary as foreigners. Moving on:

“So, I think there is the obvious great concern that because of the condition of the border from the standpoint of it not being secure and us not knowing who is penetrating across that individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be, and I think there is a very real possibility that they may have already used that.”

Now it gets good. Those pansies who think we should be nice to little Hispanic kids are inviting head-lopping terrorists to come stalk your local Sonic. The battle to stop Latin American immigration isn’t just about keeping Texas politics white and English-speaking, it’s the front line in a campaign to preserve civilization from barbarians.

Islamic terrorists infiltrating the Republic of Baptiststan is a pretty frightening prospect. Is there any proof that this is happening? Watch this nifty move:

“We have no clear evidence of that, but your common sense tells you when we’ve seen the number of criminal activities that have occurred, and I’m talking about the assaults, the rapes, the murders, by individuals who have come into this country illegally over the last five years, the idea that they would not be looking at and managing any of those types of attacks from that region is not a good place to be.”

There is “no clear evidence” to support this claim, because it’s a patently stupid idea. On the rare occasion when terrorists enter our country, they do it through an airport like everyone else, or they drive across our relatively relaxed border with Canada. Crossing the Rio Grande is an incredibly low-percentage method for illegally entering the US. Migrants attempt it (usually repeatedly), because they are desperately poor and have no alternatives. They can afford to fail. Terrorists, like almost everyone on the planet, have alternatives and can’t afford the risks of breaching the most militarized border in the western world.

Perry’s claim may be idiotic, but it is also scary and that’s all that matters. Since it is not based on evidence, no one can prove that it’s impossible. As a consequence his claim is as true as anything needs to be in modern Republican politics.

“Evidence” is what limp-wristed, liberal poindexters use to block good people from doing what they know in their guts is right. Your fear is all the evidence you need to establish solid policy. What happens when we wait for “clear evidence” rather than acting decisively on our paranoia? Perry lays it out in lurid detail – “the assaults, the rapes, the murders” – that’s what happens.

Do you want to see assaults and rapes and murders committed by savage foreigners happening right on the front steps of your local church or school? Liberals do, but strong leaders like Rick Perry will protect our tender white women and children from this onslaught, which, by the way, may already be happening.

So what are the elements of a perfect pitch to a Republican primary audience? Perry hit every one:

1) A loosely defined, but extreme fear;

2) Of something which is either a) foreign, b) non-white, and/or c) involves a woman making independent decisions about her body;

3) Premised on the absence of proof that it couldn’t exist.

No issue anywhere on the Republican agenda can get a hearing unless it can be framed on this model. From fiscal policy to abortion to food stamps, a policy position only gains traction when its relationship to white cultural fears can be defined.

We have come a long, long way from “morning again in America.” The Republican Party has lost the ability to deliver a message that resonates on any level above Id. That is what should really be scaring us.


Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Election 2016, Foreign Policy, Uncategorized
159 comments on “Muslims are coming from Mexico to murder you
  1. […] Painter and others like him (see: Perry, Rick) are wasting valuable time, mental energy, and even money preparing to defend themselves from a […]

  2. rightonrush says:

    Here’s another blogger I follow.

  3. tuttabellamia says:

    I want to discuss the nature of reality. For the scientists among us:

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Sorry, that was a link to the comments. Here’s the article itself, a book review, actually:

    • John Galt says:

      Utter and complete bullshit. As one might expect from a book review written by

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Okaay. Seems to me you’re the one who’s already decided what the answer is. I was hoping to have some sort of discussion. Thanks. Go back and resume your discussion with Intrigued and HT about the usual mundane stuff.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I think I’ve finally had enough of this place. Thanks. You’ve done me a favor.

      • John Galt says:

        Listen, Tutt, I read the review and I’m sorry if my flippant dismissal insulted you. Basically this is an attempt to equate science with religion (“scientism”). This is a relatively new tactic of the religious to equate the study of the natural world (science) with the mysticism of religion. Scientists simply believe in a different religion than others do – see they’re no different than we are and – importantly – their claims, beliefs, are no more valid than ours are. The review has four main points, taken from the book:

        “1. The philosophical theory known as “scientism” is either self-defeating or trivial.”
        No scientist anywhere, ever, has used the term “scientism”. The author continues to argue that science is just shifting sand because it claims not to be philosophy while requiring philosophy. This is a misunderstanding of the opposition of many scientists to philosophical arguments, which in the modern world largely means theology. Theology as philosophy begins with the answer and works backwards to the argument. Science absolutely rests on philosophy as practiced by the ancients (Aristotle, et al.) and does rely on some assumptions (such as the idea that nature follows laws, these laws are inviolate, and can be understood). Science is in contrast to a false philosophy in which answers precede questions.

        “2. In principle, the scientific method is incapable of a complete description of reality.”
        The author then quotes Schrödinger (to paraphrase) musing on how science is very good at understanding the real world, but we do so using a construct (our minds) about which we knew very little. The author then makes the gigantic leap to believing Schrödinger believe the mind was incomprehensible and, in 1948 when he wrote this, it may have seemed this way but I guarantee Schrödinger did not believe this. He simply was commenting that we understand the world using an organ (the brain) that we don’t really understand. The things we don’t understand are not eternal mysteries: they are questions to be answered by study. Schrödinger was a physicist, he understood scientific mysteries. This is the entirety of the argument of why science cannot provide a complete description of the real world.

        “3. In principle, the laws of nature discovered by the scientific method offer incomplete explanations of reality…But even if the “laws of nature” are able to describe how, for the most part, actual physical things really behave, that description is still different from an explanation for why they do what they do.”
        Again, a non-sequitur here. The author admits that the “laws of nature” do indeed describe how things actually work. That is the purpose of scientific inquiry. The criticism seems to come from science not explaining why they work. This is the equivalent of saying that religion is pointless because God won’t tell me the score of tomorrow’s Astros game. Criticizing anything for not providing an answer for a question it never asked is crazy.

        “4. The successes of modern science can in no way vindicate the theory of “scientism.””
        So science has been incredibly successful, but that doesn’t mean anything? Poppycock. Science has proven for millennia to be the only real way to address questions of the physical world. It does not address spiritual questions, why we are here or what is the purpose of life (though biologists would answer the latter as “to make more life”).

        This review, based on a book I have admittedly not read, doesn’t talk about what is real or not. It tries to discredit the only means by which we understand what is real. A question on how different people might perceive reality is a different and probably more philosophical one.

  4. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Oh, oh, oh, I have a topic about which I’m interested in the gang’s opinion.

    Paid parental leave. Let’s put your money where your family values mouth is.

    I’m a wacky liberal, so I’ve been in favor of paid parental leave for a long time, but my wife just went back to work eight weeks after our latest was born, so it has been a topic of conversation in my office and with my EU-based colleagues.

    Her employer, a major hospital in Houston, does not have maternity leave, so she saved up and took accrued vacation time.

    It seems that only a handful of countries have no national law mandating paid time off for new parents: Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, and the United States. USA, USA, USA!

    The US has the FMLA, but it is unpaid, and a huge, huge chunk of employees are not eligible for it.

