Clarion Ledger Results for MS-01

Winston County is in.  Childers has taken a commanding 6-4 lead.  That’s 6 votes to 4 votes.

Yay for my home county!  Dang, Louisville must not like Democrats anymore.

damn Lee County.  I’m still ashamed.

Number one school district in the state, them kids is smart.....

6700/4700 Childers, but it’s all east side of the district so far.

you’d expect this of Marshall County

Got a call earlier, almost 19 thousand have voted in Desoto county.  Started to ride up there tonight but decided against it.  That could make a big boost if correct.

Tightening up.  55/45 Childers.  Some DeSoto boxes coming in.

If 19000 votes were cast in DeSoto, that’s huge for Davis.  He came out of there +8000 last time with less than 13,000 votes cast.

3700 votes tallied so far in Desoto - 26K total from all counties so far

First real harbinger of trouble for Davis.  Yalobusha County.  Davis won it 48/46 last time.  He lost it 59/41 this time.

Thus far it doesn’t appear to be 19000 from there.

12 of 38 reporting from Desoto, and about 3800 total votes.

Granted that this isn’t perfectly proportional as far as a vote total is concerned.

53/47 Childers.  Davis wins Webster county by same margin, but with more votes than last time.

Turnout looks decidedly up.  Webster and Lowndes both have more votes than last time.  Davis took Lowndes by 2252 vs. 1855 (53/44) last time.  So for it’s 50/50 with 2850 or so apiece with 4 boxes left.

Turnout is way up looking county by county so far.

Alcorn is in.  61/39 Childers vs. 63/35 last time.  Turnout up.  4500 total votes to 2850 last time.

The fact that turnout is up is kind of unbelieveable given what MS-01 has been through.

Another bad sign for Davis.  Panola is almost in.  It was a 43/43 tie last time.  This time it’s 57/43 Childers.  That’s on Davis’ side of the district.

Childers wins another district Davis carried last time . . . this time Lafayette - 53/47.

Even though Grenada and DeSoto are largely out, I don’t think Davis will get over here.

. . . and then DeSoto came in.  51/49 race now.  It’s about Childers +2000 votes overall with DeSoto having a lot of meat left on the bone.

Davis is running +6000 in Desoto - 75/25

What will Itawamba do?

itawamba will go childers.  fairly strong too.

Lee County final.  58% for the bad guy.  We have a ton of work to do over the summer.  It starts tonight too.

How were only 10 votes cast in Winston County?  Maybe they’re as sick of this race as I am.

With 160+ boxes still out, we have already surpassed voter turnout from the last election.

DeSoto is strong...but the counties that haven’t reported are all Democrats.  What a tragedy for the first district to be represented by a Democrat.  I weap for the future.

Lee and Tippah counties are all the way in.  Almost statistically the same as the last go round.

sdj, there only 1 very small box in this district in Winston County.

I thought if Davis got +8000 from Desoto, he’d be in the drivers seat, but with this turnout, he needs to be like +12000 or even more to get over.  Prentiss will show up big for Childers (obviously), and my bet is that they will be the last boxes to report.

Thanks for the clarification, CDS.

Note one key county still not in and will be the last one in.  Prentiss County.

50/50.  Desoto is mostly in.  Davis is +9000 there.

But Prentiss is still all the way out and Childers will be +4000 there.

The fat lady is tuning up.

They still gotta count the votes from Prentiss Memorial Gardens in Prentiss County before they can turn in all the results......

What about Tate?

Greg Davis is a fine, conservative candidate.  I believe we can start looking up at W as to why Davis won’t pull this one out.  W betrayed a lot of NE MS Democrats and MS Republicans.  McCain never misses an opportunity to partner up with the other team.  It’s an absolute shame.

Tate won’t be big a factor.  It’s over.  Not enough GOP counties still out.

when Desoto finally all comes in, it won’t be far off from what I was told.  it’s not far now.

Two Dogs,
Itawamba dang near always votes Democrat. Don’t blame me, I voted Republican.

I live in Memphis and I know a few people that have moved to MS and are not registered to vote.  I have been trying to get them to register.  If I know six people (three couples), how many more are there?

Well, all’s I can say is there is going to be a sad four years if this race has anything to say about the Presidential election coming up.  Man, I still remember 1978 like it was yesterday.  And tomorrow.

