Monday, September 25, 2006

Border security in the USA...

...maybe lax along our southern and northern borders, as is evidenced by the 12 million or so illegal aliens believed to be within the USA. Though the USA's border security may have it failures, there are both armed and unarmed officers who protect those borders. When trouble comes, they are ready for it, or prepare for it, they do not run away to hide. Could you imagine the United States' government receiving information stating that a dangerous criminal or a terrorist was headed toward the USA border from within Mexico or Canada, and then the border officials just closed down shop and ran away to hide.

I cannot really picture it, but that is pretty much what happens in Canada, seemingly on a fairly regular basis. That such is the case, was reported by @,2933,215519,00.html

Take a look at what the report says, or view a quote from the report here:

"BLAINE, Wash. — Four Canadian border crossings were shut down Sunday as about 60 of Canada's unarmed border guards walked off the job after they were warned that a person classified as "armed and dangerous" may be headed into Canada.

The walkouts — permitted when the guards perceive threats to their personal safety — began mid-afternoon and stalled northbound border traffic for hours."

The reason such is the happening of course is because the Canadian border guards (or whatever they are called) are unarmed. Can you imagine that, it must make for a very secure yet friendly border, don't you think! Actually I think it is ridiculous that they are unarmed. What type of security do they provide for their borders in the event that a bad guy, or group of bad guys, wants to enter Canada - or for that matter depart Canada. It is a bad joke and the joke is on, or has been on the Canadian people. They may as well have paid the border guards to be a welcoming committee, they were certainly not providing any real security.

Now though, that seems to be changing. Canadian border guards are slated to start being issued firearms by 2007. This is good, or so it would seem to me.

"In August, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada's border guards will be armed starting in September 2007."

What I do not understand is why it will take so long to implement the arming of these officers. No I don't just mean that it will be a long time coming because it will only begin in September 2007, a year from now, but rather because it will apparently take 10 years to arm them all. What is the problem? Are guns to expensive, is the training to complicated, or is it a ludicrous politically correct manner of doing things by taking 10 years to do it?

"Harper said it would take 10 years to fully implement the plan. The government will have at least 150 officers with sidearms deployed by the end of March 2008, Harper said at a news conference at one of the border crossing south of Vancouver, British Columbia."

So wow, by next September they will start to arm, then by March 2008, they will have a whole 150 officers armed. Just look again at the first quote I used above. It said 60 Canadian border guards walked off of the job and only 4 border crossings were closed. How many border crossings will 150 armed officers cover? Maybe 9 in total! Amazing that anyone in the Canadian government would think this is the proper manner and time span in which to implement armed security for their nation's borders; and pretty gosh darned stupid too in my opinion.

Maybe we should have invaded Canada instead of Iraq, it would have been easier (SARCASM ALERT FOLKS - JUST IN CASE YOU DID NOT REALIZE I WAS BEING SARCASTIC). Actually what we really ought to do is supply the firearms and the training to the Canadian government for their border guards. It would help out on our own security, that is if they actually would try to prevent any bad guys from leaving Canada to do bad things in the USA.

This all kind of makes me wonder what would have happened this August when I last went up to Canada with my son. When the border guards made us get out of our car, then go inside for about a 5-10 minute question session, then sit around for another 10-15 minutes or so while they ran criminal history checks on us: WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED HAD WE COME UP AS ARMED AND DANGEROUS FELONS IN THOISE CHECKS? Would they have doffed their caps to us and told us to 'have a nice stay in Canada', or would they have politely told us, 'sorry the border crossing is closed, you have to leave now'? Simply mind boggling that they even bothered in the first place.

My advice to the Canadian Governments is: Get these folks some firearms and training, and get it for them fast SO YOU CAN REALLY HAVE SECURE BORDERS, AND PROTECT YOUR OWN PEEOPLE. Until they get them, have the Mounties or the Canadian military respond to any dangerous border crossing situations. The way it is now, I think it is sheer lunacy.

All the best,
Glenn B

First one nut calling president Buish the devil... a nut of a different sort, but as far as I am concerned a nut nonetheless, apparently implying that Hillary Clinton is worse than the devil. This time instead of the insults coming from a foreign whack job, they come from someone who I am convinced in my personal opinion is a domestic one by the name of Jerry Falwell. As per this article: Jerry Falwell Says Hillary Clinton Could Fire Up Voters More Than the Devil Himself at Fox news>com @,2933,215439,00.html:

""I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell, a leading conservative evangelist, said, according to a tape recording of the Friday prayer breakfast attended by several hundred pastors and religious activists.

The recording, first reported in Sunday's Los Angeles Times, was confirmed by someone who attended the conference, but not the breakfast, and has heard the tape.

"I hope she's the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton," Falwell said. "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't.""

I have got to tell you, if Falwell's people would rather vote for Lucifer (if indeed there is such an entity, and I think they believe there is), or at least would not be compelled to vote for the candidate against whom Lucifer was riunning as much as they would be to vote for whomever ran against Mrs. Clinton, then I want no part of, what I believe to be, these religious weirdoes. What he is seemingly saying is that his constituency would be more compelled to vote Hillary's opposition than for Lucifer's opposition. Remeber that lucifer supposedly is the embodiment of pure evil for Christians. They would thus, as i see it according to his statement, prefer the ultimate evil over Mrs. Clinton.

My guess has to be that either they really do not believe in Lucifer as the embodiment of the ultimate evil, and therefore are not true to their own religious teachings, or they are just full of unfathomable hatred toward Senator Clinton, or Falwell is just spouting off more of his, seemingly to me, crazy rhetoric. The scary thing is that plenty of people who follow him probably do truly believe Satan (aka: Lucifer) is the embodiment of pure evil; and they would somehow prefer that than Hillary Clinton.

Maybe I am too middle of the road, but if there truly is a Lucifer, and if I truly had the option of voting for Hillary Clinton versusr McCain, as opposed to Lucifer versus McCain, or even Lucifer versus Clinton, as my only choices in an election - I would just abstain from voting. I cannot see myself ever voting for her, nor for a guy like McCain, nor could I ever see myself ever voting for pure evil, not even by way of over zealous use of hyperbole. I think that Jerry Falwell ought to be ashamed of himself, as ashamed of himself as Hugo Chavez should feel.

Of course, if the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan was to appear on the ballot, he would get my vote in a heartbeat. Realistically speaking, I can only hope Tancredo somehows comes in as the longshot.

All the best,
Glenn B