    Britain: Under statutory regulations mothers can take 52 weeks’ maternity leave – 26 weeks as “ordinary” leave and the next 26 as “additional” leave). They must take at least two weeks after the birth – four weeks if they are a factory worker. The first six weeks are paid at 90% of the mother’s average weekly earnings, and the remainder at £136.78 ($232) a week or at the 90% figure if it is lower.

    Sweden: entitled to 480 days’ leave per child, to be shared between the two parents (a maximum of 420 days can be taken by one parent). Single parents can take the whole 480. The government-funded entitlements are paid at 80% of the parent’s salary for 420 days, capped at 910 krona ($152) a day. The remaining days are paid at a lower rate. There are minimum compensation levels for low-paid or unemployed parents.

    France: For the first child a parent is entitled to six weeks’ prenatal and 10 weeks for the birth of the baby, eight weeks pre- and 18 weeks post-birth for the second child, and increasing to 24 and 22 weeks respectively for triplets. The minimum daily benefit payment is €9.30 ($13.50) a day, and the maximum is about €80. Employment contracts can contribute to these amounts to bring it up to salary levels.

    The range of payment seems to be something like 30% of salary to about 80% of salary, with some countries doing 90% or 100%. Some base it off the country’s minimum wage as a floor for the benefit and most have a maximum benefit as well.

    Some have these costs shared by the employer and the state, others have it generally state funded.

    Almost all have some minimum work requirements (e.g., six months, 12 months, or a certain number of hours) before an employee becomes eligible for parental leave.

    I know where some of you would come down on this issue (parental leave is not in the constitution, and if you want a world where companies can refuse to hire Black people, I’m guessing you won’t love a required parental leave), but I’m curious about others.

    It would undoubtedly be fabulously costly. Taxes would go up and corporate profits would go down. However, it is hard to argue there would be some significant benefits to parents and children.


    • Intrigued says:

      I haven’t seen many employees around here offer paid parental leave, aside from maybe a week or two. Any “paid” maternity leave is actually a combination of PTO and voluntary short term disability insurance (which only covers necessary medical recovery from child birth).

      Personally, I think American culture would have to shift from our current state of chastising parents who choose to stay home without pay to valuing that choice before we ever see any kind of paid parental leave.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Int, you are correct about few offering “paid” leave. My wife used PTO and could have used short term disability.

        My company is moderately “progressive” on this issue and offers two weeks paid paternity leave for dads. For moms, it is four weeks if you’ve been with the company less than two years, six weeks for 2 to 3 years, and eight weeks for 3 years or more.

        For the US, that is a relatively generous policy.

        There are always any number of fabricated issues between moms working outside the home and stay at home moms, but I don’t see a ton of chastising parents who stay at home.

        The folks on the right tend to adore stay at home moms and those on the left aren’t making women give up their feminist cards if they choose to stay at home (and liberals love, love, love stay at home dads).

        Liberals tend to strongly endorse paid parental leave, and conservatives tend to like traditional familial roles with a stay at home parent.

        So, who is exactly against paid parental leave?

        I’ll give you a hint…in general, it won’t be the liberals. We love to give away other people’s money.

      • Intrigued says:

        HT, many higher income folks who could afford to live off one income still choose not to. Instead they leave the important responsibility of raising their children in the hands of a low paid stranger. Those who do make the choice to take an extended unpaid leave face consequences when they attempt to re-enter the workforce. I think more parents would choose to sacrifice one income for a short period of time if our society actually valued that decision. So the question is who in reality actually supports this idea of parental leave, whether paid or unpaid?

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        I think my wife and I fit your description (and let’s not pretend there is not some snideness in your description) of moderately high income folks who abandon the important responsibility of raising children in the hands of a “low paid stranger”. Of course, at least for those utilizing a nanny, many of those “low paid strangers” in Houston generally have an annual income larger than the average Texas elementary school teacher.

        If there was paid parental leave, more of these irresponsible parents would likely have one or the other parent stay home for an extended period of time.

        You are fun on this topic. You complain about criticism towards stay at home parents, all while dropping not so subtle “leave the important responsibility of raising their children in the hands of a low paid stranger” digs at those who made a different choice.


      • John Galt says:

        Intrigued, I didn’t leave the care of my children to “low paid strangers.” That’s a bit insulting, frankly. I contracted with professionals who ran a “school” (as we called it, a day care center in reality), most of whom had degrees in early childhood education. These professionals augmented our parenting while allowing both of us to continue the careers for which we trained extensively (post-college, I trained for 11 years before getting my first independent job; my wife for 10). What makes more sense: abandoning this for some period of time (in our case, an extended leave would have permanently removed one of us from our chosen careers) or allow professionals on both sides to use the skills for which they were trained?

      • Intrigued says:

        HT, I wasn’t trying to be snide towards you or your wife. I was making the point that society as a whole does not value “parental leave”. If we want to move towards paid parental leave we must first value the importance of parental leave.

      • Intrigued says:

        “What makes more sense: abandoning this for some period of time (in our case, an extended leave would have permanently removed one of us from our chosen careers) or allow professionals on both sides to use the skills for which they were trained?” Exactly! In today’s society the consequence for taking parental leave from the workforce means giving up all the work put into our chosen careers. Why? Because society does not value parental leave. Until parental leave is valued, paid parental leave is not gonna happen.

      • Intrigued says:

        Damn people are pissy today. “You are fun on this topic. You complain about criticism towards stay at home parents, all while dropping not so subtle “leave the important responsibility of raising their children in the hands of a low paid stranger” digs at those who made a different choice.” If pointing out the reality of the current consequences of choosing to take parental leave is considered complaining then what are you doing? Throwing a temper tantrum?

      • John Galt says:

        You presuppose that many people (women) WANT extended parental leave. My wife didn’t and I know many others who didn’t either. She was working (from home) within days of both births because she wanted to. I support the right of those who would like more time to spend with their newborn, but if your career is something you love, you don’t just turn that off for months on end.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Int…I am probably a bit pissy today after a way too long call with a client for whom our contracting folks have made their lives miserable.

        I think the majority of folks who have kids in daycare or with nannies are not in the same situation as JG’s or my family. With changes to lifestyles, undoubtedly we could survive on one income.

        However, the majority of folks utilizing “low paid strangers” to raise their children do so out of necessity or at least out of a desire to avoid severe hardship.

        You may not have meant any “snideness” in your comment, but to suggest that working parents aren’t raising their children is at least a touch snarky.

      • Intrigued says:

        JG, I don’t have a problem with parents who choose to pursue a career they love over staying at home. I would actually reccomend it unless they never planned on returning to that career. I am not assuming that many people want extended parental leave. Actually, I’m assuming the opposite. If many people (moms or dads),who could afford it, wanted extended parental leave they would sacrifice a salary to make it happen.

        HT’s question was “who is exactly against paid parental leave?” My answer is that society must first value the role of parental leave as irreplaceable before we move towards paying for that leave. Personally, I support initiatives that balance work/life roles opposed to paid parental leave.