I said this when it happened and I’ll say it again.  This is the biggest mistake that Barbour has made.  While I think Wicker is a good choice, we should never have put MS-1 in play in a year when the GOP is weak with Bush.  Now, the dimmies will smell blood and pour millions into Musgrove’s campaign.  That will then put the senatorial seat into play and it could be a loss for us if Obama wins the dimmie nomination and there is a huge black dimmie vote turning out.  We could now lose the senatorial seat.

I’d have loved for Barbour to have taken the seat himself and let Bryant take the reins as governor.  That, or appoint Bryant himself.  With his name recognition, he would have beaten Musgrove or anyone else easily. 

Now, we’re stuck with this crook and a thief as a representative.  It’s as low as I’ve ever seen our prospects in north Mississippi.  God help us.

I believe we can start looking up at W as to why Davis won’t pull this one out. ...  McCain never misses an opportunity to partner up with the other team.

Chrisman, I don’t know anything about Davis or his record (I’m in the 3rd), but I agree with your sentiment.  The Republican party is badly broken, and these results are a symptom of that.  When the same thing happens all over the country this fall, we’ll have the people we elected who expanded government at an unprecedented rate to blame (and ourselves for voting for them in the first place).

AP has called it for Childers.  I agree.  No way for Davis to get over even with a good many boxes left.

Don’t be such gloom and doom, guys.  I don’t think Travis will be a left wing guy and might actually help swing the Dems back to the right.  As a farmer, I am glad at least to have a seat on the agriculture committee with a Mississippian on it, with the farm bill status as it is.

Sure, he won’t vote with the lefties.

Is there a precint by precinct breakdown on the web yet?

too tired, Pelosi put a ton of money into Childer’s campaign.  He’ll be her little hairy lap dog so don’t fool yourself.  The DCCC has put too much money into his campaign for him to not carry their water. 

Now the same can be said about Davis had he won. I just tend to believe the GOP water is a little bit better than the dimwit water.

How dissapointing.  What is really sad about this is that if Greg had been from Tupelo or Booneville, this wouldnt have even been a race.  The Democrats came in and found a crediable candidate, and did what they had to do to win. Congrats to them.  But they are going to pump this up as being a statement against the war, bush tax cuts and so on, which is not the case. The case is they had a candidate from the right side of the railroad tracks.

The only hope that I have is that Davis can mend some fences between now and November, and Childers will have to cast some votes in the house before then. And, yes he will vote with the party, they didnt invest all that money for Gene Taylor II.

Think about that:  the vote from northeast Mississippi will be the same as the vote from Pelosi of San Francisco, which will be the same of that of Barney Frank of Massachusetts, which will be the same as that of John Conyers of Michigan, which will be the same as Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Illinois.

Beautiful.

It is a shame that any candidate has to be at the mercy of a National committee, regardless of the type.  But because of the National money spent by one side, you cut your throat by trying to win with your own money and not accept the national money. 
Speaking of which, just wait for the Supreme Court races soon to follow if you want to see some out-of-state money flowing to candidates.  I predict it will be flowing quit freely.  I wish we could ban such outsiders from interfering with our election processes, but that doesn’t look like it will happen any time soon without grass roots effort and strength.

I just tend to believe the GOP water is a little bit better than the dimwit water.

What over the last 8 years would give you that impression?  Not to sound like a broken record, but this party is in shambles, and it has its leadership to blame.

Conservatives really need to vote Libertarian (or Constitution Party if they’re from the fascist wing of the conservative movement) to voice their displeasure at the pitiful state of the Republican Party.  I’ll gladly take 4 years of a socialist President if it means there will be one party that truly believes in limited government in ‘12.

you’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine sdj.  You sound like one of those whacked out Paulettes at times. 

While there are problems with the GOP right now, I still think it’s head and shoulders above the dimwits.

I am “one of those whacked out Paulettes”.  Look at the growth of the federal government over the last 8 years and then tell me the Republican Party isn’t broken.

SDJ, I’d rather not surrender Supreme Court Justice appointments.  Those last for 25 to 30 years, not 4.

SDJ,
I totally agree. The Republican party is broken. Like you, I’m much more Libertarian than Republican nowadays.
In a race like tonight’s race, I’ll easily vote Republican over Democrat b/c they were the only two to choose from.

I’ll put it this way… Davis was far from the best choice for this seat. At the same time, Davis was a better choice than Childers.

