Chinese training Mexican army to disrupt US border?
- Thread starter Major PITA
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
seeker-two said,
"Poor analogy. Those were designed to keep citizen IN...not to keep invaders--and we ARE talking about invaders--out. "
What are you talking about? While the application of the rifle may have been to keep people inside a border, its design had no parameters on whether it was for invaders or escapees. The design of a firearm is to launch a projectile downrange in a controlled manner. Whether it is used for hunting, target shooting, stopping invaders, or stopping escapees is an APPLICATION and not a design parameter. The gun in question is no better at keeping escapees in than invaders out.
"Poor analogy. Those were designed to keep citizen IN...not to keep invaders--and we ARE talking about invaders--out. "
What are you talking about? While the application of the rifle may have been to keep people inside a border, its design had no parameters on whether it was for invaders or escapees. The design of a firearm is to launch a projectile downrange in a controlled manner. Whether it is used for hunting, target shooting, stopping invaders, or stopping escapees is an APPLICATION and not a design parameter. The gun in question is no better at keeping escapees in than invaders out.
They are not invaders, not in a military sense.
Being non-military, the problem is now civil. Just as you shouldn't be shot by police for speeding (SUV's with recoiless rifles), border police shouldn't be killing immigrants en masse.
They are just seeking economic opportunity, just as your ancestors were. I believe that they should follow the law and do the paper work, but that doesn't mean they should be killed.
Such arguements for killing "immigrants" because one of them might do something also supports the idea that you should have not rights, after all, you might do something.
So we should now issue travel papers. If you need to travel on buisness or for personal reasons, go to you nearest magistrate to have the reason approved and your papers signed. Allow six months for processing.
The there should be armed check-points everywhere. Somebody needs to look for ID and travel permits, otherwise the whole system fails. We also have enemies that are not Middle-Eastern, and it is easier to find people if you are always looking.
No more pesky warrents needed for searches! Home, phone, e-mail are now all open to the government.
Yes, this is a good road to go down.
Being non-military, the problem is now civil. Just as you shouldn't be shot by police for speeding (SUV's with recoiless rifles), border police shouldn't be killing immigrants en masse.
They are just seeking economic opportunity, just as your ancestors were. I believe that they should follow the law and do the paper work, but that doesn't mean they should be killed.
Such arguements for killing "immigrants" because one of them might do something also supports the idea that you should have not rights, after all, you might do something.
So we should now issue travel papers. If you need to travel on buisness or for personal reasons, go to you nearest magistrate to have the reason approved and your papers signed. Allow six months for processing.
The there should be armed check-points everywhere. Somebody needs to look for ID and travel permits, otherwise the whole system fails. We also have enemies that are not Middle-Eastern, and it is easier to find people if you are always looking.
No more pesky warrents needed for searches! Home, phone, e-mail are now all open to the government.
Yes, this is a good road to go down.
We are not talking about shooting border-crossers out of hand. It is a matter of intercepting every single one of them possible at or as near to the border as possible - photo, fingerprinting etc - and then putting them immediately on a bus going back. Permanently barred from ever coming here "legally".
However, an exception could be made for those firing upon U.S. troops, BP and other citizens living along the border. Just as in any other case, return fire is of course appropriate. For those caught smuggling (arms, people, dope or otherwise) an appropriate term at hard labor, and then deportation.
And as easy as it is to cross the Canadian-U.S. border, there is far more likelyhood of them mixing with hispanics many of whom are all but indistinguishable from Egyptians, Saudis and other arabs and many from the far east. Or at least being mistaken for them. Canada, while far from perfect is a civilized country, with a government, agencies and police etc that are at least comparable to ours in the context of integrity, records and data etc. Mexico, and the other central and S American countries are another matter altogether.
There is already a fair muslim population in S America and this is growing quite rapidly. But corruption is rife in Mexico, and it is not mere speculation to suggest that Mexcan consular officials in the various third world countries can be bought off either - not to mention the passport issuing authorities of many of the miscellaneous third world states themselves.
The idea of "waging war on terror" is a silly notion to begin with. But wild goose chasing around the globe while leaving our borders wide open - setting us up - makes a complete mockery of our troops dying in places like Iraq.
However, an exception could be made for those firing upon U.S. troops, BP and other citizens living along the border. Just as in any other case, return fire is of course appropriate. For those caught smuggling (arms, people, dope or otherwise) an appropriate term at hard labor, and then deportation.