      • Intrigued says:

        Sorry HT. Obviously, my attempt to remain general by leaving out my personal annedote is coming across as “snarky”. Look, I did the stay at home thing and I can’t really say my roles couldn’t have been replaced by people with wages lower than mine who were probably more skilled in those areas than I was. (does that sound better than low paid?) This idea of paid parental leave relies heavily on the importance of a “parent” (not a nanny, daycare, or prestigious school) raising their children. Do you really think the majority of people believe this to be true?

    • John Galt says:

      My wife and I work for the same university, which has shockingly bad (for a university) parental leave policies. Basically, as others have posted, they adhere to FMLA, which gave her the ability to take time off, unpaid (or to take vacation and sick leave) for up to 12 weeks. We found an odd stricture in FMLA, though: if we worked for different employers, we’d both be entitled to 12 weeks. Working for the same employer, it was 12 weeks total (we didn’t use anywhere close to that, but our kids were healthy and there were no complications to the pregnancies or deliveries).

      There is a larger issue, though. There are a ton of talented women out there (my wife included) who want to and can balance work and family life and make valuable contributions. That balance works both ways, though, and there are times that work needs to be put on the back burner. Companies that recognize this and accommodate it are likely to benefit from the contributions of these talented individuals more than those that don’t. I get that paying someone for not working is tough for a five employee small business. It’s not for United, Google, GM, or Apple. It shouldn’t require changes to federal law to get them to value their employees. Why many of them don’t is a subject for another post.

    • fiftyohm says:

      I think parental leave is nice. It’s a contract between private parties, (the employer and the employee), and if it stays that way, I’m all for it. On the other hand…

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        And if it stays that way, very very few will ever do it.

        Why are we the ones who can’t figure out a way to have nice things?

      • fiftyohm says:

        HT- If it doesn’t, we’ll all have fewer ‘nice things’. You can take that to the bank.

  5. Turtles Run says:

    Here is another interesting topic. Arkansas has released preliminary projections for health care costs within the state. Down 2%. Arkansas was one of the states to implement Medicaid expansion in the south. The Democrat Senator Mark Pryor is also running on a platform that supports the ACA (points deducted because he will not call it Obamacare). His Republican opponent has been making claims around the state that predicted triple digit increases but then does reality count for the tea sippers.

  6. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    Hmmm…seems like we need a new topic, so….

    Obama: Great President, or the Greatest President? (my 401k and investments love him)

    McCain/Palin (Romney/Ryan): What if they had won… (aside from probably being in more or bigger shooting wars, no discernible difference in economic performance other than the benefits of shovel ready jobs to “build the dang fence”).

    • tuttabellamia says:

      I see you have escaped from your gated community. 🙂

      • texan5142 says:

        No gated communities around southern MN, most of the time there is not even a fence separating property lines. Hard to get used to at first when I moved from Houston where every house is separated with a six foot wooden fence.

    • texan5142 says:

      One might not be happy with Obama/Biden and that is fine, but I shudder when I think about having Palin a heart beat away from the presidency. The country dodged a bullet.

    • desperado says:

      No discernible difference in economic performance? Hardly. McCain wouldn’t have signed a stimulus package and would have let GM and Chrysler go under. The recession would have been deeper and longer. Where does Obama rank? Not the greatest but certainly very good so far. History will be a better judge.

      • John Galt says:

        McCain would have signed a stimulus bill. Faced with the thought of hundreds of thousands of job losses in the midwest, he would have bailed the automakers out too. It’s a lot easier to be the opposition than the leader.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        Desp…I have to go with JG…no way McCain doesn’t sign the stimulus package.

        President Palin might have been willing to burn the village in order to save it, but even she would have been talked off that ledge (lots of mixed metaphors today!) before cutting off her nose to spite her face.

  7. fiftyohm says:

    Does anyone else habitually watch this blog for a new topic into which to sink your teeth, or am I the only blog-nerd out there?

    • CaptSternn says:

      Some of us, in the past. I still check it and read, but … things were changed … things have changed.

    • lomamonster says:

      I’m still waiting for a rain, but you did ring my bell!

    • John Galt says:

      Guilty as charged.

    • Crogged says:

      I’m guilty said Randy Newman.

    • flypusher says:

      Yep, I watch several blogs.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Fly, you are guilty of adultery.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Polyblogy, I think would be the term. Speaking only for myself, I’m a monoblogomist.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Since she only watches, that makes her a voyeur, or maybe a “voyeuse.” Pornoblography?

        Kind of like not inhaling. Depends on what you’re “inhaling” though.

      • flypusher says:

        Never took any vows to frequent just one blog!

        And the accepted term is “lurking”.

      • fiftyohm says:

        I like Tutt’s “voyeur”, better.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I kind of like “lurking.” I sometimes wonder if there is someone out there stalking us, someone who only watches but never posts, although I would think it rather difficult to keep one’s silence in this environment, to remain an onlooker.

      • dowripple says:


        It’s not as hard as it sounds. (Closes blinds)

      • easyfortytwo says:

        No, not that hard. I used to comment pretty often (under a slightly different id over on, but got tired of trying to counter word games, moving goalposts, and nebulous insults. I mostly lurk now, but occasionally comment if I see something facepalm outrageous.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Speaking of “gated communities,” I recently left the confines of this blog and ventured out to the Chron again, into the general population. It was a bit unsettling, leaving the security and protection of this blog and having to deal with former friends and total strangers, having to reestablish my identity.

      • objv says:

        I would be considered a serial monoblogist. I’m usually faithful in commenting in one place (actually, I’m too lazy to comment in more than one place), but I will leave and move on easily when circumstances warrant. I left the chron for this blog after the Chronicle shut down the editorial comment section. I may go back to the editorials now that I know the comments are open again and that others here are also commenting there. I didn’t think it right when Dan’s real name and workplace were revealed. I’m still trying to decide whether to stay or go.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      While we wait, what about this? Have at it gang:

      “Arizona: Instructor Killed While Showing Uzi to Girl, 9”

      Fitty, any thoughts on your old buddy Pruitt’s gun store going out of business?

      • John Galt says:

        We have a Darwin Award winner here.

      • GG says:

        Is there any reason for a 9-year old to be shooting an Uzi? I am not anti-gun, my family has guns and a lot of them hunt, but this is ridiculous.

      • fiftyohm says:

        Whoa! In all the time on the blogsphere, JG is the only person with whom I’ve exchanged personal information. “My old buddy, [Jim} Pruitt.” Bubba, it’s been nearly 30 years since I was a ‘regular’ on the show, and penning “Uncle Waldo” scripts on barf bags. You are either the NSA, some kind of Travis McGee, or extremely lucky! Sheesh!

        As for the store going Tango Uniform, I suppose it was simple market saturation. Regarding the 9-year old and the submachine gun, I read about that this morning. JG got it right – Darwin – but with what I’m sure will be lasting effects on the unfortunate little girl. Very sad. There’s an old aviation saw that goes, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” I think this applies to firearms as well.

      • Crogged says:

        My favorite Uncle Waldo (two actually-one decisively not PC).