JMHO.

I’ll likely vote Libertarian for President this November. While I FAR believe McCain is a better choice than Hillary/Obama, I can’t support McCain either.

McCain isn’t my favorite candidate either, but voting Libertarian is just stupid. 

You’re voting to give away 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justice seats, and if that wasn’t bad enough, you’re voting for a federal income tax increase.

Engage your mind, and disengage your emotions.

If I vote the Libertarian candidate, I am “voting for a federal income tax increase”?

Newsflash RD, McCain/Hillary/Obama will REFUSE to cut funding and end up with a federal tax increase… take that to the bank.

Did any of these 3 candidates vote against the horsepoo “tax rebate” program we all just saw? HOW do we (ya know, the taxpayers) pay for that “rebate”?

Taxes will raise next year if a Republican or Democrat takes office, I’ll bet on that.

It is highly unlikely that a McCain presidency will sign a federal income tax increase into law.  Whether the Congress can sustain a veto given the fact that folks who think like you are using your vote to put more democrats into seats in congress so they can vote the Pelosi/Reed agenda is without doubt the greater question.

As for me, I pay for the rebate by not qualifying for one.

You still leave my assertion unanswered that you’d surrender several Supreme Court Justice seats, not to mention Court of Appeals seats, and Federal District Judge seats to be occupied by liberal jurists, given your short-sightedness.

Take that to the bank.

Reagan Dem, voting to continue to sink the Republican Party is what’s stupid. 

It’s the party’s job to stick to its principles if it wants my vote.  And when it doesn’t, it loses my vote.  It’s that simple.  I refuse to settle for a candidate who supports things I don’t support such as out-of-control government spending, nation building wars, etc.

I guess it comes down to which is more important:  labels or principles.  I choose principles.

And for the record, I can’t stand it when people try to argue that voting 3rd party is giving away SCOTUS seats (i.e. use scare tactics to try to keep the dissidents in line).  If there are vacancies in the next 4 years and Obama is filling them rather than McCain, it’s not my fault, it’s the Republican Party’s.  Besides, what makes you think McCain, the co-author of a law that makes a mockery of the 1st amendment (McCain-Feingold) among other things, is going to appoint justices who are strict Constitutionalists?

Your argument is nonsense.

“If there are vacancies in the next 4 years and Obama is filling them rather than McCain, it’s not my fault, it’s the Republican Party’s.”

Geez, okay, that’s so logical.  It’s not your fault that you voted for some one else, it’s the Republican Party’s fault?  Did the Republican Party vote for you?  Did the Republican Party vote for all those people who voted for Ross Perot in 1992, thus giving us Bill Clinton? 

No, you chose to vote the way you chose to vote. 

You claim principle, and castigate me as a labelist.  Fine, I’ll take my label if that label will give me a more conservative jurist.  I’ll tatoo the word “label” on my bottom if it lessens the chances of my taxes increasing, and I’ll let take my label, if it means that we defend and protect our country.

My principles are lower taxes, a safe country, preserved capitalism, fewer laws made by the judiciary, less government intrusion into business operation, fewer government programs that make enslave people to government assistance.

I’m not going to get closer to my principles by voting for a Democrat, nor am I going to get closer by voting for a libertarian, green party candidate, reform party candidate, constitutional party candidate, or anything of the sort.  Thus I vote my principles for Republicans.

Logic is a tough science.

The SC scare tactic is old. It was used before Bush (II) was elected and guess what… Roe vs. Wade still stands. If you’re thinking a vote for McCain will end up overturning Roe vs. Wade, you’ll be sadly mistaken. Then again, you’ll come back 4 years from now and say “better vote Republican b/c of Roe vs. Wade”.

Since ‘73 (when Roe vs. Wade was decided) we’ve seen 1 year of Nixon(R), 3ish years of Johnson (R), 4 years of Carter (D), 8 years of Reagan (R), 4 years of Bush1 (R), 8 years of Clinton (D), and 8 years of Bush2 (D). In almost 36 years, we’ve had 24 years of Republican presidents and 12 years of Democrat presidents. Abortion has NOT changed and (as proven with the Scruggs’ case) the legal system is seriously messed up.

FWIW, the MS Democrats would make the legal system much worse for us personally than the Republicans would (Eaves, Franks, Hood, Musgrove, etc). On the national scale, I’ve seen little effort from either party.

"My principles are lower taxes, a safe country, preserved capitalism, fewer laws made by the judiciary, less government intrusion into business operation, fewer government programs that make enslave people to government assistance.”

Have you seen more, or less, of that in the past 36 years?

Your argument is nonsense because you’re saying I’m beholden to the Republican Party.

If those are really your principles, you should be outraged that the party is in the state it’s in. 

Taxes have been cut, but tax cuts are worthless if government isn’t being reduced as a result.  Has the GOP increased or decreased govt. in the last 8 years, and to what extent?

Is your country safer now than it was 8 years ago?  Leaders in the party are advocating amnesty for illegals.  The Republican party has advocating a war in Iraq that makes are ability to defend us against real threats such as Iran extremely tenuous.

Preserved capitalism?  Govt. subsidies for corporations are just as anti-capitalism as regulations on corporations.

Less government intrusion into business operations?  See above.  And I care more about less government intrusion into my private life.  The Republican Party has an abysmal record here over the last few years.

Fewer government programs?  Do I really need to argue this one?  Again, look at the size and scope of government relative to 2000.

By voting Republican, you’re telling the RNC that all is well.  As a result, it will continue to move left.  And in the near future, someone like Sandra Day O’Conner will be the best you can hope for on the Supreme Court.  Talk about short-sighted… you’re defining it.

Forgive my anal grammatical habits, but I have to edit that 4th paragraph:

Is your country safer now than it was 8 years ago?  Leaders in the party are advocating amnesty for illegals.  The Republican Party has advocated a war in Iraq that makes our ability to defend ourselves against real threats such as Iran extremely tenuous.

There.  Much better.  It made my skin crawl looking at the errors.

Alan, would there be any way to add an edit feature for grammar geeks like me?

I’d say that our country is safer than it was 8 years ago.  Provided that we continue with no domestic terrorist action during the last 7 months of 2008, then I think the Bush legacy will ultimately be written once there ultimately is such a domestic terrorist occurrence after he’s gone. 

I’m one to say that a domestic terrorist event, smaller in scale than 9-11, but significant nonetheless will occur at some point, as we it’s impossible to stop them all, as a matter of practicality.  When such occurs on a supposed President Obama’s watch after he’s rolled back domestic surveillance measures and the like, then Bush’s post-presidency popularity will be restored.

The legislation passed post-911 by the then Republican congress which help investigate & disassemble potential terrorist threats against people/symbols/transit systems/buildings in our country have been effective.  It’s hard to argue any other way.

This same legislation the Nancy Pelosi’s want to strike from the books.  And you know as well as I that a President Obama would sign any bill that rolled those measures back, and that would be helpful to the overall domestic peace keeping mission, wouldn’t it?

As far as the war is concerned, the Geo Politics of the Middle East (which I think the US and the rest of Western Civilization has a huge stake in for our safety and security, be that economic or otherwise) is far too complex to boil down into 30 second TV commercials in election campaigns.  The candidates running on the left are using the issue, in a way that bastardizes these complexities simply to win elections.  It may be effective in the short term, but once in office, they’ll then understand that it isn’t quite as simple as they think.

I appreciate the tax cuts, thank you very much, and don’t want them raised to the levels they were in the the Clinton administration.

As far as spending is concerned, I have 2 points.  First, during the last 6 years, we’ve been in a war and had the worst natural disaster in our country’s history that we’ve had increase spending to fund.  Second, while the Bush presidency enjoyed Republican majorities, those majorities were always slim.  Never have they been in a position to invoke cloture in the US Senate by having a majority or even in most cases a working majority of 60 votes.  Given that, they’ve never been in a position to just “will” a piece of legislation out of the US Senate, and so legislation, including appropriation bills, have always had a Democratic thumbprint on it coming out of the Senate during the Bush presidency.

Sure, there hasn’t been another attack since 9/11, thankfully.  But are we really safer?  Is amnesty for illegals going to make the country safer or achieve the opposite?  Is the nation-building war in Iraq making our military stronger or weaker?

As for the security measures passed by the Republican Congress, it’s really not that hard to argue against some of them.  What price did we pay for security?  As Thomas Jefferson said, “He who trades liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both.” It’s easy to invoke Pelosi’s name and dismiss anyone who doesn’t think the Patriot Act is good policy as, well, unpatriotic.  But that’s extremely short-sighted.  There are much better ways to ensure our safety than by taking away liberties.  A huge first step would be closing our borders.

It sounds like you’re arguing in the first couple of paragraphs that it doesn’t matter what the Republicans did to mess things up as long as there isn’t a terrorist attack while there’s a Republican in the White House.  By this logic, do you also falsely attribute the economic success of the 90’s to Clinton?

What did the $500 billion Medicare Modernization Act have to do with terrorism and Katrina?  What did the increases in federal funding for education made possible by the No Child Left Behind Act have to do with terrorism and Katrina?  This is just off the top of my head.

Jefferson also said that every once in a while the tree of liberty had to be nourished by blood.

There’s value in that quote, too.  The full quote is:

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

Yes we are safer!  We will continue to be safe as long as we and our leaders understand that there are many people in this world who hate us because of who we are.  There is nothing that we can do about their feelings for us.  They are taught this from when they are small children.  Torture them, kill them, and whatever else it takes to keep them from being able to attack us.  They will do whatever it takes.  They kill innocents.  They behead people on TV.  They stone women to death because the women are raped.  The democrats don’t understand this.  They want to make friends.  McCain doen’t understand this (his vietnam experience jades his world view).  We need a leader who is not afraid to bomb these people into submission.  They will do it to us if they can.  Hillary became a hawk the other day when she warned Iran that we could obliterate them (good for her).  I would like to have leaders who “walk the talk”.  I think that many have forgotten the blood spilled on 9-11.  Whoever thinks that this is not a dangerous world anymore is ignorant.  The people who protect us against these crazy people should not have their hands tied by the people who benefit the most from thier protection.

3Dog, given all that, you think we’re safe when our borders are ridiculously unsecured?

Pablo’s Border Protection Plan: Dig canal the lenth of the border. Fill with water. Put alligators and hippos in the water. Problem solved.

As ridiculous as that idea is, it’s better than what we have now.  What would you do to shore up the ports?  (Please say sharks with laser beams attached to their heads… please say sharks with laser beams attached to their heads)

Naw SDJ, I was thinking more along the line of bomb sniffing dolphins.

That’s the sad thing about the 2 parties in power… neither of them has done one thing to secure the borders.

A Montana man was washed up on a beach after a terrible shipwreck. Only a
sheep and a sheepdog were washed up with him.  After looking around, he
realized that they were stranded on a deserted island.

After being there awhile, he got into the habit of taking his two animal
companions to the beach every evening to watch the sunset.

One particular evening, the sky was a fiery red with beautiful cirrus
clouds, the breeze was warm and gentle - a perfect night for romance.

As they sat there, the sheep started looking better and better to the lonely
man. Soon, he leaned over to the sheep and put his arm around it .

But the sheepdog, ever protective of the sheep, growled fiercely until the
man took his arm from around the she sheep

After that, the three of them continued to enjoy the sunsets together, but
there was no more cuddling.

A few weeks passed by and, lo and behold, there was another shipwreck.

The only survivor was Hillary Clinton.

That evening, the man brought Hillary to the evening beach ritual. It was
another beautiful evening - red sky, cirrus clouds, a warm and gentle breeze
- perfect for a night of romance. Pretty soon, the man started to get ‘those
feelings’ again..

He fought the urges as long as he could but he finally gave in and leaned
over to Hillary and told her he hadn’t had sex for months.  Hillary batted
her eyelashes and asked if there was anything she could do for him.

He said, ‘Would you mind taking the dog for a walk?’

Thats Funny. I dont care who you are thats funny.

We have many problems with our boarders and so on.  However, if we really really punish the governments, terrorist camps, and/or individuals who are conspiring or acting against us, we will have fewer attacks against the USA.  We should not look at this as an eye for and eye.  We should respond 100x to attacks against us.  There is too much to loose here.

3Dog, consider this (admittedly oversimplified) analogy.  Your house gets broken into.  Which is easier, going out and killing everyone you suspect might break into your house, or upgrading your locks and alarm system?

I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t attack those who attack us because we should, but we should put a priority on our borders.  While it is a lot more complex than buying locks and calling ADT in my analogy, it’s still a lot more feasible than rooting out every terrorist in the world.

We have no idea who’s entering as it is now.  It’s scary to think about.

SDJ, assuming that an allowance for the illegals is somehow equivalent to the same allowance for a terrorist is a misrepresentation of actuality.

JDB, I don’t think I fully comprehend what you’re saying, but to argue that terrorists aren’t entering the country or haven’t already when our borders are so insecure is just asinine.  That’s not what you’re arguing, I presume?

Terrorists enter on airplanes, cars, boats, etc using valid means just as easily as they would attempting to cross the border illegally.  Identification stops them using valid means but we can’t identify the unknowns.

We strongly protect our borders from “items” crossing, but I would not suggest that we don’t monitor nearly every person crossing our borders and make assessments as to their intent.  The problem is that we have no real means to address handling illegal aliens either through fixed border control or manpower and we certainly don’t just shoot and ask questions later.  So illegals get through, but not unnoticed.  If you don’t think our sophistication is to that point, I would ask why.

By “securing our borders”, I don’t mean just the Rio Grande.  I mean all of our access points.  They’re all grossly insecure.

I still don’t feel like I understand what I’m saying that you disagree with.  Please clarify.

In what ways are our borders grossly insecure?  In what ways that don’t either start infringing on our liberties and/or simply lock the Country down.  I don’t think you or I are fully aware of what we have in place to monitor any possible ill-intending individuals.

Seriously?  I have to defend the statement that our borders are grossly insecure? 

To begin with, there are well over 10 million illegal aliens (by extremely conservative estimates) in the country right now.  In other words, there are as many illegal aliens in the US as there are citizens of New York City.  Illegals are crossing the Mexican border virtually un-checked.  The INS does next to nothing to deport aliens whose visas expire.  Port security is minimal.

I don’t see how locking down the borders infringes on my rights, and I think you’ve read enough of my ramblings here to know where I stand on issues of privacy. 

The argument that goes “you don’t know what measures are in place” scares me a little, to be frank.  It reminds of how easy it is for the government to abuse its powers of surveillance.  I’d rather they tell us what they’re doing to control the borders.

Anyway, here’s my attempt to answer your question.

There have to be much better security measures put in place on the Mexican and Canadian borders to stop pedestrian traffic.  I’ve seen estimates of as many as 500,000 illegals entering by foot per year.  That equates to a number larger than the population of Atlanta. 

INS has to know where all legal aliens are and why they’re entering the country.  I think they do this pretty well from what I’ve read.  However, they completely drop the ball when it comes to removing them once they overstay their visa.  Almost half of all illegals entered legally and stayed after their visas expired.

All this political correctness about deporting illegals has got to stop.  Both parties are guilty of this.  If they’re hear illegally, remove them.  During the Eisenhower administration, we did remove them during “Operation Wetback” (What a name.  My, how times have changed.) with apparently very good success once you factor in the illegals who were scared by the deportations into repatriating voluntarily.

Port security has to be increased.  I haven’t read up on this in a few years, and maybe efforts have recently been made to beef up this area, but I don’t know enough either way to change or adequately argue my previous opinion.  My guess is the ports are used more for illegal stuff rather than illegal people, but I may be wrong.  However, I saw Season 2 of the Wire where Russian prostitutes were being smuggled in through the Port of Baltimore, so it must be used for smuggling people there at least (kidding, of course).

All the red tape involved with entering legally has to be removed.  Why are Mexican laborers who aren’t otherwise criminals being forced to sneak into the country?  It’s pretty obvious that they’re a valuable part of the work force.  What’s wrong with making it easier for them to enter so they can enter legitimately? 

Similar to that, why are there so many aliens whose visas are expired?  Of course, red tape can again be blamed.  It shouldn’t be as difficult as it is to renew a visa.

On another note, I work for a private company on a contract for the Department of Defense.  It could be possible to obtain somewhat sensitive although not secret military information.  Some of my co-workers are legal aliens.  This isn’t an indictment of my co-workers, because they’re all nice people and friends of mine.  But why is the federal government allowing non-citizens to work on projects of this nature?  I’ve never understood this.

I should have a book signing for this post.

SDj, I have a better suggestion to rid this country of illegals.  They come here to work and the only reason that anyone would hire them is for the reduced wages.  Remove the requirement of minimum wage.  Then those illegals have no reason to be here.  And we all get a raise of actual income in relation to the minimum wage.  The cost of every single thing in this country is reduced.

You’re welcome for the solution, but not one politician will ever suggest it, they would be crucified to actually show any intelligence regarding economics, supply, and demand.

What everyone ignores is that every time minimum wage goes up or there is even talk of increasing it, the economy stalls.  When the minimum wage is increased, the only people that receive a simple zero sum gain are the ones making minimum wage, all others receive in essence a wage reduction of the exact percentage of the increase to minimum wage.

There is the answer to the illegal immigration problem.

2D, nothing in your economic assessment is wrong, but I think stating that it is the answer to all illegal immigration is incorrect.  For example, it doesn’t even address those with expired visas (almost half of all illegals), who tend to be more educated and make more money than those who enter illegally.  Additionally, workers would still hire illegals if wages were the same because they still wouldn’t have to pay taxes on employees who are paid under the table.

Since common sense tells us the minimum wage isn’t going anywhere, I wouldn’t have a huge problem with a law to allow lower than minimum wages for aliens.  It’s happening now.  We might as well legitimize that along with the alien himself (to clarify:  when he is legally allowed in, not after he enters legally).

SDJ, illegal aliens are not terrorists and not all terrorist are illegal aliens.  Your discussion is going in a circle.

I pointed out that illegals crossing is a different point than a terrorist crossing back at my 3:01 post to which you made your “all our access points” response.

What are we discussing?  Let’s define that first.  I assumed it was about an act of terrorism on our soil since that was what the discussion was about.  Just as we engage enemies differently in a time of war, we engage different border crossers differently, currently.  The reason now, is that we have no mechanisms to handle all of the “traffic.”

That is completely different than zeroing in on terroristic threats that might cross.  As I said, it’s my belief that we do monitor our borders very well, we just “allow” non-threats to cross due to our inability to control it currently.  That’s not an excuse nor is it right.  But it also doesn’t equate to an open border that would allow terrorism to land stateside through perceived gaps at the borders.

I’ll contend that I must not be clear but am not quite sure how to convey it better. 

One thing we certainly differ on is knowing what our capabilities are.  I have no desire to know what our systems are.  All I need to know is that we have systems and they work.  If I know what the systems are and how they work, then so does everyone else and they can determine how to defeat them.  That’s simply common sense.

jdberry, you are correct in your assessment, illegal aliens are not terrorists, (although they could be like Jose Padilla) they are simply criminals. 

Oh, and sdj, I guess that I wasn’t clear.  Most illegals that are actually working higher paying jobs are not the ones that I was talking about.  I was talking about Mexicans.

And in your last sentence, you mean “illegally” on that last word.  But, we got it.

Guys, the key to reducing the number of illegals coming to the USA is easy.  Charge each company who hires illegals $10k per illegal employee per day.  Push this very hard for thee months.  After that Mexico will be building a fence.

2dog, tell Preston I said Hello.  Thank dingleberry 4 the name.

Why dont we say the hell with the fence and buy the illegals a one way ticket to France?

Okay, now I am curious, who is threedog?

France is our friend.  Send them to Canada.

Canada wouldnt make any sense. All they would have to do is walk right back in the U.S.. But France means they would have to swim a very long way to get back.

2D, I meant “legally”.  I was talking theoretically after we were to start allowing easier access to let them in legally.

Canada has free healthcare.  Also, we have great boarder security on the northern boarder (not).  I think that Canadians would welcome them.  Some of them speak french.

JDB, when did I say all illegals are terrorists or vice versa? 

I think the main point we disagree on is that we have a handle on who we’re letting in.  I have Hispanic friends and middle eastern friends.  To be honest, they look very similar to me.  As a matter of fact, I have friends from northern India (lighter complexion than southern Indians in general) who also look Hispanic or middle Eastern.  Do you really think it’s not entirely possible for middle eastern terrorists to come in through Mexico?  I think it’s a ridiculous assumption to say that, of the 500,000 people who come in on foot every year, we are certain that none of them are middle eastern.  I would find it hard to believe that we have any controls in place in areas like Arizona to monitor who’s coming in.

We also disagree on wanting to know what controls are in place.  It’s the same as wanting to know how police might be able to surveil us.  I want to know whether these controls might be able to be used to invade the privacy of US citizens.  I don’t understand how you can feel differently if you’re asking me how we can control the borders without infringing on our liberties or locking the border down completely.  If we don’t know what the government is doing, there’s no way we can answer those questions.

The “Government” is not individuals that might abuse some aspect of their abilities.  The “Government” either does or does not hold our liberties and freedoms to be important and will not infringe upon them.  It matters not if we know what the capabilites are.  If the “Government” is going to “spy” on a citizen with some unknown piece of equipment, what is then the point?  Are you going to don a tin foil hat and sit in a bunker and fight back?

EVERYTHING we have in our arsenal can be used against us as citizens but it doesn’t make a difference because you must trust that the “Government” isn’t going to turn that item on you.  That is why the United States has the Government it has.

Results is the answer to your questions, SDJ.  Results.  You do not have to know how a donut is made to understand that it tastes good.

All brown people look the same to me, sdj, what the hell do I know?

About the illegals coming in from Mexico, there has been a local move underfoot in Texas to stop that, there are three smaller towns where that has been extremely successful, the next stop is Brownsville, I think.  Local and state law enforcement have simply started enforcing current law, I’ll see if I can find that again.  Seems like the dude that started pushing that was on Hannity’s radio show last week.

Why nothing will be done on the border:

1) Republicans refuse to do anything about it because of BIG FARM and Construction interests, particularly in MS with Tyson and the Farm Bureau interest didn’t ol foghorn legh...I mean Haley Barbour say he was going to do something about illegal immigration...yeah right.
2) Democrats refuse to do anything because they believe any destitute person they can get to vote will vote Democrat...I mean they are concerned about the human rights issue and letting everone have the same opportunities as we have um historically in ...whatever

Much like many other issues the Republicans and Democrats are on the polar extremes of this issue with the end result being that legislation wise they are on the same page

JDB, I guess the difference between you and me is that you trust government a lot more than I do.  Why are you for limited government if you trust it?  That seems contradictory to me.

If you don’t believe government as an institution can’t abuse its powers, there’s no point in my debating this with you any more, because we have completely different realities.

You’re basically arguing that I have no right to check government to make sure it’s not infringing on my rights and that I just have to trust that it’s not.  No thank you.

SDJ, you honestly feel that you should have a right to know all the secrets of the Government at your behest?

Why should I trust you?

I dont know about yall but I dont trust anybody. Not even my dog, I told him to watch my hamburger last week and when I got back it was gone.

Stop twisting what I’m saying.  What I’m arguing is not that I should know every detail of national security.  I think I have a right to know whether the government is infringing on my rights.  I also have a right to know whether there are controls in place.  Since there are 500,000 illegals walking across the border every year, they can’t just say, “Don’t worry, we’ve got it under control,” because the amount of illegals coming in says otherwise.

Why should I trust you?

That just doesn’t even make sense.  For one thing, what are you presuming to have to trust me with?  I’m not arguing that Uncle Sam should be whispering secrets in my ear.  I’m arguing that there shouldn’t be a complete lockdown on what is going on at the border.  In other words, we should all be privy to certain information.  Not knowing anything (whether there is any security at the border or whether there is anything going on that might be open to abuse, for example) just doesn’t cut it.  For another, as someone who purports to support limited government, you presumably trust individuals over the government.  That’s the whole reason for advocating limited government.  Your whole line of arguments throughout this debate says you think otherwise.  ...Ironically, you do trust me with information in a way because I have a secret clearance through the DoD (not the kind that requires a lifestyle polygraph because I’m too paranoid to be subjected to that one).

One other point on your contention that sharing information would allow terrorists to circumvent whatever security measure is being shared:  if the government were to, say, share information about monitoring the Mexican border in Arizona (since I brought that one up earlier), it might say that they are using planes taking satellite images (or cameras around the borders) and relaying information to agents on the ground, although they leave out where exactly the planes are flying or the cameras are located except to say they are on the Arizona portion of the border.  How would potential bad guys be able to circumvent that?  It’s possible for the government to specific enough to let us know they’re doing something yet vague enough to not be pinpointing specific camera locations.  On the other hand, potential bad guys might get that information and think, “We probably need to look for another way to get in.” While that could be construed as attempting to circumvent security measures, it could also be seen as effectively securing the Arizona border even more.  It’s similar to the use of firearms as a deterrent by simply letting the bad guy know you are carrying one rather than actually having to shoot the gun.

EPP, you obviously need another dog that is more trustworthy.  Go see the nice people at Community Animal Rescue and Adoption in Clinton.  It’s the only no-kill shelter in the state.

Sorry for the shameless plug.