And as easy as it is to cross the Canadian-U.S. border, there is far more likelyhood of them mixing with hispanics many of whom are all but indistinguishable from Egyptians, Saudis and other arabs and many from the far east. Or at least being mistaken for them. Canada, while far from perfect is a civilized country, with a government, agencies and police etc that are at least comparable to ours in the context of integrity, records and data etc. Mexico, and the other central and S American countries are another matter altogether.
There is already a fair muslim population in S America and this is growing quite rapidly. But corruption is rife in Mexico, and it is not mere speculation to suggest that Mexcan consular officials in the various third world countries can be bought off either - not to mention the passport issuing authorities of many of the miscellaneous third world states themselves.
The idea of "waging war on terror" is a silly notion to begin with. But wild goose chasing around the globe while leaving our borders wide open - setting us up - makes a complete mockery of our troops dying in places like Iraq.
The BP can already return fire, there is no need for them so sit there and take it.
The Founding Fathers understood the problems with mixing civil and military authority, and the dangers therein.
The terrorists have already won in one respect. Terrorism isn't about killing people, it is about instilling fear and having your opponent make decisions out of fear. Patriot Act I and the proposed Son of the Patriot Act (PA II) takes away plenty of rights for no gain in security (not that security is a justifiable reason). We have already changed ourselves out of fear and hate.
The Founding Fathers understood the problems with mixing civil and military authority, and the dangers therein.
The terrorists have already won in one respect. Terrorism isn't about killing people, it is about instilling fear and having your opponent make decisions out of fear. Patriot Act I and the proposed Son of the Patriot Act (PA II) takes away plenty of rights for no gain in security (not that security is a justifiable reason). We have already changed ourselves out of fear and hate.
This ain't about mixing military and civil authority - it's about defending our borders.
We have what is a de facto state of national emergency waiting to happen. Any day now. The threat of real insurgents on our borders is not intangible, you do not need a team of "Homeland Security" analysts to figure it out. There is not a single reason that the military can not secure our borders, and in the course of doing so turn over any non-belligerents to the BP they come across. Who can then photo, print and re-export them.
The lunatic "plan" that we have now is to endure more and more controls on us - while our borders sit wide open. This while waiting for the inevitable. That is called suicide. An interesting concept for a government to undertake in the "defense" of a nation.
Yes, indeed, the Border Patrol can "shoot back" already. Any idea what the current mortality rate of the BP is compared to other U.S. agencies and police departments today?
We have what is a de facto state of national emergency waiting to happen. Any day now. The threat of real insurgents on our borders is not intangible, you do not need a team of "Homeland Security" analysts to figure it out. There is not a single reason that the military can not secure our borders, and in the course of doing so turn over any non-belligerents to the BP they come across. Who can then photo, print and re-export them.
The lunatic "plan" that we have now is to endure more and more controls on us - while our borders sit wide open. This while waiting for the inevitable. That is called suicide. An interesting concept for a government to undertake in the "defense" of a nation.
Yes, indeed, the Border Patrol can "shoot back" already. Any idea what the current mortality rate of the BP is compared to other U.S. agencies and police departments today?
Hmmm, submarines in the Great Lakes huh?
Open foreward tubes, range to the Babe laden Bayliner is ,,,,,
A week or so after 9/11 I went out on Lake Erie fishing for smallies. It was quite evident that patrolling a lake filled with pleasure boats was all but impossible. There roughly 250 miles of shoreline on the Canadian side that's unpopulated. You can see on the above, that excpet for Windsor on the left (West end) and Niagra Falls on the right (East end) it's "all dark". The majority of that shoreline is tobacco fields. Heck a *terrorist* could jump a Scarab on any given deserted beach on the Candian side,,,run hammer down for 1/2 hour, and cruise right into Cleveland's flats (the river front nightclub area) and blend right in with any one of the other thousands of good timers.
Major PITA
Inactive
I started this thread just to see if anyone else had heard what I did. I assigned it just a granule of credibility because someone from an Army base had the cojones to mention this subject on a public radio show.
Personally, it sounds hard to swallow as far as I'm concerned. The only reason I could see for the Chinese to help Mexico is to get their oil. China is buying cars, steel, copper, etc., right and left. It's not conspiratorial to think that Mexico may be trying to establish a business relationship with China and vice versa.