        The punch line was, “Focus-bof us?”

        The other ran every Christmas–the cheating husband who mixed up gifts between wife and girlfriend and the note in the gift was priceless. Wish I could recall it, but I earned this grey hair.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Well, we are never at a loss for words. Who needs a topic?

      • fiftyohm says:

        Crogged- It was regarding photography! Loved it. Heh-heh. My favorite, (of course I wrote it), had the punchline, “Ah gee Big, I thought you meant today.”

      • fiftyohm says:

        Tutt- Sometimes ya just gotta ‘roll your own’!

      • flypusher says:

        I’d say that she wasn’t strong enough to handle the recoil and it was bad judgment on some adult’s part to put that weapon in her hands.

        I’m thinking of that L. Sprague DeCamp short story: “A Gun for Dinosaur”.

      • John Galt says:

        I agree about the girl. Every adult around her should have their heads examined. I’m fine with teaching kids to shoot, but an Uzi? They might as well have put her behind the wheel of a semi and pointed it at a crowd of people.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Fitty, I’d like to claim the psychic/black ops route but no, just a lack of early onset Alzheimer’s. I remembered you mentioned it on a Chris or Des chron blog. Off the top of my head too. No dossier factchecking/perusing initiated at all. 😉

    • rightonrush says:

      Yep I do. However, I’ve been getting caught up on paper work so I rarely take the time to post. Don’t even have time to go fishing $##@#%%#@$

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Don’t piss off Chris. He’ll reveal your identity and workplace. I am risking mine now.

  8. Chris, having spent quite a bit of time in the field around the border in both Texas and Arizona, having personally witnessed “undocumented immigrants” in transit, having personally witnessed property broken into and vandalized by the same, and having witnessed all of this with rather alarming frequency over the past 35 years, I remain empirically convinced of the porosity of our southern border, and the general lack of concern for private property evinced by those taking advantage of that porosity. I haven’t spent much time along the Canadian border, but one suspects it is equally porous. I know this may be hard for you to grasp, since it really has nothing to with economic or racial bigotry, but we do have a real border security issue, regardless of the skin color or ethnicity of those on the other side of that invisible line.

    The above aside, it’s also quite obvious we have severe security issues with legal points of entry. The 9/11 thugs entered the country legally, after all. Basically, all forms of border security and entry control into the U.S. are pretty much a joke. So while it is undoubtedly true that certain radicalized Muslims are planning at this very moment to enter the U.S. and kill just as many of us as they possibly can, their means of ingress are by no means restricted to clandestine entry along our southern border.

    Sleep well.

    • John Galt says:

      The 9/11 thugs entered legally so all forms of border security are a joke? The 9/11 thugs entered legally because there was no reason to exclude them. There is no form of border security that operates based on psychic foresight of crimes that will be committed. We cannot base real life policies on Philip K. Dick novels.

      • What, JG? Are you telling me you are completely comfortable with and confident of the, for instance, competence of the average TSA employee? I invite you t compare our border security and entry to control to, for instance, Israel. I’m not suggesting that we should totally emulate Israel in this regard, but there are a number of steps that could be taken to very significantly improve our security without materially affecting our freedom of movement.

      • John Galt says:

        You ever been to Israel, Tracy? They gave me a colonoscopy before getting on the plane to Tel Aviv. They search under cars with mirrors before letting them into grocery store parking lots. McDonalds had a metal detector. Risk assessment is important here. So far, the number of Americans killed by terrorists in history about equals the number of Americans killed by other Americans with guns every four months. Let’s keep things in perspective before we create a police state to prevent fairly rare events, which would probably be unsuccessful anyway.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        While there are some things Israel does that we could try to model, it is important to keep in mind that Israel has about as much flight traffic through Ben Gurion as we have through Fort Lauderdale.

        If we could focus our efforts to secure FLL, we likely would have a pretty darn tight ship there.

        I think the total passengers in Israel a year is less than what the US does in a typical work week.

        Plus, I’d like to think we should do better than pulling every middle eastern-ish name and face out of line for extra screening.

        Also, Ben Gurion really likes for you to be at the airport four hours ahead of time. It would take several bombs going off to get American business ready to accommodate that.

  9. texan5142 says:

    I like cheese.

  10. tuttabellamia says:

    A lot has been written about use of the internet resulting in attention-deficit and shallow thinking. I’ve written this before, but I seriously wonder if use of social media might result in dementia or Alzheimer’s. The one thing I’ve noticed in common in people I’ve known with dementia (including my own mom) is that they were all “brooders.” Social media such as this blog lends itself to brooding — it’s circular, repetitive, mind numbing, negative, emotionally laden — not good for those of us who are brooders and potential candidates for dementia by inheritance.

    • lomamonster says:

      I’ve seen people get dementia ‘through’ inheritance as well…

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I guess I should have used the word “heredity,” but “inheritance” sound so much more poetic.

    • Crogged says:

      The brooding comes first and as our ability to keep the mechanics of the body working improves, so do more mechanisms by which it ultimately breaks down become exposed.

      Look up “Mary Gauthier” and the song, “I Drink”. Thrilling sadness.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Dementia is one case for which the laws of inheritance should definitely be changed. I hereby bequeath my mom’s dementia to Paris Hilton.

      • Crogged says:

        In my family too-which brings up the moral dilemma of: if they develop tests which will tell one that the diagnosis is certain-would you do it? I don’t know that I would. I think participating in a blog like this actually is good for the brain (if one avoids the high emotion and trap of not leaving decisions and thoughts open to change and criticism). But sometimes, like you, the same ‘ol circle of repetitive argument gets tiring.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I would not opt for the test. I like the element of surprise.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        If I could still have a kid, I would NOT want to know the gender until the moment of birth.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Seriously, though, I tend to be pessimistic and defeatist, so better not to know about bad things in advance. Or maybe it’s best to know in advance, because it’s confirmation of my worst fears, and I could then relax.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Cap believes that none of that matters, that there is no point in knowing the potential, much less the certainty, of something bad happening in the future, that we should make the best of each day, no matter what. As I said, he is very laid back and goes with the flow. I am the worrywart.

        Cap is adopted, so he has no idea of his biological family’s medical history and doesn’t care to know.

      • Crogged says:

        Cap has a good philosophy and I agree with not knowing-but eventually, you do know anyway. Unless you are reading the name of a manufacturer of bus headlights and then, darkness……..

      • objv says:

        Tuttabella, The biggest danger to our health may be in sitting in front of our computers for hours hitting the refresh button like trained monkeys. Exercise increases blood flow to the brain. I try to walk 30 minutes to an hour daily. That’s easy for me because I have two Aussies who look at me with very sad puppy eyes on the mornings I can’t make it out. They’re good motivation.

        I’ve been reading quite a bit about a possible link between Alzheimer’s and high blood sugar levels. Even if a person with Alzheimer’s never develops diabetes outright, even slightly elevated blood sugar such as found in prediabetes is associated with Alzheimer’s. Development of diabetes will only further deteriorate brain function. Since diabetes runs in my family, I try to maintain a low glycemic diet. That does not guarantee I will never get Alzheimer’s, but it will probably delay symptoms if I do.

        I tend to be a bit of a brooder myself. During the last ten years, three family members have had life threatening medical conditions. It was difficult to get my mind off stressful thoughts. Writing comments actually helped quite a bit because I had to refocus my mind and develop arguments. It was also quite fun when you, Kali and I were writing comments to each other. For your part in the fun, I say thank you, thank you, thank you from the bottom of my heart. You helped me get through a tough time.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Thanks, OV, the feeling is mutual. By the way, my mom had diabetes and did not keep it under control very well. Perhaps that contributed to her dementia.

        I’m glad to see the jaguar back.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I guess Cap will never get dementia. He is not a brooder, nor does he have a sweet tooth. 🙂

      • tuttabellamia says:

        OV: Cap is not a brooder, much less a schwester. 🙂

      • objv says:

        Tutt, Ha! You always make me laugh. So Cap’s not a brooder or a Schwester? I confess to being a brooder AND a Schwester, but unfortunately, my gender makes it impossible for me to be a Bruder.

        I do think it’s possible to be a happy brooder. Dwelling on melancholy thoughts is one thing I try to avoid, because the negativity does me no good. It only drags me down. I’m usually a positive and upbeat person, but I also love to argue, and that makes me seem like I am harsher than I am in real life.

        I believe you when you say that Cap is a laid back kind of person. It’s fun to think that there would be quite a few surprises if we were to meet the people here face to face.

  11. objv says:

    Torture, murder, kidnappings,rape, children used as human shields and heads stuck on sticks. ISIS or drug cartels? Both are guilty of all of the above. Of course, given its druthers, ISIS would rather blow up entire US cities, but both use the same techniques of terrorizing people in their hands.

    While I agree that it is more likely that Islamic terrorists would enter the US through other ports of entry, drug cartels and human smugglers present enough of a danger to make it imperative to secure the southern border.

    It’s easy to feel sympathy for the cute, little waifs seen on TV, and I think that ALL people should be treated with dignity, but it is a mistake to deny there is a problem with our porous border.

    84% of unaccompanied minors are teenagers and mostly male. They do not have to prove they are under 18. Many look older. Many have gang tattoos and don’t deny they are gang members. Still, they are released into the general population with a date for a hearing where they are unlikely to show up.

    Most of the migrants ARE trying to escape to a better life, but there is a significant number that are criminals.They do not become good people by being baptized by the waters of the Rio Grande. Contrary to the depiction in the blog, as a white, middle-class woman, I have little fear for my own safety, but that does not allow me to turn a blind eye to dangers that criminal aliens pose to others.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      OV, you are right, but then so are Lifer and his supporters on this blog. The distinguishing feature is what we choose to focus on. Some see only people escaping to a better life; others see only the criminal element. The fact that there is so much focus on immigration at all — both legal and illegal — when there are so many other issues out there — should give us pause.

      I saw a Tea Party website listing their 10 most important values/resolutions, and at the very top of the list was something that said that illegal immigration was unacceptable and non-negotiable. Why put that at the very top? I would think that a value declaring our freedom should be at the very top of the list, or even the ONLY item on the list.

      I think it’s deplorable when politicians pander to the base instincts of their constituents, instead of appealing to their noble side. The sad thing is that noble is too often portrayed as “stupid.”

      • John Galt says:

        My inherent problem with the various Tea Party groups is their basic inconsistency. Government is too big, too intrusive, and spends too much money, but let’s build a $50 billion wall and set up a police state to apprehend illegal immigrants. Let’s slash government spending, except not the military, social security, or medicare. Certainly not all people who associate with the TP are this way, but this is the overall public message from these groups.

        In the end, it’s a political philosophy that argues for expending public resources on their priorities and no others. This is not a unique position, unfortunately, but their virulent opposition to anyone else’s priorities is unprecedented in its intensity.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I admire the purely libertarian branch of the Tea Party, not the faction overly focused on illegal immigration and opposed to diversity.

      • CaptSternn says:

        What are the constitutional powers and responsibilities of the federal government, John? That is what the left wants to ignore and dismiss. The left just wants what they want, laws and constitutional limitations be damned.

      • John Galt says:

        If by “the left” you mean 90% of Americans and majorities of the Supreme Court for 200 years, then I guess you’ve sniffed out the plan to enslave you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        More like about half the people that vote in presidential elections and the supreme court since the late 1930s, John. I oppose the tyranny of the majority in favor of the rights of the minority, the ultimate minority being the individual, and I do not believe the courts are infalliable.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Tutt, anyone can create a TEA Party page and put a list on it whether in priority order or not.

        JG, the TEA Party is not anti government at all. TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY is the acronym. NO matter how many times you say it JG, it doesn’t make it true. Now I will return to my family as I have noticed the comments section has dwindles
        d enormously since the Captain and I backed out.

      • Tutta, there are really only three little words that should count in this debate. They are 1) rule, 2) of, and 3) law. Rule of law. That’s it. Without rule of law you have Ferguson and its aftermath, and all that goes along with it.

        Now, I don’t doubt that some want to pass new laws to enforce racial bigotry; I don’t doubt that some attempt to utilize existing laws to pursue racist ends. These are real problems. However, refusing to enforce the law is in no way, shape or form a valid means of dealing with such deficiencies. Failing to enforce the law merely undermines the rule of law, and makes *every* social problem worse.

        We have witnessed an acceleration in the break down of the rule of law under the current administration, with a president, attorney general, and numerous heads of departments down the line in the federal bureaucracy who have amply demonstrated utter disdain for the rule of law. As a result we have Congress (the *legislative* branch of government) utterly unwilling to contemplate desperately need reforms (and not just in the area of immigration) simply because the executive branch cannot be trusted to *enforce the law*. It’s a very sad state of affairs, and one that will not be corrected under the sitting president.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        TT…I get that you have no great affinity for our current president, but it takes a monumental set of blinders (or some over-caffeinated boles) to make this statement:

        “As a result we have Congress (the *legislative* branch of government) utterly unwilling to contemplate desperately need reforms (and not just in the area of immigration) simply because the executive branch cannot be trusted to *enforce the law*.”

        Surely, our Congress is not underfunctioning “simply” because Obama cannot be trusted to enforce the law. Heck, our Congress wasn’t doing much before the GOP figured out that Obama would not enforce the law.

      • flypusher says:

        Let’s not forget that Congress blew a golden opportunity to reform/ update the immigration laws pre-Obama.

        The whole “Rule of law” mantra doesn’t have much practical result if the current law is inadequate to address the situation.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Good to see you again, Kabuzz, even if it is temporary. I wouldn’t be surprised if you wrote an entire book during your absence. Think of all that can be accomplished if we just stop wasting time.

      • HH, I can’t say this with complete confidence, but I do believe we’d have already passed some form of immigration reform if almost anybody other than Obama were in office. The problem is that Obama has demonstrated that he will unilaterally not enforce and/or summarily change any portion of any law passed by Congress that he disagrees with or finds inconvenient. Given this, why would any GOP member of Congress attempt to bargain in good faith with their Dem counterparts to achieve a compromise? They *know* their hard-won concessions will go out the window as soon as any law hits Obama’s desk for signature.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Tutt, you are correct. I have about 30 pages to go then off to the editor.

    • flypusher says:

      I’ve stated here more than once that the flood of economic refugees makes excellent cover for bad guys, be they gangsters or terrorists. It’s one of many reasons to dismantle this heartless underground economy. But as I said below, I’m more concerned about the cartels than ISIS and their ilk, and even then the concern is baseline, because I don’t live a life that intersects with those people/ activities.

    • Turtles Run says:


      So, gang members are traveling over a thousand miles so they have the opportunity to rob and murder here? I never realized criminals were so ambitious. Could it be they are trying to escape that life?

      Why would a person come all the way here, turn themselves into the authorities to have a permanent record of myself made, just for the opportunity to rob & kill? Seems pretty far fetched.

      Do some of these people commit crimes? Yes, but name one demographic that doesn’t. One thing that most studies prove though is that first generation immigrants are less likely to commit crimes as compared to native born citizens.

      “All in all, researchers found that immigrants were about half as likely to say they had engaged in such behaviors, even after researchers controlled for alcohol and drug use disorders, mental health conditions, gender, race and ethnicity and other demographic variables.

      The same pattern held when researchers zeroed in on immigrants from specific regions, including Africa, Latin America, Europe and Asia. People born in the U.S. were roughly four times as likely to report engaging in violent behavior than immigrants from Asia and Africa, and three times as likely as immigrants from Latin America. European immigrants came closest to people born in the U.S., the researchers found, but were still much less “antisocial” than native-born Americans.”

      I am not going to travel hundreds of miles risking murder, rape, or being held for ransom just for the pleasure of committing a crime here and to be sent to jail and then get deported back where I started. These people do not commit crimes here for the same reason they really do not use any services (other than schools and emergency care). They want to stay in the shadows and not be caught.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Turtles, I don’t know that OV is saying that immigrants come here for the sole purpose of committing crimes — that they are “criminally ambitious” or searching for “criminal opportunities.” As you point out, many are actually seeking to get away from a criminal environment. The sad thing is when that’s all they’ve known in their home country, or they fall in with the wrong crowd here, and they end up perpetuating what they’re trying to escape.

      • objv says:

        Turtles and Tutt, it was not my intention to demonize immigrants. Immigration is good for this country, but there has to be a better way to screen out the criminal element. I believe it’s possible to be “noble” without being naive about risks. Thanks, Tutt, for the explanation to Turtles. 🙂

        Turtles, members of MS-13 do travel hundreds, even thousands of miles into the US. More are coming here due to crackdowns in home countries.

        Tutt, you’re right when you say that people are polarized on the issue of immigration, All nationalities are a mixture of good and bad. Sometimes, we have to make choices in order to protect ourselves. I had a cousin in Germany who was a drug addict. (He died in his 40s.) I would have never taken him in if he had wanted to immigrate to the US, because he had a history of threatening people while high.

        Turtles, say a distant relative contacted you to let you know their 17-year-old son wanted to travel to the US illegally and they wanted you to be his contact and stay with you awhile until he got settled. Let’s say another relative called to warn you that this same young man was a gang member and had already been committed several crimes in his home country including rape. What would you do? Would you do the noble thing and take him into your home? Is it really fair to place individuals in communities without screening them?

      • tuttabellamia says:

        OV, this is about stereotypes and generalizations and focusing too much on the negative.

        It’s as though I were running for office, and I spend a good chunk of my donor money on ads about the dangers of Germans because of their history of Nazism, complete with depictions of scary-looking Gestapo officers and concentration camps, and the number one “value” on my website is about the importance of keeping illegal Germans out of the U.S.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        You would think that I have an unhealthy obsession with Germans, or that I am pandering to the German-haters in my voting constituency.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        I think we can all agree that Nazism is a terrible thing, but to focus only on Nazism when the subject of Germans arises is terribly inappropriate and unjust.

      • objv says:

        Agreed, Tutt, but after WWII German immigrants’ backgrounds were checked before they were allowed to immigrate. War criminals were not allowed in although a few slipped through. Believe it or not, there was still quite a bit of prejudice against German nationals even in the 1960s and 70s. I was frequently called “Nazi” by kids in school.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Turtles, members of MS-13 do travel hundreds, even thousands of miles into the US. More are coming here due to crackdowns in home countries.”

        As I said Yes some do commit crimes but for the vast majority they do not nor are these true gang members turning themselves into the authorities like these refugee children are doing. Gang members tend to avoid law enforcement not greet it.

        “Is it really fair to place individuals in communities without screening them?”

        Who is not screening them? Violent, criminal, and dangerous unaccompanied children are kept in secured facilities. Do you know of anyone arguing that that violent criminals be released into the public? I know I am not advocating for such action.

      • objv says:

        Turtles, I agree that the percentage of gang members is probably small, but teenagers who claim they are from Central America and under 18 are released.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The drug cartels are here, and they use juveniles as underage hitmen. Have a good night and sleep well because they will target people for not participating.

      • John Galt says:

        The issue of drug cartels and the violence they create on both sides of the border (but disproportionately south of it) would vanish nearly immediately if we stopped this insane war on drugs, a war in which no victories have been won but there has been an awful lot of collateral damage. If drugs were legal then the trade would largely bypass criminal elements, eventually at least.

      • John Galt says:

        “German immigrants’ backgrounds were checked before they were allowed to immigrate.”

        They still are, as are the backgrounds of all other legal immigrants. It is a royal PIA to immigrate legally to this country. An employee of mine will become an American citizen this week. She has been in the US for 12 years, has a Ph.D. from an American university, and has a good job (as does her husband). They only got Green cards out of the sheerest luck, but since then it has taken nearly 7 years to get to this point.

        It is the illegal immigrants who bypass this scrutiny, because we have a labor market that needs them, a legal system that tolerates it, and a political system that lacks the guts to change that which is clearly broken.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Well, John, what a crazy thing. I agree with both of your comments here. Prohibition has nevcer worked and we are not enforcing our immigration laws, making a joke of those that take the time and effort to come here legally and become citizens.

  12. johnofgaunt75 says:

    Perry needs to provide the name of one Islamic terrorist who has entered this country from Mexico.

    Compare that number (zero) who has entered from the Canadian border and you would think that we need to build a fence alright….but it needs to sit on the border of Montana and North Dakota.

  13. Crogged says:

    Somehow, barely, another Simpson’s reference fits (a Halloween episode) these musings.

    Mr. Burns removes Homer’s brain and spinal cord, places it on his own head and says, “Look at me, I’m Daveeey Crockett!”

    More guns, more police, more technology regarding identification, more gated communities and more oversight of everything we do and say over electronic medium equals more freedom.

    • tuttabellamia says:

      How many people here live in gated communities? Let’s see a show of hands.

      I don’t live in a gated community. I don’t think political persuasion has much to do with it.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        The other day Intrigued was saying the gate or alarm to her community was broken, and how some silly residents were paranoid about kids from Central America entering. I say, why live in a gated community in the first place?

      • flypusher says:

        I’d say because it decreases the chances of unwanted solicitation or prostletizing at your door, and it’s an addition hurdle for thieves.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        True, and people are “free” to live in gated communities if they feel the need, just as other people should be free to protect themselves as they see appropriate, with a firearm, for example, or without a firearm. We all have different levels of fear, of what we consider “safe” conditions, and we should respect others’ views in that regard. One person’s sensible need for safety is another person’s paranoia.

      • flypusher says:

        Tutta, I’ve got zero problem with the ideal of the castle doctrine, although I personally think the definitions need to be tightened up. I’ve thought about whether I could use deadly force if someone broke into my house. I’m not bothered by the thought of it, although that’s nowhere close to being faced with actually doing it.

      • objv says:

        The only time I lived in a gated community was when my family and I lived in Venezuela. Not only was our neighborhood gated, it was also guarded and patrolled by tough looking guys carrying big, scary guns. This was not an “ex-pat” compound. This was a neighborhood of mostly Venezuelans.

        Everyone, from the poor to the rich, was paranoid about security. Iron bars on the outside of windows and high fences (often topped with razor wire and broken glass) were more common than not. Even the grocery stores,had a couple guys carrying automatic weapons stationed up front.

      • Crogged says:

        Not to get all gothic on eerbody………

      • Intrigued says:

        Yep Fly summed up the reasons for living in a gated community! We didn’t pick our house because of the gate but not having to deal with creepy door to door sales is sure a plus!

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        The percentage of folks in gated communities will depend greatly on how you define “gated community”.

        If you go with the stereotype of a gated community in suburban Houston, you are going to see a whole lot of White Republicans from upper-middle and high income levels.

        Meanwhile, my first apartment in Houston was off Gulfton just outside the loop on the southwest side. My Ford Escort was just about the nicest car in the parking lot. It was a “gated community” with razor wire on some of the fences, and very few White Republicans.

        Given the prevalence of gates around lower-end apartment complexes, I would be the percentage of low income people in “gated communities” equals or exceeds upper income folks.

        However, if you live in a single-family dwelling in a gated community, there is a pretty decent chance you are White and Republican (recognizing that there will undoubtedly be some number of minority members and liberals there as well).

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Hell, I don’t even have a fence in my front yard. I do have privacy walls put up by my immediate neighbors on each side, and I had a chain link fence put up in my back yard.

      • John Galt says:

        No gates here. I do have a fenced-in backyard but this is as much to keep things in than keep them out. And, no, I don’t have dogs.

      • My beloved and I refer to them as prison communities – lock the world out; lock yourself in. Gee, that sounds like fun. Not.

        Objv mentions the Venezuelan compound she lived in, which takes us right back to that rule of law thing I mentioned somewhere above…

      • bubbabobcat says:

        A little late to the game as I am traveling all week but a bit Twilight Zone-y Houston As I lived in the “Gulfton Ghetto” for over a decade and drove a 1993 Escort the whole time. Ve are doppegangers!

        Scary thought for you, eh?

    • Crogged says:

      I mentioned gated communities metaphorically. There is an inherent counter intuitive with regards to freedom, the harder you try to preserve it, the less of it you have. Real freedom involves accepting risk. We can make our borders and our criminal justice system so secure we can choose between watching our security cameras or “Cops” on Fox. Freedom of choice.

  14. flypusher says:

    “So, I think there is the obvious great concern that because of the condition of the border from the standpoint of it not being secure and us not knowing who is penetrating across that individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be, and I think there is a very real possibility that they may have already used that.”

    Kind of contradicts the T-shirt he’s hawking, doesn’t it?

    ‘The front of the t-shirt features Perry’s mugshot with a stamp that says “WANTED” and the words “for securing the border and defeating Democrats.” ‘

    So did you secure the border or not?

  15. John Galt says:

    “the Republic of Baptiststan”

    That description put a smile on my face this morning.

  16. flypusher says:

    Jeez! If you’re going to play the fear card about the Southern border, at least cite bad guys who we know are there and doing bad things, such as the drug cartels. At least there are tangible concerns about their violent ways spilling over.

  17. bubbabobcat says:

    What is scary is that this walking and talking gibberish of a clown car wreck seriously thinks he has a chance at the Presidency. Again. And that media whore “pundits” left and right are lapping it up. Again.

    Because, you know the serious business of governance of our country HAS to be presented a la “Jersey Shore/Bridezilla/Survivor/Wives of Who the Hell Cares Where/’Murican Idol/Dick Dynasty/…

    • flypusher says:

      You know all the comedy writers are giving thanks……

    • tuttabellamia says:

      Agreed. Also, `a la Facebook/Twitter. It’s not just a dumbing down anymore. That’s nothing new. Social media has brought society to a new low with ‘respect’ to class, dignity, and attention, reduced to a bunch of zombies walking around with plugs in their ears, engrossed in childish dramas with strangers and “friends,” eavesdropping on others’ formerly private conversations, verbalizing one’s every thought indiscriminately, on a nonstop, constant level.

    • I wouldn’t worry too much bubba. Perry is no ambi-turner, and it’ll take only one or two debates for voters to be reminded of that once again. And Perry shares none of Zoolander’s more redeeming qualities.

  18. desperado says:

    We have no clear evidence of that, but…

    A recurring Republican theme.

    We have no clear evidence that Barack Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, but…

    We have no clear evidence that trickle down is anything other than voodoo economics, but…

    We have no clear evidence that tax cuts for the rich create jobs, but…

    We have no clear evidence of voter fraud, but…

    We have no clear evidence that we’re about to be eaten by the inflation monster, but…

    We have no clear evidence that unemployment encourages people to not work, but…

    We have no clear evidence that abstinence only programs work, but…

    We have no clear evidence that Paul Ryan’s budget numbers add up, but…

    We have no clear evidence that Sarah Palin has a functioning brain cell, but…

    • John Galt says:

      And this pretty much cements the election for anyone running against this strategy. Americans do not elect pessimists as president. On rare occasions we elect whoever isn’t the incumbent but unless your opponent is named Hoover or Ford, then you have to run with a positive, optimistic message to get elected.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        OOPS! JG I have plenty of Obama’s negative speeches during the campaign. You might want to reconsider.

        The events of this week have shown that the stakes in this election couldn’t be clearer.

        We are in the midst of the most serious financial crisis in generations. Three of America’s five largest investment banks have failed or been sold off in distress. Our housing market is in shambles, and Monday brought the worst losses on Wall Street since the day after September 11th. Monday brought the worst losses on Wall Street since the day after September 11th, and today we learned that the Fed had to take unprecedented action to prevent the failure of one of the largest insurance companies in the world from causing an even larger crisis.

        While we do not know all the details of the arrangement with AIG, the Federal Reserve must ensure that the plan protects the families that count on insurance. It should bolster our economy’s ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of AIG.

        Everywhere you look, the economic news is troubling. But for so many Americans, it isn’t really news at all.

        600,000 workers have lost their jobs since January. Home values are falling. Your paycheck doesn’t go as far as it used to. It’s never been harder to save or retire; to buy gas or groceries; and if you put it on a credit card, they’ve probably raised your rates. In so many cities and towns across America, it feels as if the dream that so many generations have fought for is slowly slipping away.

        I have every confidence that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That’s who we are. That’s what we’ve always done as Americans.

        But the one thing I do know is this – we can’t steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. And that’s what this election is about.

        It’s been an interesting week for John McCain. It’s been really interesting to watch him respond to this economic news. His first reaction to this crisis on Monday was to stand up and repeat the line he’s said over and over and over again throughout this campaign – quote – “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

        Now, his campaign must’ve realized that probably wasn’t a smart thing to say on the day of a financial meltdown, so they sent him back out a few hours later to clean up his remarks.

        But it sounds like he got a little carried away, because yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s President, he’ll take on the – quote – “ol’ boys network” in Washington. I am not making this up. This is someone who’s been in Congress for twenty-six years – who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign – and now he tells us that he’s the one who will take on the ol’ boy network. The ol’ boy network? In the McCain campaign, that’s called a staff meeting.

        John McCain went on to say how angry he is at the greedy corporate interests on Wall Street. He’s so angry he wants to punish them with $200 billion in tax cuts. And if they’re not careful, he’ll give them even more tax cuts for shipping our jobs overseas.

        I mean, where is he getting these lines? The lobbyists running his campaign? Maybe it’s Phil Gramm – the man who was the architect of the de-regulation in Washington that helped cause the mess on Wall Street, who also happens to be the architect of John McCain’s economic plan and one of his chief advisors. You remember Phil Gramm – he’s the guy who said that we’re just going through a “mental recession;” who called the United States of America a “nation of whiners.”

        And then yesterday, John McCain’s big solution to the crisis we’re facing is – get ready for it – a commission. That’s Washington-speak for “we’ll get back to you later.” Folks, we don’t need a commission to figure out what happened. We know what happened. Too many in Washington and on Wall Street weren’t minding the store. CEOs got greedy. Lobbyists got their way. Politicians sat on their hands until it was too late. We don’t need a commission to tell us how we got into this mess, we need a President who will lead us out of this mess – and that’s the kind of President I intend to be.

        So while he isn’t offering real solutions, he can’t talk enough about how greedy Wall Street is, and how he’s going to take on that ol’ boy network in Washington. At this rate, by the end of the week John McCain will be telling us how he and Phil Gramm and the seven lobbyists are planning to storm the Treasury Department with torches and pitchforks. Come on.

        Now, I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we’re facing right now, but I do fault the economic philosophy he’s followed for twenty-six years. It’s a philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It’s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.

        Well let’s be clear: what we’ve seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on this philosophy – a philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It’s time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.

        We have a different way of measuring the fundamentals of our economy. We know that the fundamentals that we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great -that America is a place where you can make it if you try; that everyone should have the chance to live their dreams.

        I know I wouldn’t be standing here today without that promise. And I know that’s the promise we must keep once more.

        When I talk to those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton’s Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

        In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country.

        And when I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep the promise of America alive as President of the United States.

        Unlike Senator McCain, it didn’t take a crisis on Wall Street for me to understand that folks are hurting out on Main Street.

        It was two years ago that I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. It was one year ago that I called on our Treasury Secretary and our FED Chairman to bring every stakeholder together and find a solution to the subprime mortgage meltdown before it got worse. In March, when John McCain was saying “I’m always for less regulation,” I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets.

  19. rightonrush says:

    When and if ISIS strikes here in the U.S. they won’t be walking across the Southern Border. Perry is a fear monger….hell, most Republicans are fear mongers that see Mexican-terrorists-Eboli infected child-booger bears,+ the DEVIL behind every mesquite tree. ISIS will arrive via a legitimate passport from Europe, Canada, or the good old U.S.A.

    • flypusher says:

      ” ISIS will arrive via a legitimate passport from Europe, Canada, or the good old U.S.A.”

      Exactly. Why take the hard risky way through the scorching desert if you’re a white person who doesn’t fit the standard terrorist profile. I hope someone is doing their detective work and trying to figure out who all those Western foreign fighters are.

      • rightonrush says:

        I read some BS on I believe CNN’s comments that he was a “Texas Official” that had a “friend” that owned property on the Mexican border. The “friend” was finding all sorts of garbage (food wrappers-water bottles) written in Arabic littering his property. The folks that believe that BS are beyond stupid.

      • Turtles Run says:

        So these middle-easterners brought enough supplies with them from the ME to last them through their journey from the ME to Mexico to the US border. Did these so-called terrorists not know they can buy food and water in Mexico? Even if this trip lasted 2 weeks that is a hell of a lot of supplies to carry. It is scary to believe so many people are so gullible.

      • rightonrush says:

        “I hope someone is doing their detective work and trying to figure out who all those Western foreign fighters are”
        They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t Fly. But I’m betting the ranch that we haven’t been asleep. We went into Sierra without anyone knowing jackall about it (with jets, special forces and choppers). I thank God that we still have Special Forces that are mature, well trained ,and smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

      • rightonrush says:

        no excuse for the dumb-ass typo “Sierra” instead of Syria.

      • tuttabellamia says:

        Rush, do not let it happen again. 🙂

      • rightonrush says:

        Tutt, that was really embarrassing. I’m not an ignorant man, but sometimes I play the part.😖

      • flypusher says:

        Who leaked the news of the rescue attempt? I missed that little detail, but whoever did it, not a good idea there. I really do hope the scumbag who murdered Foley left enough clues despite hiding his face to allow the intelligence people to ID him. I hope there’s a special drone in his near future.

      • Turtles Run says:


        I have never known these terrorist types to be exactly secretive about their actions. People around them know what they did and they will tell others. It is only a matter of time till some drone turns him into ground beef..

      • flypusher says:

        Looks like UK Intel may have their scumbag:

        And terrorism is multi-generational in his family too; let’s hope he hasn’t reproduced.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Some seem to forget. From Jonah Goldberg:

      Recall that not long ago, the first item on the bill of indictment against the Bush administration was that it was “exploiting” 9/11 to enact its agenda. Al Gore shrieked that President Bush “played on our fears” to get his way. In response to nearly every Bush initiative, from the Patriot Act to the toppling of Saddam Hussein, critics would caterwaul that Bush was taking advantage of the country’s fear of terrorism.

      The Bush administration always denied this, and rightly so. If the president had admitted that he was using a national calamity for narrow partisan or ideological advantage, it would have been outrageous. Indeed, every time Karl Rove or some other administration official said anything that could be even remotely interpreted as using the war or 9/11 for partisan or ideological gain, the editorial pages and Democratic news-release factories went into overdrive with righteous indignation.

      Well, now we have the president, along with his chief aides, admitting — boasting! — that they want to exploit a national emergency to further their preexisting agenda, and there’s no scandal. No one even calls it a gaffe. No, they call it leadership.

      It’s not leadership. It’s fear mongering.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: