More:Print This Post
The dismissive attitude with which the Obama Administration has “handled” the Wikileaks has been nothing short of stupefying. They had the best legal and technological resources available to them that might have prevented further embarrassing, damaging and top secret leaks after the initial releases back in July yet apparently did little.
The consequences of their inaction and insouciance are incalculably catastrophic and far-reaching and will have lasting effects and influences on both our allies and enemies. This newest set of leaks has been called the 9/11 of diplomacy and foreign policy.
Myriad questions need to be asked and answered on both sides of this equation including how one 22 year old Private was able to obtain access to all this information including some that were labeled top secret ones.
Is Obama so incompetent that he didn’t have the common sense or intelligence to aggressively pursue an expeditious solution?
Or is this part of his strategy to countenance the destruction of this country in every way possible and this was a perfect strategy? The ideological statements which he has made in this past support the validity of this.
Was he just too bored, detached or distracted to give this disaster its due attention?
We suspect all of these figured into the equation.
Which leads to our now almost daily call to have Obama removed from office ASAP!
There is another immensely important issue obliquely related to this saga of the inability of the government to protect and defend its deepest diplomatic and foreign policy secrets. This involves Obamacare and the mandated government’s handling of our medical records and information.
Virtually more important than anything else relating to government controlled healthcare is the protection of the confidentially of our health information. We knew before the wikileaks that maintaining our medical privacy would be next to impossible particularly given that potentially 100,000 individuals might be able to access our records due to the bureaucratic arrangement.
Well, now make that absolutely impossible!
We cannot trust the government with our medical information. Period!
The magnitude of the risk of the inadvertent release and posting, theft and even blackmail of our health care records is incomprehensibly higher compared to the stolen “top secret” government files.
This should be the number one “deal breaker” that vaporizes Obamacare.
Serious Questions about the Obama Administration's Incompetence in the Wikileaks Fiasco
Sarah Palin November 29, 2010
We all applaud the successful thwarting of the Christmas-Tree Bomber and hope our government continues to do all it can to keep us safe. However, the latest round of publications of leaked classified U.S. documents through the shady organization called Wikileaks raises serious questions about the Obama administration’s incompetent handling of this whole fiasco.
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?
Most importantly, serious questions must also be asked of the U.S. intelligence system. How was it possible that a 22-year-old Private First Class could get unrestricted access to so much highly sensitive information? And how was it possible that he could copy and distribute these files without anyone noticing that security was compromised?
The White House has now issued orders to federal departments and agencies asking them to take immediate steps to ensure that no more leaks like this happen again. It’s of course important that we do all we can to prevent similar massive document leaks in the future. But why did the White House not publish these orders after the first leak back in July? What explains this strange lack of urgency on their part?
We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.
More:Print This Post
We must turn back the tide of Progressivism and reduce the size, power and intrusiveness of the federal government
More:Print This Post
It appears that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with the blessings of the Obama Administration will seek to impose “net neutrality” policies using the Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses when Congress is out of session to facilitate this. Encouraged by the far left and aided with financial assistance from George Soros, this change will provide the federal government with much greater control of various aspects of the internet as opposed to the companies that spent billions of dollars constructing and operating the networks and fiberoptic lines.
“Net neutrality” is a euphemism for legislated government control of internet communications with the pernicious ability to affect free speech. This legislation has been fervently supported by progressives in order to have the ability to silence conservatives and the opposition who use this avenue such as Fox New, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
This is another attack on our rights and freedoms that is supported by the Obama Administration, progressives and communists and funded in part by Soros.
“Net neutrality” laws and regulations must be stopped or reversed if implemented!
Seizing the Internet
The Prowler 11/24/10
Staffers at the Federal Communications Commission with ties to the commission's chairman, Julius Genachowski, coordinated media and strategy planning with senior Free Press and MoveOn.org officials in the run up to Genachowski's announcement that he would be seeking an FCC vote on imposing so-called "net neutrality" rules on broadband and the Internet, and doing so when Congress is out of session during the Thanksgiving and Christmas recesses.
"Net neutrality" is a policy proposal that would essentially strip the control and traffic management of broadband networks from those companies that deployed them and make them run properly, and transfer much of that oversight to the federal government. Under the proposal rumored to be under consideration by the FCC, network operators such as AT&T and Comcast would not be allowed to offer consumers prioritized service or quality of service guarantees for such things as movie downloads and video streaming.
"It essentially turns the networks into dumb pipes, so you have billions of people going online and no one is really managing the traffic in a way so that consumers have a good experience," says an FCC staffer for a Republican commission member. "People don't realize how much video and communications comes over their broadband lines. This is the left's attempt to rein in things like Fox News, Pajamas Media, Internet radio broadcasts for Limbaugh and Levin -- anything that is data-related or video-related that requires some high-tech network management would be degraded or limited by the imposition of net neutrality."
Congressional Republicans (and even some Democrats) have stated that they do not believe the FCC has the statutory standing to impose such rules -- which would reclassify broadband and Internet services as "telecommunications services" and bring them under rules that were developed for the rotary phone back in the 1930s -- without guidance from Congress. More than 100 members from both parties formally requested that the FCC take no action until the House and Senate had had a chance to weigh in on the matter.
But with the Obama Administration quickly losing its own standing with its radical base as it prepares to surrender to Republicans on the Bush tax cut renewals and possible budget cuts, "We need to give our people a win, and right now, [net neutrality] is the only win we will probably be able to give them for at least the next six to eight months," says a White House official.
About a week ago it appeared that nothing would be done at the FCC, and Free Press, the leftist group founded by Marxist Robert McChesney and financed by George Soros, was due to host a media call to demand FCC action. But that call was canceled without explanation and rescheduled for Monday, November 22, at which point Free Press was able to tout news to its membership that the FCC appeared prepared to act on the neutrality policy.
"We were told [last week] to hold our fire and reschedule our call," says a Free Press media aide, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. "We have friends inside the FCC and they told us that if we just waited a few days, there would be good news for us to announce to our membership. More senior people knew what was happening over there and even had the dates for the ruling circulation and the FCC meeting schedule so we could plan events to support Genachowski and the Democratic commissioners."
Speaking with outside public interest groups or industry officials is not forbidden at the FCC, though in the case of an issue like "net neutrality," FCC staff involved at any level with the decision making process are required to publicly file an ex parte notice about any discussions related to the policy issue they have with outside groups. To date, no ex parte filings have been filed related to any contact a senior FCC official might have had with senior officials at Free Press. A number of current FCC officials have ties to Free Press, including Jen Howard, currently spokesperson for Genachowski, who formerly was a spokesperson for Free Press.
In the past year, Free Press has been caught in several ethics missteps related to its claims of not lobbying Democrats on Capitol Hill or at the FCC. In one instance, the group was caught drafting letters to be published under the names of liberal Democrats addressed to the FCC and intended to influence that decision-making body. Republicans on Capitol Hill have already made it clear that oversight of the FCC will be a priority for the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
As it stands, the FCC will release the planned rulemaking for net neutrality while Congress is out of town on Thanksgiving recess, and would vote on the rules on December 21, when Congress is on Christmas recess. "In short, they are doing this in such a way that it is rubbing our noses in it," says a Republican staffer on House Energy and Commerce. "Unless folks just rise up and make noise about this, there isn't much we can do until after the new year when we get back and have control of the committee."
More:Print This Post
Obama is perceived worldwide by our friends and enemies alike as an impotent, incompetent and narcissistic leader and are responding in rational ways. Of course, a majority of Americans have the same sentiment. In the START Treaty, Putin et al have given up nothing whereas Obama is selling the store (our nuclear stockpile capabilities). The Russian leader with little effort cowered Obama into removing defensive weaponry that was protecting Eastern European countries.
Iran continues its production of weapons grade material unabated and Ahmadinejad thumbs his nose at Obama. Obama makes no threats.
Hugo Chavez is flouting his power and agreements with Russia and even has stated his plans to become a (threatening and destabilizing) nuclear power in South America.
What was Obama's response to this taunt?
Without provocation, North Korea "recklessly" attacks with missiles an island that is part of South Korea. This was just the latest in a string of unprovoked military aggression against South Korea.
What was Obama's reaction?
Another of his delayed responses. In fact, he instead first had to make his appearances on TV (that were not news conferences) before offering any sort of comment. Just yukking it up while our ally is attacked.
You could be absolutely sure that if Reagan were President (or virtually any other previous President excluding Jimmy Carter), for example, North Korea wouldn't have dare considered any of their recent aggressive actions against South Korea. They would have known in no uncertain way that there would have been serious reprisals of significant consequence. Instead, we have a very dangerous and volatile situation that could have been averted had not it been for the sheer impotence and weakness of Obama.
Obama needs to be removed from office ASAP before any more damage is done leading to an apocalyptic outcome.
Impeachment would be a good start.
More:Print This Post
In the following article, James Lewis theorizes that the Obama’s somewhat publicly “indifferent” position on the intimate searches by TSA agents is his way of implementing “Black Revenge” on the masses of largely white people. Interestingly, because of affirmative action, a disproportionate of the agents are black.
The theory, which is a very interesting one, is well supported by evidence including his attitude and previous incidents and actions. Obama has clearly not been race neutral. His actions are one of a very racist, anti-White bigot. They are inexcusable and should not be tolerated.
Though not mentioned directly in the article, Obama’s patent racist views are evidenced, for example, by his greater than 10 year association and close relationship with and acceptance of the racist hate-mongerer Rev. Jeremiah Wright, reverence for Louis Farrakhan, and support for Attorney Eric Holder and his pro-black/ anti-white discriminatory actions within the Dept. of Justice
TSA Groping and Obama's Black Revenge Narrative
James Lewis 11-25-2010
The growing TSA groping scandal is another Obama political fiasco, almost a comical way for an American president to commit political suicide. TSA's groping of little kids and their moms instead of going for the bad guys who blew up the Twin Towers fits the narrative of radical black revenge. Now all the rich white folks are treated as police suspects. Let's see how they like it! Or as the hippies used to say, "Up against the wall, m-f!"
The cops are the traditional target of radical Left scapegoating, and even more so for Black Leftists. Obama showed it when Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., himself a racial demagogue, was stopped by an interracial team of cops while breaking and entering into his own house at night. Gates immediately cried "police brutality!," and Obama immediately fell into line. Stupidly, in public. Obama paid a political price for that knee-jerk reaction, but he did not learn from it.
Gates is director of the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African and African American Research at Harvard, where they dig out new and ever more outrageous reasons to be mad at white folks. It's their version of "research." DuBois was a Communist during the Stalin years, and he was surely well-known to Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's surrogate father in Hawaii.
So Obama hates the cops, even the ones who risk their lives to protect black communities all over the country. In the TSA he has found his perfect instrument of symbolic revenge. If you remember how Hillary Rodham Clinton treated men in uniform at the White House, no matter what the uniform was, you'll get the idea.
Now everybody who flies over Thanksgiving, the quintessential American family holiday, will be dissed by uniformed cops, many of them black, because affirmative action rules the roost at the TSA. If you don't get the role-reversal joke, you're not listening to Obama.
You can bet your last dollar that Rev. Jerry Wright gets the joke. So do Louis Farrakhan; Father Pfleger, the Catholic race-monger; and everybody except Justice Clarence Thomas and Congressman Alan West, who are not laughing. Actually, they get it, too, but it looks more like tragedy than comedy to them. (Colin Powell, as usual, has gone missing in this one.)
The revenge narrative is central to Obama's personal identity, a lot of which is purely imaginary. Don't forget that he is living Dreams from My Father -- not the reality of his father, because he never knew his father at all.
When Obama bowed low for the international cameras to the King of Saudi and then dissed the Queen of England, it made no sense to Americans. But it makes perfect sense in Obama's narrative of revenge. The swarthy King Abdullah in the racial revenge narrative stands for the despised third world. The fact that Africa was raided for centuries by Arab slave raiders, and the fact that the Quran legitimates abject slavery, has no bearing on Obama's revenge fantasy, because facts don't matter in the world of fantasy. Queen Elizabeth is not a human being, but just the white symbol of British Imperialism. The pre-medieval King of Saudi, a generation away from camel-riding tent-dwellers, stands for the Wretched of the Earth. It's all part of the revenge fiction of the Left.
Obama lives in a world of good and evil. The White Hats are evil, the Black Hats good in this Western B flick.
As usual, the world of psychiatry has a name for this. It's called "splitting," and it's one of the common features of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which we know Obama suffers from. Splitting is the tendency to treat others as either all good or all evil. It's a sort of paranoid feature of NPD. Obama has NPD mixed with oppositional-defiant disorder, which is why he actually gives his opponents the fickle finger of fate, right in public where the press can take the pictures. Perhaps Obama is cursed with paranoid thinking; we don't really know. He might be fragile. We know he becomes painfully bored when he is not taking a victory lap, and that is also diagnostic of NPD.
But Obama's inner circle know all that, because they've seen it, especially when Obama's fantasy world runs into reality. That's why Obama had to try to make nice to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for two whole years before figuring out what everybody else has known for thirty. French President Sarkozy has called Obama "aliené," which means "alienated from reality." I hope that's not true, but you can be sure that every intelligence agency and foreign ministry in the world has brought in squads of psychiatrists to figure it out. At the last summit meeting, even the European socialists rebelled against Obama's loose money policy. Two years ago, they would have worshiped at his feet.
That may be why David Axelrod got out of the White House lickety-split when he realized American voters were catching on. So did Rahm Emmanuel. Michelle Obama seems strangely distant these days, going on separate vacations, and only Valerie Jarrett hangs on in the inner circle to protect the Emperor. Obama has become Richard Nixon.
Barack Obama is neither complex nor sophisticated. He is a very simple man, so simple that Americans can't figure him out, because we are always fooled by his Harvard Law School act. The liberals confuse vocabulary with intelligence. The one is not the other. Obama believes he is what Ken Hamblin only played as a joke on talk radio: the Black Avenger.
This is not because Obama has ever lost a penny by being black, or half-black, but because in his imagination, growing up, he identified with the narrative of third-world revenge. That's what he heard from his Marxist professors all through college. You can read all about it in The Wretched of the Earth, the classic and phony tale of another imagineer, Frantz Fanon.
In Asia and Europe, Frantz Fanon's "wretched of the earth" are now beginning to prosper, since they threw out Marxist socialists. India, China, South Korea, and Eastern Europe are doing well. Africa is still suffering from the likes of Mugabe.
But the revenge narrative of Marxism is still taught in American colleges and universities, and at Harvard Law, it is taken for gospel. In all the reality-challenged ivory towers of academe, they are still hoping that it's 1917, and the Romanovs are about to be shot by Lenin in a basement.
The Black Avenger is a childlike revenge fantasy, but Obama is a very childlike man. Don't forget his long history of abandonment, first by his father when he was a baby, and soon after by his mother in middle childhood. Barry Soetoro suffered from multiple estrangements as he was bundled from Hawaii to Indonesia and then back again, while Mom stayed with her second husband in Jakarta. If you think that being abandoned hurts when you're an adult, just think about how it feels to a lost and lonely child.
It seems that Obama created a fantasy self out of childlike materials. His fantasy fitted the one held by his Left-wing mentors, who did not love him for being himself. They loved him because he fulfilled their wish for another Lenin to arise and reverse all the humiliations of America's rejection of communism.
The Left has put communism into a racial context by turning class warfare into race warfare. Or haven't you noticed? What else do you think affirmative action is about? It is the Left's revenge, by exploiting the most vulnerable group they could find: American blacks. American workers are too happy with prosperity. You need a really embittered group of people to empower the Left, and if the members of that group aren't mad enough, you make them madder and madder. Peace and love don't empower the Left. Racial rage and scapegoating does.
It should be said that personality disorders are not technically forms of madness. These are character flaws so prominent that they get people into bad trouble. Character flaws are not incompatible with understanding reality. People like Obama are not unusual, and sometimes they do well in real life. Hollywood is rife with narcissists, and so is Manhattan. Washington, D.C. wouldn't exist if it wasn't for all the politicians with diagnosable personality disorders.
But in the fabled old days when politicians traded favors in boozy, smoke-filled rooms, Obama's personality would have been spotted in five minutes. The Democratic Party before 1968 would have let him thrive as a Chicago politician as long as he didn't touch anything important. The old Daley Machine could have used him.
But elect a man to the presidency who may be psychologically fragile, to keep his finger on the nuclear button? Please. Get serious.
Well, the Left and the media have given us Barack Hussein Barry Soetoro Obama, the man without a stable identity, who has only his imaginary fiction to guide him through life.
If they back off from the TSA groping scandal, expect more "dis the white folks" scandals, because that's what guides Obama's personal psychology. If you were wondering what Obama would do after his midterm losses, now you know the answer.
Just pray it doesn't get worse.
More:Print This Post
The GM bailout and federal government takeover may appear to be a sensible gambit by some (Democrats and union huggers) who are aware of the issue quite peripherally. However, only a modicum of scrutiny would reveal this to be a massively expensive union pay-off with political implications on multiple levels, an imprudent “investment” by the government that will end up costing tax payers tens of billions of dollars that will never be recouped, and an unholy involvement of the government in private industry that will more than likely either drive the company to possible bankruptcy or cause it to require yearly subsidies to stay afloat.
And it is even worse than that. With control of GM, it can and has “forced” the production of an outrageously expensive eco-car, the Chevy Volt, which few people want and which will cost the American taxpayers an additional $7500 per vehicle for subsidies in order to make it more competitive.
Philosophically, the government shouldn't be running any business. It has a tough enough time and an extremely poor track record of taking care of its own domain such as the post office (technically not), social security, Medicare, etc.
GM's Big 'Success'
Investor’s Business Daily 11/19/2010
Bailouts: Is General Motors, after its splashy initial public offering, really on the way to "becoming a success story," as President Obama says? As usual with politics, it depends on your definition of "success."
Yes, last week's GM IPO did fetch $33 a share, somewhat north of what was expected. But was it a success, really? And is the revived GM positioned to regain lost market share by pioneering a booming new industry for green cars?
The answer to both questions is no.
Start with the IPO. American taxpayers ponied up $50 billion to bail out GM, in exchange for which we got a 61% share in the company. In the IPO, we cut our government holdings to 33%, netting an estimated $13.6 billion or so.
Good deal? Check the math. The U.S. lost an estimated $9.4 billion on the deal. In fact, for taxpayers to be made whole, GM shares will have to trade at about $53 a share. Not what we would call "success," at least for taxpayers.
Moreover, GM operates under a virtual guarantee that it will be bailed out should it again go bust. So why wouldn't its IPO be a "success"? Many would buy stock in a company if they knew it had a government guarantee for its mistakes, as GM's IPO shows.
Worse than this is the claim GM made earlier that it had paid back its bailout "in full, with interest, five years ahead of the original schedule." As Reason's Nick Gillespie pointed out, GM "repaid" its loan with other taxpayer-provided bailout funds.
It was another useful lie, a fraud, all intended to show GM on the mend, thanks to the help of the federal government. But it goes beyond even that.
The government still owns a third of GM's shares. If the stock price goes down, taxpayers will lose even more money.
More pernicious is that, with its heft share of GM stock, the government will still call the shots. You can bet the feds will continue to pressure GM to make so-called green cars — like the Chevy Volt — that are supposedly less polluting than other automobiles.
But as we've noted more than once, GM's flagship electric car, the Chevy Volt, is really (with apologies to Ford) little more than an electric Edsel — a lemon with an extension cord.
Start with the price. It's $41,000 on the windshield. But it will be offered to buyers for less than that, thanks to a massive $7,500-per-car subsidy that the taxpayers will put up.
Will anyone but the most politically correct shoppers opt for the Volt? Not likely. Not only is the Volt expensive, it is highly impractical. Company and government claims that it gets 230 miles a gallon in city driving are utterly false. Reports from both Motor Trend and Popular Mechanics found that it gets less than 50 miles to a gallon of gas — and at times, as few as 26.
The Obama White House wants GM to be the taxpayer-funded spearhead for a massive fleet of "plug-in" electric vehicles. Will this cut CO2 emissions to zero? Of course not. The reason: The electricity comes from — wait for it — electrical power plants. Our current grid is 70% supplied by coal and oil. And no matter what green propagandists say, that won't change anytime soon.
"Today, more than half of the electricity generated in the United States comes from coal," the U.S. Department of Energy says on its Web site. "For the foreseeable future, coal will continue to be the dominant fuel used for electric power production."
In short, there is no green future based on plug-in cars. Only losses for the indoctrinated suckers who buy them — and for the taxpayers who are fleeced to subsidize such economic folly.
General Motors isn't a success. Nor will it be until the government is no longer involved in its business and it can stand on its own two feet without taxpayer help.
More:Print This Post
For a long time we have been stating that not only has Obama been negligent regarding securing our borders with Mexico in particular but he has also willfully adopted the position of allowing it to remain porous for political reasons to the detriment of national security and individual safety. Thousands of Americans have been needlessly murdered or subjected to other violent and non-violent crimes perpetrated by these invaders as a direct result of such wanton neglect. (The now convicted murderer of Chandra Levy, the high profile incident occurring in Washington in 2001, was himself an illegal alien.)
We strongly feel that Obama’s incompetence and arrogant, selfish motivation for consciously preventing our borders from being secured from illegal aliens, terrorist, and Mexican narco-gangs and even suing Arizona for taking actions that comport with federal law in order to protect its citizens, are strong grounds for impeachment. He has wantonly violated a basic responsibility of the Presidency.
Gov. 'Blackjack' Perry?
Investor’s Business Daily 11/19/2010
As Mexico buckles, Rick Perry's warnings are starting to sound like prophecy.
Border: As lawlessness spreads in Mexico, the governor of Texas speaks of sending in U.S. troops — a dramatic statement underscoring the fact that the region needs help and isn't getting it.
Attending a conference of governors in San Diego on Thursday, Rick Perry startled some by saying defeating Mexico's cartels may require U.S. military intervention.
"You have a situation on the border where American citizens are being killed," he told MSNBC. "I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military. I think you have the same situation as you had in Colombia. Obviously, Mexico has to approve any type of assistance that we can give them."
That may sound extreme, but it underlines that Washington has shortchanged Mexico on even military aid that would help it win its drug war. It has also done little for border states such as Texas and Arizona that bear the brunt of the war, other than deliver lawsuits.
To Washington, the only motive for states' efforts to resist the violent drug cartels is racism, not security.
But Perry knows what he's talking about.
A day earlier, spillover from the war in Mexico took on a quite literal meaning when a dead body clad in cartel-style combat gear washed up on the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande near Salineno, Texas.
According to the Monitor daily in McAllen, police had no idea who he was. But it's likely he's another hash mark to the 31,000-plus death toll of Mexico's war since 2006.
Meanwhile, just eleven blocks away from the Texas town of Roma, hundreds of war refugees from Mier, Mexico, huddle in the town of Miguel Aleman after being forced from their town by the brutal Los Zetas cartel, which vandalized and looted the town.
Los Zetas want Mier for reasons barbarian marauders do — the town sits at a strategic choke point of highways to large cities on both sides of the border. Whoever controls Mier controls routes to them. The Zetas, made up largely of Mexican military renegades, think in military terms.
That's why Mier and this region keep coming up in the news.
Thursday, Mexican troops blew away 11 Zetas in the area and the Zetas took five military men hostage. Mexico watchers noted that the directness of the battle in Mier suggests the Zetas mean to control that town at all costs. Their intensity was seen last month just north of Mier at the Falcon Reservoir, where an American jet-skier was killed and the Mexican police official investigating was beheaded.
The nearby Falcon Dam was also threatened by Zetas with destruction last April, which if carried out would have flooded both sides of the border and displaced 6 million people.
If these realities and other outrages don't wake us up to the fact that our border is now a war zone, what will? War zones require a military response, and as Gov. Perry makes his warning, the prospect of an expedition against the bandits, similar to the ones Gen. John J. "Blackjack" Pershing led in 1916 and 1917, grows more likely.
That's doubly so as the war gets bigger.
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, speaking by conference call Thursday, said the Obama administration has yet to present a "comprehensive and credible plan" to address national security threats along the border.
Plan Merida, a $1.4 billion package of training and equipment aid to help Mexico fight the cartels, remains largely unspent, with only 9% delivered, according to a 2009 report. That's negligence.
Meanwhile, a 44-page "Broken Neighbor, Broken Border" congressional field investigation, released Friday by Rep. John Carter of Texas, warns that law enforcement agencies in Texas and Arizona are being overwhelmed by the Mexican war's spillover, spending a third of their budgets and manpower on it.
Worst of all is the condescending attitude of the Department of Homeland Security's Janet Napolitano, who snidely told Perry that if he wants border protection, it's up to him to pay for it with Texas National Guard troops. Is she saying border protection isn't her job? If so, that's dereliction of duty.
As Mexico buckles, Washington fails on every front to admit the problem. It raises the possibility that troops really will have to be used — as a last resort. Perry's warning in that case will be prophecy.
More:Print This Post