Bordering on Stupid
Amid the ongoing border babble, one question is rarely asked or addressed, namely does the United States even want to have secure and inviolable borders. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't seem as if we do, at least not on the federal level.
It's worthwhile to remember that the porous border problem existed long before Barack Obama took office. President George W. Bush for 8 years showed no inclination to seal our southern border and Obama is simply continuing that policy of inaction.
Whether based on purely political considerations, catering to the Hispanic vote, or business interests, staffing menial jobs with millions of illegal immigrants, both Bush and Obama seemed to agree that an open border was in their best interests and the interests of their respective parties.
Yet, the debate continues with Arizona's new illegal immigration law merely accenting the issue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added her signature unintended levity to the debate at her weekly press conference when she suggested saving money in the drug epidemic.
Responding to a CNS reporter's question on stopping the flood of illegal drugs across the border, she cited a Rand Corporation study that said it was cheaper for the government to lessen the demand and to treat teens for drug addiction than to interdict the smuggling from Mexico.
Not noted previously for her interest in saving money, Pelosi said, "I'm for reducing demand in the United States. That is what our responsibility is on this subject."
Well, no, Mrs. Speaker. The government's initial and paramount responsibility on this subject is to secure the borders of our nation to insure we continue to have a nation. First focusing on treating teen addicts and cutting demand for illicit and destructive drugs is putting the cart before the horse. Do you really believe that putting kids into rehab for 6 months and then releasing them into a society awash with cheap goodies provided by the Mexican drug cartels is the way to go?
After that evasive and stupid response to the question, the Speaker rattled off a litany of well-prepared statistics on the comparative costs of treatment versus incarceration versus interdiction versus "eradication of the cocoa [sic] leaf."
Read the transcript and see and hear our rocket scientist Speaker of the House Pelosi here: [http://tiny.cc/uigbq]
The good news is that she at least tried to answer the question. That was more than another Democrat did.
Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva was asked the same question by CNS last week. His response was to storm off and denounce the CNS reporter as "punkish" for posing the query.
It's worthwhile to remember that the porous border problem existed long before Barack Obama took office. President George W. Bush for 8 years showed no inclination to seal our southern border and Obama is simply continuing that policy of inaction.
Whether based on purely political considerations, catering to the Hispanic vote, or business interests, staffing menial jobs with millions of illegal immigrants, both Bush and Obama seemed to agree that an open border was in their best interests and the interests of their respective parties.
Yet, the debate continues with Arizona's new illegal immigration law merely accenting the issue.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added her signature unintended levity to the debate at her weekly press conference when she suggested saving money in the drug epidemic.
Responding to a CNS reporter's question on stopping the flood of illegal drugs across the border, she cited a Rand Corporation study that said it was cheaper for the government to lessen the demand and to treat teens for drug addiction than to interdict the smuggling from Mexico.
Not noted previously for her interest in saving money, Pelosi said, "I'm for reducing demand in the United States. That is what our responsibility is on this subject."
Well, no, Mrs. Speaker. The government's initial and paramount responsibility on this subject is to secure the borders of our nation to insure we continue to have a nation. First focusing on treating teen addicts and cutting demand for illicit and destructive drugs is putting the cart before the horse. Do you really believe that putting kids into rehab for 6 months and then releasing them into a society awash with cheap goodies provided by the Mexican drug cartels is the way to go?
After that evasive and stupid response to the question, the Speaker rattled off a litany of well-prepared statistics on the comparative costs of treatment versus incarceration versus interdiction versus "eradication of the cocoa [sic] leaf."
Read the transcript and see and hear our rocket scientist Speaker of the House Pelosi here: [http://tiny.cc/uigbq]
The good news is that she at least tried to answer the question. That was more than another Democrat did.
Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva was asked the same question by CNS last week. His response was to storm off and denounce the CNS reporter as "punkish" for posing the query.
Source...