The story that they're training to disrupt our border could have a number of conspiracy theories surrounding it, and there is no way for sure to know if it's true (seems unlikely) or just an "urban legend." The only reason I could see for "disrupting the border" with the US (a very broad term if there ever was one) is to hamper our efforts to intercept and return illegals to Mexico. The term "disrupt our border" may not have much military significance, even though it sounds ominous. Vicente Fox may simply be trying to make sure more and more illegals cross into the US, since they can't take care of them. Just read numerous news stories out there that seem to indicate that Fox is doing everything he can to get more and more of his citizens to head for the US.
The Mexican army would be crazy to confront us directly, army to army.
Personally, it sounds hard to swallow as far as I'm concerned. The only reason I could see for the Chinese to help Mexico is to get their oil. China is buying cars, steel, copper, etc., right and left. It's not conspiratorial to think that Mexico may be trying to establish a business relationship with China and vice versa.
The story that they're training to disrupt our border could have a number of conspiracy theories surrounding it, and there is no way for sure to know if it's true (seems unlikely) or just an "urban legend." The only reason I could see for "disrupting the border" with the US (a very broad term if there ever was one) is to hamper our efforts to intercept and return illegals to Mexico. The term "disrupt our border" may not have much military significance, even though it sounds ominous. Vicente Fox may simply be trying to make sure more and more illegals cross into the US, since they can't take care of them. Just read numerous news stories out there that seem to indicate that Fox is doing everything he can to get more and more of his citizens to head for the US.
The Mexican army would be crazy to confront us directly, army to army.
Hal,
Patrolling the lakes is no crazier than the Coast Guard patrolling our thousands of miles of coastline. The point is, we have the manpower if they are not chasing geese all over the globe - as most of our army, reserves and much of the guard are doing. We also have something called the unorganized militia which is codified in the United States Code. We have millions of vets of all ages that could avail some voluntary service.
Major PITA,
Vicente and his government with the complicity of our own government are working hard to dissolve our borders in this hemisphere, as they have done within the new Europa.
As for the Chinese; they will do just about anything to get what they want. And no one should make the mistake of thinking that they are in any way indebted to us or anyone else they are currently trading with. They have a doctrine of total warfare; they are not ignorant of the many ways to subvert a nation which may include plenty of "trade" - as long as it suits them - or accomplishes some other particular goal. It would not surprize me one bit if the Mexican government - or perhaps more likely elements within the Mexican government - are running projects with China.
-------------------
"Our common border is no longer a line that divides us, but a region that unites our nations, reflecting our common aspirations, value and culture." - Secretary Colin L. Powell, Washington, DC - January 30, 2001
Patrolling the lakes is no crazier than the Coast Guard patrolling our thousands of miles of coastline. The point is, we have the manpower if they are not chasing geese all over the globe - as most of our army, reserves and much of the guard are doing. We also have something called the unorganized militia which is codified in the United States Code. We have millions of vets of all ages that could avail some voluntary service.
Major PITA,
Vicente and his government with the complicity of our own government are working hard to dissolve our borders in this hemisphere, as they have done within the new Europa.
As for the Chinese; they will do just about anything to get what they want. And no one should make the mistake of thinking that they are in any way indebted to us or anyone else they are currently trading with. They have a doctrine of total warfare; they are not ignorant of the many ways to subvert a nation which may include plenty of "trade" - as long as it suits them - or accomplishes some other particular goal. It would not surprize me one bit if the Mexican government - or perhaps more likely elements within the Mexican government - are running projects with China.
-------------------
"Our common border is no longer a line that divides us, but a region that unites our nations, reflecting our common aspirations, value and culture." - Secretary Colin L. Powell, Washington, DC - January 30, 2001
Good luck trying to recruit for the military if a high schooler sees himself doing garrison duty in NM.
The BP needs greater resources and manpower. Local superiority cuts down on fatalities.
Once you use military for civil control of the border, why not use them to help patrol the worse neighborhoods in our cities? To help in crackdowns on large gangs? After all, they have the equiptment and training. And they will have been mixed up in other civil affairs.
Guarding the American coastline is a difficult task. We have the manpower if we are willing to devote more money into it, which the government, W's or otherwise, never will.
Canada has even more coastline, and even less people to patrol it. Granted some of it goes through pretty inhospitable land and Indian reservations (or whatever they call it). I think it is easier to get something through the Keys, or into Canada and through our northern border than it is to go through Mexico. In Mexico many will have to be bribed, and somebody would still sell "Them" out.
We have always used our trade & "Most Favored Nation" status to affect change in the governments of sovereign nations also. We do it to change the world into the image we want. Before the advent of instant news, we too believed in total warfare. Now our politicians merely believe in not getting caught.
The BP needs greater resources and manpower. Local superiority cuts down on fatalities.
Once you use military for civil control of the border, why not use them to help patrol the worse neighborhoods in our cities? To help in crackdowns on large gangs? After all, they have the equiptment and training. And they will have been mixed up in other civil affairs.
Guarding the American coastline is a difficult task. We have the manpower if we are willing to devote more money into it, which the government, W's or otherwise, never will.
Canada has even more coastline, and even less people to patrol it. Granted some of it goes through pretty inhospitable land and Indian reservations (or whatever they call it). I think it is easier to get something through the Keys, or into Canada and through our northern border than it is to go through Mexico. In Mexico many will have to be bribed, and somebody would still sell "Them" out.
We have always used our trade & "Most Favored Nation" status to affect change in the governments of sovereign nations also. We do it to change the world into the image we want. Before the advent of instant news, we too believed in total warfare. Now our politicians merely believe in not getting caught.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Quote,
"Again, if I hadn't heard this myself I never would have believed that such a thing is possible."
Quote,
"I started this thread just to see if anyone else had heard what I did. I assigned it just a granule of credibility because someone from an Army base had the cojones to mention this subject on a public radio show."
Granted, your inquiry for more information is apparent, but you seemed to be assigning much more than a granule of credibility to the topic and apparently what validated it for you is that you thought it took cajones for someone from an Army base to mention the topic on public radio. So by daring to mention the topic, it seems more credible? I don't know. Whether or not somebody is willing to state something in public hardly gives the topic more credibility. Take a look at the garbage Michael Moore is willing to say in public.
Quote,
"The only reason I could see for the Chinese to help Mexico is to get their oil. China is buying cars, steel, copper, etc., right and left. It's not conspiratorial to think that Mexico may be trying to establish a business relationship with China and vice versa."
While I don't know if China wants Mexican oil or not, you are correct in that is would not be conspiratorial to think China and Mexico might be engaging in business relationships. However, what you stated that was conspiratorial was that the reason Mexico and China might be getting together was because Fox had socialist ties, not because of some business agreement. At the height of the Cold War, the US had extensive business dealings with the USSR, especially when it came to grain. Business ties in no way substantiate any sort of political alignment.
So you think Fox is doing everything he can to get Mexican citizens to the US as reported in new stories? What news stories are you talking about? Also, just what sort of 'disruption' is supposed to be happening or going to happen that would make this task easier? Short of building a superhighway, the task already seems pretty easy. If you do know of all those news stories that report this, don't you think there would be other news stories of the Chinese-Mexican military border disruption?
Quote,
"The Mexican army would be crazy to confront us directly, army to army."
Yes, this is true, but such an assessment doesn't mean it would not be tried. America gets repreatedly attacked, just normally not on our own soil. What I fail to understand is just what it is that the Chinese military is supposed to be teaching the Mexican military to do that would 'disrupt' our border in some way. As you said, the term is ominous, but it is hugely vague. The direct military to military tie that is supposed to exist would suggest some sort of military action. Otherwise the rumor would be more along the lines of "China is teaching Mexico..." without the armies being mentioned.
I think LAK may be on to something about the dissolution in regard to economic borders and we already have relaxed borders with Canada and Mexico anyway, not requiring passports, but these are things that would require no military action or aid from the Chinese military.
"Again, if I hadn't heard this myself I never would have believed that such a thing is possible."
Quote,
"I started this thread just to see if anyone else had heard what I did. I assigned it just a granule of credibility because someone from an Army base had the cojones to mention this subject on a public radio show."
Granted, your inquiry for more information is apparent, but you seemed to be assigning much more than a granule of credibility to the topic and apparently what validated it for you is that you thought it took cajones for someone from an Army base to mention the topic on public radio. So by daring to mention the topic, it seems more credible? I don't know. Whether or not somebody is willing to state something in public hardly gives the topic more credibility. Take a look at the garbage Michael Moore is willing to say in public.
Quote,
"The only reason I could see for the Chinese to help Mexico is to get their oil. China is buying cars, steel, copper, etc., right and left. It's not conspiratorial to think that Mexico may be trying to establish a business relationship with China and vice versa."
While I don't know if China wants Mexican oil or not, you are correct in that is would not be conspiratorial to think China and Mexico might be engaging in business relationships. However, what you stated that was conspiratorial was that the reason Mexico and China might be getting together was because Fox had socialist ties, not because of some business agreement. At the height of the Cold War, the US had extensive business dealings with the USSR, especially when it came to grain. Business ties in no way substantiate any sort of political alignment.
So you think Fox is doing everything he can to get Mexican citizens to the US as reported in new stories? What news stories are you talking about? Also, just what sort of 'disruption' is supposed to be happening or going to happen that would make this task easier? Short of building a superhighway, the task already seems pretty easy. If you do know of all those news stories that report this, don't you think there would be other news stories of the Chinese-Mexican military border disruption?
Quote,
"The Mexican army would be crazy to confront us directly, army to army."
Yes, this is true, but such an assessment doesn't mean it would not be tried. America gets repreatedly attacked, just normally not on our own soil. What I fail to understand is just what it is that the Chinese military is supposed to be teaching the Mexican military to do that would 'disrupt' our border in some way. As you said, the term is ominous, but it is hugely vague. The direct military to military tie that is supposed to exist would suggest some sort of military action. Otherwise the rumor would be more along the lines of "China is teaching Mexico..." without the armies being mentioned.
I think LAK may be on to something about the dissolution in regard to economic borders and we already have relaxed borders with Canada and Mexico anyway, not requiring passports, but these are things that would require no military action or aid from the Chinese military.
seeker_two
New member
I find it more than a little hypocritical that many of the people here who would not hesitate to support someone who shoots an intruder who has entered one's HOME illegally has such a moral dilemma in shooting someone who is entering one's HOMELAND illegally....
Per Dictionary.com
[Croyance]"Once you use military for civil control of the border, why not use them to help patrol the worse neighborhoods in our cities? To help in crackdowns on large gangs? After all, they have the equiptment and training. And they will have been mixed up in other civil affairs"
... Patrolling cities is another matter. We don't need or want martial law either. At the moment the first priority is to put a stop to the easy cross-border crossing north and south. The Coast Guard already patrol our borders on the coasts.
For the Border Patrol to get the resources it needs to do this would require an enormous beefing up in manpower - not just a few thousand. They would also need a substantial amount of vehicle, aircraft and equipment.
As far as recruiting is concerned, if we are really "at war" this should not be a problem. When Britain, with a tiny poulation by current levels here today, organized the Home Guard, they had almost a million and a half volunteer in a very hort period of time. And these were people that were otherwise "not fit" or exempt from regular military service.
... Patrolling cities is another matter. We don't need or want martial law either. At the moment the first priority is to put a stop to the easy cross-border crossing north and south. The Coast Guard already patrol our borders on the coasts.
For the Border Patrol to get the resources it needs to do this would require an enormous beefing up in manpower - not just a few thousand. They would also need a substantial amount of vehicle, aircraft and equipment.
As far as recruiting is concerned, if we are really "at war" this should not be a problem. When Britain, with a tiny poulation by current levels here today, organized the Home Guard, they had almost a million and a half volunteer in a very hort period of time. And these were people that were otherwise "not fit" or exempt from regular military service.
seeker_two, a criminal breaking into a home has the obvious intent to steal and possibly do bodily harm, perhaps the only intent is to rape and steal.
While some illegal immigrants are criminals or do become criminals there is also an intent by many to find gainful employment. The same cannot be said of many who are born in this country. Migrant workers and other illegals do jobs that many born here would not do.
So to kill out of hand would be more difficult.
LAK, of course it would take more people and more equiptment. There is such a thing as military surplus, which could be put to better use than scrap. If the job is to be done, budget it within the correct department.
The Home Guard analogy is very flawed, as you know. We are not facing an organized invasion by Hitler. Losing ones family, life, home, and possesions is not imminent. More importantly the public would not see the danger in that way, so recruitment would be a huge difficulty. England also had many veterans who had fought the Germans a generation before. I don't think we have fought a Mexican war in a while, and the veterans who last fought a high intensity conflict are in their 50's (at least).
While some illegal immigrants are criminals or do become criminals there is also an intent by many to find gainful employment. The same cannot be said of many who are born in this country. Migrant workers and other illegals do jobs that many born here would not do.
So to kill out of hand would be more difficult.
LAK, of course it would take more people and more equiptment. There is such a thing as military surplus, which could be put to better use than scrap. If the job is to be done, budget it within the correct department.
The Home Guard analogy is very flawed, as you know. We are not facing an organized invasion by Hitler. Losing ones family, life, home, and possesions is not imminent. More importantly the public would not see the danger in that way, so recruitment would be a huge difficulty. England also had many veterans who had fought the Germans a generation before. I don't think we have fought a Mexican war in a while, and the veterans who last fought a high intensity conflict are in their 50's (at least).
Major Kong
New member
New news flash!
A suspicious looking new general staff of the Canadian army in Quebec was organizing to surrender the provence of New Brunswick to North Korea when internacine fighting broke out and they started slapping each other silly with kimchee flavored pate.
What are we going to do now, eh?
A suspicious looking new general staff of the Canadian army in Quebec was organizing to surrender the provence of New Brunswick to North Korea when internacine fighting broke out and they started slapping each other silly with kimchee flavored pate.
What are we going to do now, eh?
seeker_two
New member
1. So, by "obvious intent", we can assume that one type of criminal invader is intent on doing harm while another type of criminal invader has nothing but good intentions....
You know what happens when you assume, don't you?...
2. Most American citizens are not opposed to working the jobs that illegals currently work---they just won't work those jobs for two dollars an hour and have to get supplemental food and all health care from government welfare. When American workers asked for an honest wage, many employers chose to get illegals instead of paying the wage. And our own government would rather provide welfare to illegals--at every taxpayers' expense--than to enforce the fair wage & immigration laws demanded by its own citizens.
Even during the Antebellum era of slavery, the master was responsible for keeping the slaves healthy & provisioned. Today's master just foists it on Health & Human Services... :barf:
3. If you knew that crossing the border would likely result in your death, would you go? Or would you take your chances in making your OWN country a better place?
It really IS that easy....if you have the intestinal fortitude to do what's needed.
Do you?....
Croyance,
Early on the British Home Guard was primarily concerned with observation duties as well as patrolling for interdiction of "enemy agents" etc freeing up regulars for the fight elsewhere. They were of course later also trained and structured with the purpose of defending cities, towns and villages. But there is no reason why we should not make use of the manpower we have available. If we are really "at war" and the threats to the continental U.S. are real that is. It is one way or the other. It is either a genuine threat met with a genuine effort to keep these people out, and ridding us of as many as can be done - or it is a farce.
AHenry,
There is not much to be gained in adding a mere token number to the BP. If you take the southern border region alone it covers an enormous amount of ground. And it needs to be covered in depth rather than trying to hold a purely linear frontier. Although there have been some improvements in the activity of the BP it is not really even making a minor dent in the traffic. And there is zero activity in most states in purging out those who are already on the inside. When this is juxtaposed with what our current administration has told us to expect here perhaps before the year is out it amounts to practically paving the way for them.
----------------------
"Frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing" - Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff
Early on the British Home Guard was primarily concerned with observation duties as well as patrolling for interdiction of "enemy agents" etc freeing up regulars for the fight elsewhere. They were of course later also trained and structured with the purpose of defending cities, towns and villages. But there is no reason why we should not make use of the manpower we have available. If we are really "at war" and the threats to the continental U.S. are real that is. It is one way or the other. It is either a genuine threat met with a genuine effort to keep these people out, and ridding us of as many as can be done - or it is a farce.
AHenry,
There is not much to be gained in adding a mere token number to the BP. If you take the southern border region alone it covers an enormous amount of ground. And it needs to be covered in depth rather than trying to hold a purely linear frontier. Although there have been some improvements in the activity of the BP it is not really even making a minor dent in the traffic. And there is zero activity in most states in purging out those who are already on the inside. When this is juxtaposed with what our current administration has told us to expect here perhaps before the year is out it amounts to practically paving the way for them.
----------------------
"Frankly, we can't differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing" - Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff