Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...
video production in Manassas and Prince William County

Our Unsecured Borders: National Suicide

By Greg L | 23 June 2008 | National Politics, Illegal Aliens, Crime | 47 Comments

Blogs4Borders has a particularly interesting episode this week where they contend that Mexico has lost the war against the drug cartels and is now desperately trying to take back territory.  This ongoing war affects the United States as well, as drug cartel violence has seeped across our fortress-like southern border, resulting in American citizens in the United States being targeted for death, drug cartels establishing cooperative relationships with gangs in the United States and joining in the human smuggling trade, and an escalating level of violence in our border communities.  The fallout of Mexico’s failure to establish order has huge negative implications for our national security.

The Tijuana-based Felix drug cartel and the Juarez-based Fuentes cartel began buying legitimate business in small towns in Los Angeles County in the early 1990s.  They purchased restaurants, used-car lots, auto-body shops and other small businesses. One of their purposes was to use these businesses for money-laundering operations. Once established in their community, these cartel-financed business owners ran for city council and other local offices. Over time, they were able to buy votes and influence in an effort to take over the management of the town. They wanted to create a comfort zone from which they could operate without interference from local law enforcement.

RightSideNews has plenty more on this if you’re interested in getting even more depressed about this situation.  If we don’t get this under control, and quickly, we could lose this nation.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.

47 Comments

  1. Advocator said on 23 Jun 2008 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    We could add our own little addendum about how fat broad bloggers attempt to smear reputations and slander law abiding citizens, making it easier for the cartels to take over.

  2. Taco Truck Ted said on 23 Jun 2008 at 4:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hi Juan from Juan’s Tacos here, I have recently started my own Taco Cartle. I have cornered the market on low priced unlicensed, unregulated, illegal tacos. The way I did this is by wiping out the competition. I simply sell my tacos at a lower price then anybody. Kind of like Standard Oil in the 1920’s. Please visit my website today. Here at Juan’s Tacos we say “find a lower priced taco and we will buy out the business!

    http://www.zillow.com/aerial/DualMapPage.htm?zpid=37520815

  3. Anonymous said on 23 Jun 2008 at 5:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am really getting sick and tired of Advocator calling women “fat broads!” If you want someone to side with you on the issue of illegal immigration, this is NOT the way to do so!

  4. starryflights said on 23 Jun 2008 at 5:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    I forgot to sign in. The Anonymous at 5:35 is starryflights.

  5. TDB said on 23 Jun 2008 at 6:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Not all women, just the ‘fat broad bloggers!’ Or maybe you prefer ‘fat dame bloggers?’

  6. starryflights said on 23 Jun 2008 at 6:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    I don’t care for the name calling at all.

  7. Red Dawn said on 23 Jun 2008 at 7:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Starryflights & Advocator,

    I agree with the name calling.

    “I know you are but what am I s**t”

    It is just a game of blaming SOMEONE.

    Advocator, I would say you are and (HAVE) been guilty of this in your comments, so seriously, WTF?

    Depending on where you sit to watch the show ( the venue depends on which blog), a fat broad or a standing man with hanging balls can obstruct the view.You can’t go wrong with looking up.

    [Ed note: comment edited.]

  8. Red Dawn said on 23 Jun 2008 at 7:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator,

    What did you mean by repelling this invasion? With Jenny Craig?
    Seriously, the fat broad shit is old. And yes, I have a few extra pounds to carry and am tired of carrying MY ass around but that is NOT the point.

    The point is the stupid ass name calling that only gets in the way and I would think ” Gospel Greg” would agree…let’s see if my comments stand.

    :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB53M1kGM3A

  9. Taco Truck Ted said on 23 Jun 2008 at 8:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Here at Juan’s Tacos we have many names. Whenever a county agency representative shows up, my name becomes No Habla English. If that representative Hablas Espanol then my name becomes Not Me! Here at Juan’s it’s all about who’s asking “Who is the property owner”

    Visit our website today.

    http://www.zillow.com/aerial/DualMapPage.htm?zpid=37520815

  10. anon in dale city said on 23 Jun 2008 at 8:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Every time we are successful at interdicting illegal drugs and the traffickers we are decreasing the supply and increasing risk which raises the price. Think about this in economic terms. If there wasn’t enforcement there would be very little profit/money in these drugs. There is got to be a more rational drug policy. A policy that doesn’t enrich drug cartels. A policy that uses our formidable media/advertising prowess to drive down drug use like what was done with the very addictive nicotine.

  11. Red Dawn said on 23 Jun 2008 at 9:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon in dale city,

    You are on to something. Look at the pharmaceutical money bag in OUR country, just ask a doctor. When did medicine not become medicine and the doctors have to take that double look into YOUR file to see what they CAN prescribe to you…not what they want ….come on, I know the frequent doctor visitors know what I am talking about. ( I am talking about moms to the terminally ill…not the junkies)

  12. Libertarian said on 23 Jun 2008 at 9:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    You know, if we just loosened up our drug laws to be consistent with alcohol and tobacco, the Cartels would disappear (as major tobacco companies and other legal entrepreneurs filled the space with legal, safe products).

    Drug use should be a personal choice. Misuse and abuse should be handled like alcohol misuse and abuse. Legalize drugs and the “war on drugs” loses an enemy. The country frees up resources to fight terrorism, shuts down drug related crime (because you can buy the drug of your choice at the local CVS), and saves this country Billions of dollars and lives. It also empties our prisons of people convicted for minor possession charges (usually African Americans).

  13. Anonymous said on 23 Jun 2008 at 10:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lets see…… a bunch of stoned people operating heavy equipment next to a day care center. Hmmmmm, sounds like a good idea to me. What the Hell are you smoking? Ever heard of the term drug addiction? Yea, society strung out on the latest best selling drug at CVS, right!

  14. Libertarian said on 23 Jun 2008 at 10:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    How about drunks operating heavy equipment next to a day care center (actually, probably more likely)… and alcohol addiction? It’s recognized that any addiction is really a symptom of a deeper problem. Can you explain why we differentiate between marihuana and alcohol (for example)? We should be focusing on why people are addicted not what they are addicted to.

    If we legalized drugs, we would stabilize Mexico allowing them to focus on a free market and local industry. That would directly reduce the number of people who have to leave Mexico to find work. It’s ironic that the United States has, to a large extent, created the instability in Mexico and its economy that has contributed in the immigration problem by providing the market for ilegal drugs.

    It would be interesting to give farmers a new cash crop in THIS country (rather than send billions overseas to ruthless criminals).

    We can’t continue to do the same things and expect different results… and just think of the tax revenues!

    So, poor yourself a Glenlevit and at least think about it.

  15. Anonymous said on 23 Jun 2008 at 10:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ve heard this warped ’solution’ to drugs back in the 60’s. Fine, if people want to take drugs, then they should be allowed according to you. Problem is they don’t just keep to themselves, but start affecting people around them. First they become addicted, then they aren’t capable of supporting a job, next they turn to crime to support their habit because the addiction is in total control. So while giving some people their ‘freedom’ to use inexpensive but addicting drugs you now have impacted a much greater number of people’s ‘freedom’ to live unaffected by those. In addition, now someone has to pay to help these now ‘unfortunate soles’ beat the habit. Like that ever really worked. Nope, sorry, some things just aren’t solved by free enterprise.

  16. Ducky said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:43 am:
    Flag comment

    To enhance our nation’s security, I urge everyone to vote for John McCain this fall. A vote for Hussein will be a vote of surrender to our nation’s enemies.

  17. Citizen 12 said on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:05 am:
    Flag comment

    The solution will never be used.

    Too much money has been generated over the years from all the related industires spawned from the failed attempts of the past. The expanding industries supporting the prisions, the lawyers defending the criminals,the retails sales replacing lost, damaged and stolen goods and property, the hit and miss treatment centers, the drug companies making drugs to help get people off drugs,the medical industries supporting the E.R. operations, physcians and head doctors treating the addicts and the victoms of addicts and the following generations of addicts being breed by the missfits the law still allows to raise and damage.

    You don’t get in the way of the consistanty growing revenue center that has grown from the illegal drug trade.

    But if you wanted to…..a hard line and a heavy hammer. Used consistantly, until the problem is gone.

    Just like China turned to at the turn of the last century.

    But that just won’t happen.

  18. anon in dale city said on 24 Jun 2008 at 5:32 am:
    Flag comment

    If we aren’t going to significantly change are strategy on illegal drugs we should not make an exception for alcohol. We live in a much different world than than the 1920’s. With the amount of surveillance we have and all the laws that have been used for the fight against drugs in the last 30 years alcohol prohibition would be much more feasible. Seriously, a great deal of good could be done and lives saved if we put this intoxicant in line with the others. We wouldn’t be so hypocritical either.

  19. Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 7:52 am:
    Flag comment

    What anon in dale city said on 24 Jun 2008 at 5:32 am

    Where in the Constitution do you see the Government deriving the power to limit people’s choice to use alcohol or drugs (the 18th amendment notwithstanding thanks to the 21st amendment -a history lesson on this issue)? Where in history to you see a Government successfully limiting personal choice in areas such as this?

    I would propose that rather than giving Government more control of our lives, we give them less and focus on regulation. I would support heavy penalties for misuse of drugs or alcohol in cases such as driving under the influence or putting others in danger. Recreational use in the privacy of one’s home is a victimless crime and personal choice. Looking into what one smokes in their living room is (IMHO) looking to what consenting adults do in their bedroom.

    The fact is that abuse and addiction are psychological problems requiring treatment, not a criminal problem requiring punishment. We need to start treating those with abuse problems with Christian compassion, not 16th century prejudice. Having the most prisoners incarcerated (per capita) of any industrialized country in the world is one (of many) record I would like to cede to China.

  20. Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 7:57 am:
    Flag comment

    And… our current drug policy creates a market that funds terrorism around the world. It’s ironic that our drug policies are part of the engine of our own destruction.

    “The Taleban made an estimated $100m (£50m) in 2007 from Afghan farmers growing poppy for the opium trade, the United Nations says.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7469194.stm

  21. me-n-u said on 24 Jun 2008 at 8:58 am:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian- I think you need to go get your fix.

  22. Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 9:23 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, as someone working for one of those three letter agencies that requires a regular poly, I neither indulge nor abuse. I do see a side of the drug war not available to the general public. We cause a lot of misery around the world that you don’t see from the comfort of your Lazyboy as a result of our drug policies.

    A do agree that we need to “fix” this. I’m tired of funding terrorists with our drug policy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7469194.stm

  23. Johnson said on 24 Jun 2008 at 10:37 am:
    Flag comment

    I agree with Libertarian. I also work for one of the Agencies and have come to the conclusion that drugs should be decriminalized. Take away the money, the power will follow. Governments will fall, anarchy will reign. But not here. Let those who have built those houses of cards suffer the consequences.

  24. Loudoun said on 24 Jun 2008 at 10:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Red Dawn

    Aren’t you guilty of the same name-calling by calling Greg “Gospel Greg”? It seems you fit right in over there with all the negativity.

  25. Red Dawn said on 24 Jun 2008 at 10:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Loudoun,

    I never called him ” Gospel Greg” I used it as an EXAMPLE of the name calling and said that I think HE would agree.

  26. Citizen 12 said on 24 Jun 2008 at 11:37 am:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 7:52 am:

    I agree with your point regarding limiting government control in our lives, but regulation is control. We won’t find limitations on our choices in the Constitution, nor will we find any commitments that the government will shoulder the burden of ones poor choices or shift that on to the general population. But that is where we have come to.

    People have the freedom to indulge, but a lack of self control leads to abuse, abuse can lead to addiction and addiction is a very real risk of certain choices. While I would agree addiction in and of itself is not a crime, the crimes commited by the individual are often seen in a different light because of the addiction, and that leads to the lack of accountablilty and responsibility for ones actions we are burdened with today.

    Our drug policies have enabled alot of misery coast to coast right here in America. You mention recreational use in the privacy of one’s home is a victimless crime and personal choice. And Russian Roulette is mearly recreational gun play and when conducted in the privacy of one’s home is a victimless crime and personal choice. Well, at least for a while anyway.

  27. Tyler Durden said on 24 Jun 2008 at 11:47 am:
    Flag comment

    RD: Advocator just used the Fat Broads as an example also.

  28. VerifyIt said on 24 Jun 2008 at 11:59 am:
    Flag comment

    Hi all, Heres an interesting article from the CATO institute. What do you think?:

    Among its many virtues, America is a nation where laws are generally reasonable, respected and impartially enforced. A glaring exception is immigration.

    Today an estimated 12 million people live in the U.S. without authorization, 1.6 million in Texas alone, and that number grows every year. Many Americans understandably want the rule of law restored to a system where law-breaking has become the norm.

    The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market.

    Low-skilled immigrants cross the Mexican border illegally or overstay their visas for a simple reason: There are jobs waiting here for them to fill, especially in Texas and other, faster growing states. Each year our economy creates hundreds of thousands of net new jobs — in such sectors as retail, cleaning, food preparation, construction and tourism — that require only short-term, on-the-job training.

  29. VerifyIt said on 24 Jun 2008 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Continuation from above:

    At the same time, the supply of Americans who have traditionally filled many of those jobs — those without a high school diploma — continues to shrink. Their numbers have declined by 4.6 million in the past decade, as the typical American worker becomes older and better educated.

    Yet our system offers no legal channel for anywhere near a sufficient number of peaceful, hardworking immigrants to legally enter the United States even temporarily to fill this growing gap. The predictable result is illegal immigration.

    In response, we can spend billions more to beef up border patrols. We can erect hundreds of miles of ugly fence slicing through private property along the Rio Grande. We can raid more discount stores and chicken-processing plants from coast to coast. We can require all Americans to carry a national ID card and seek approval from a government computer before starting a new job.

    Or we can change our immigration law to more closely conform to how millions of normal people actually live.

  30. Advocator said on 24 Jun 2008 at 12:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    The CATO Institute is a Libertarian, open-borders drivel spewer. The question is not “how millions of normal people (illegal aliens) actually live.” The question is whether or not millions of citizens, ostensibly represented by a government, can control their own borders, their own economy, their own lives, their own destiny.

  31. Taco Truck Ted said on 24 Jun 2008 at 12:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    OneForTheRoad, 23. June 2008, 14:11
    LPOW, Mando, Ed, and JustCause probably agree 100% with posts like this small sample from BVBL - it shows you the kind of people they are:

    # Taco Truck Ted said on 20 Jun 2008 at 1:23 pm:

    Hello this is Juan from Juan’s Taco, we here at Juan’s Tacos understand this
    is a tough economic time for people who have to pay taxes, pay for insurance, licenses and such things. We are now offering a 50% discount to any customer recently crashed into by a person without such harsh economic liabilities mentioned earlier. Juan’s Tacos “We care about taxpayers and non taxpayers alike.”

    Taco Truck Ted said on 20 Jun 2008 at 1:29 pm:

    Attention:
    If you were the 500th person to visit our website this month you are automatically entered into our “One free taco a week for life” contest.
    Remember here at Juan’s it’s just not about tacos it’s also about not paying taxes on undocumented, untracable income!

    Taco truck ted said on 20 Jun 2008 at 5:09 pm:

    Juan from Juan’s Tacos here. In the spirit of America we here at Juan’s Tacos will be providing enourmous amounts of information on our various illegal activities. Please visit our website today.

    Remember it’s only illegal if you can’t outlast someone trying to turn you in!
    If you do outlast them it’s just business as usual! Next, how may I taco you!

    Taco Truck Ted said on 21 Jun 2008 at 10:28 am:

    Hello this Juan from Juan’s Tacos. We will be having a Maryland MVA taco/license registration drive out at our house AKA our place of business. With every taco purchased today we will provide you a ride to the Beltsville Md. MVA, completed forms for license, and an individual utility bill with the address of your choice. Here at Juan’s Tacos we not only care about selling tacos we don’t need to pay tax on, we care about you, our beloved customers, getting as many Maryland state licenses in as many names as possible. After all what good are food stamps if you can’t get $5,000 worth a month! Juan’s Tacos the official tacos of the John McCain Presidential Campain! Rally ’round the taco below!

    Just Cause, 23. June 2008, 14:15
    Rod2155- I’m not taking genocide personal, I just think your fixated on labeling anyone or any group who feels their rights are being violated..as an act of Genocide or Ethnic cleansing. Your bantering (however intelligently put) seems a bit..well….stupid.

    Mando, 23. June 2008, 14:17
    @onefortheroad

    That’s funny… I’ve had this sneaking suspicion that you were Taco Truck Ted.

    Just Cause, 23. June 2008, 14:25
    OneForTheRoad, 23. June 2008, 14:11 posts.

    I take offense in your statement above and common sense would almost call that a threat. Because I do not agree with you, you wanna form a gang and “take me out” physically?

    Grow the F’ up!

    If you cant run with the big dogs, tie your fat a** up on the porch!

    Just Cause, 23. June 2008, 14:26
    MANDO…

    I bet “one for the road ” IS REALLY Taco truck Ted……..Now thats funny!

    Red Dawn, 23. June 2008, 14:30
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbZ9xUF7sY8

    OneForTheRoad, 23. June 2008, 14:36
    Taco Truck Ted here:

    Today we are running a new special. For every HSM member we get out of the county, you get $5 in untaxable untraceable income. Sorry but that’s all we feel an HSM member is worth. If you can prove they are a KKK member too, then we’ll give you $15 as we think the KKK is worth a lot more than a bunch of silly HSM members like Mando, LPOW, Ed, and JustCause.

    OneForTheRoad, 23. June 2008, 14:44
    Taco Truck Ted here:

    Today we are running a 5 for 1 special. For every HSM member you get out of the county, we’ll give you not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE undocumented workers! Think of how it will help your local economy. Think of all the extra houses that will be built! Think of all the business it will attract to your county. Round ‘em up and bring them to us now, and then you can have all the undocumented workers you ever wanted and live happily. No more HSM members! That’s our motto. Drive HSM out of PWC! And if you call before midnight and give us the name and address of an HSM member we’ll throw in a week’s supply of free tacos!

    Mando, 23. June 2008, 15:06
    @Alanna and everyone else

    OneForTheRoad/Taco Truck Ted is what is know as a forum troll.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    Anyone of you punks that think your man enough to take me down: Name the time and place and I will be there. We all know the location I would choose!
    http://www.zillow.com/aerial/DualMapPage.htm?zpid=37520815

  32. Just the Facts said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    The U.S. has somewhere between 4 and 5 million LEGAL residents and citizens who are currently considered “discouraged workers.” Check out the labor market statistics for yourself on the Department of Labor’s web site, www.dol.gov. This means that they want to work but have given up looking because they can not find an acceptable job with above-poverty wages. To be categorized as “unemployed” the person must be actively engaged in a job search.

    These discouraged Americans are not idle voluntarily. They simply can not find a job that pays adequate wages. Illegals undercut them by working for unethical employers at meager wages with no benefits. The discouraged workers would take the jobs that illegals steal from them if the employers could be forced to pay at least minimum wage, contribute their obligatory FICA, and pay into the unemployment insurance pool. The crooked employers, however, backed by sleazy politicians, ethno-centric interest groups, an obliging media and the open-borders crowd provide the incentives for the illegals to come here and crowd out Americans. There is no such thing as “a job Americans won’t do.” There are only jobs American won’t do at sub-poverty wages.

    Top off all of this with the rampant hypocrisy of the left who cry for “livable wages” when it suits their agenda but scream racism or label honest people as “nativists” or other names when they express concern about illegals’ impact on low-skill wages.

    The losers are the unskilled four or five million discouraged workers, the employed Americans who receive lower pay and benefits because of the depressing effect of illegals in their industries, and the law-abiding Americans who want their country led for the benefit of those who work hard and play by the rules. Unfortunately, we have two candidates for Presidents who both want to continue the present sham of a system and lead for the benefit of corporate American and their contributors.

  33. Advocator said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Those 4-5 million, JTF, represent only a fraction of the true legal citizens that are out of work due to the Illegal Invaders taking their jobs. Consider all the high school and college students who would like to work but can’t because the traitorous modern day slave-masters would rather hire illegals at slave wages.

  34. Citizen 12 said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, because we have 4.6 million fewer high school drop outs, we have a true need for 12 million unskilled workers, to fill cleaning and tourism slots? While all the wile we continue to export millions of unskilled, semi-skilled and, Im reaching here, full blown skilled jobs because…..per share earnings are not where we would like to see them?

    The more people we allow to slide through under the bar, the farther down we allow them to pull it. This tolerance with unchecked illegal entry has cheapend the value of American citizenship. I do not have any problem with raising the bar so high many will not qualify or even bother to try , and the ones that work to reach it will know the true value of it.

  35. Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    what is going on in the world recognizes that advances in transportation, communications, and free markets have made borders artifacts of another age. Our immigration situation is in fact a case in point (as the reality does not and will never match the fantasy world created by nativests). The EU is now… and the NAU should be our future. Too many Americans remain captives of the past (probably because of our natural borders and years of geographic isolation… that are no more). Fortunately, many Americans also understand the path to the future (including most of the House and Senate and all three Presidential Candidates.)

    The Cato Institute is first and foremost a defender of a strict interpretation of the Constitution (and frequent advisor to the House, Senate, and President Bush.) Don’t forget it is Cato who initiated the 2nd Amendment case that should be decided by the Supreme Court today or tomorrow. They have a few opinions I disagree with; however, I certainly appreciate their role in defending the Constitution.

  36. americangal4ever said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    FAIR ALERT
    Federation for American Immigration Reform Action Alert

    Your Calls Needed Immediately!
    House Appropriators Set to Limit Workplace Enforcement

    Today, the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland Security is marking up the FY09 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill and funding for worksite enforcement is at risk.

    Today, Congress Daily — a well-known Capitol Hill newspaper - reports that House Homeland Security Appropriations Chairman David Price (D-NC) will attempt to reset Homeland Security’s priorities by shifting money away from worksite enforcement.

    According to Congress Daily, in a speech before the Center for American Progress yesterday, Rep. Price announced that he intends to shift $800 million away from workplace enforcement and direct ICE to use the funds to deport criminal aliens. While deporting criminal aliens is also an important goal, it should not come at the expense of worksite enforcement. Congress should fund both! Congress needs to enforce all of our immigration laws in order to ensure that our immigration system works and has integrity.

    Call Rep. David Price’s office and the Appropriations Committee at the numbers below and tell them:

    You will not stand for this attempt to stop ICE’s effective workplace enforcement activities.

    You oppose any effort to restrict ICE’s enforcement activities.

    The committee should fully fund all enforcement activities.

    Appropriations Committee: (202) 225-2771

    Rep. David Price: (202) 225-1784
    _________________
    The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. Plato

  37. Advocator said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 1:33 pm:
    “What is going on in the world recognizes that advances in transportation, communications, and free markets have made borders artifacts of another age.”

    While I recognize that we can travel more quickly and communicate instantaneously around the world, Lib, I cannot understand how those technological advances logically lead to your conclusion that borders are obsolete. Why are they obsolete simply because we can travel faster and communicate instantaneously? Have they been rendered unenforceable by technological advances? Or have they just been rendered harder to enforce? If the latter, should more of our national wealth be spent on reinforcing those borders?

  38. Just the Facts said on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian and I would probably find ourselves mostly in agreement on the developments described in his/her post, as well as on the efficiency of free and open markets. Communication, transportation, etc. have improved and fallen in cost exponentially in recent years.

    Another aspect of this globalization is the free flow of goods and services, as well as of productive resources including capital, labor and raw materials. Resources flow to where they will earn the highest return, and goods and services to where they fetch the highest price. These ideas are basic economic theory that the CATO Institute and most others understand well.

    Libertarian and I would disagree vehemently, however, on borders being artifacts of another age. Borders allow the peoples of nations to maintain their identities and protect the gains that their forbearers fought and worked for.

    Globalization has increased the efficiency of resource use, including the return to capital, as evidenced by the strong profits of global corporations. It has also allowed those corporations to shift production to where labor and other resources are cheapest. In industries in which they can not shift production outside the U.S., such as construction and hospitality, a willing and corrupt political structure has facilitated the cheap labor (illegal aliens) coming to them at the cost of the standard of living of American families.

    The result of this globalization is undoubtedly greater efficiency and productivity worldwide. However, another outcome is the catastrophic reduction in the lifestyles of most Americans, and an increasing disparity of income and wealth in our country.

    One of the key characteristics of a developing nation is a population characterized by a large, relatively poor working class, no middle class, and a small, wealthy elite. They export, to a large degree, raw materials and commodities. The United States, once a dynamo of increasing the well-being and growth of a strong middle-class, has shifted into reverse; into the direction of a developing nation. Our middle class is dying while the wealthy increasingly grow and dominate. Our exports to China, India and other rapidly developing nations consist mainly of agricultural products and unfinished goods, such as scrap metal. Yes, scrap metal to feed their industrial growth rather than computers and other goods whose manufacture creates high-paying jobs.

    Maybe Libertarian wants to continue on this course, but I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in an America like the one my parents and I knew. Will that cost us some economic efficiency? Will it diminish corporate profits and end our ability to buy a dozen pairs of new underwear at Wal-Mart for a couple of bucks? Yes, certainly. However, I prefer that alternative to living in an American that is more like the developing world than the prosperous nation of the past.

  39. Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    What Just the Facts said on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:22 pm

    We do agree on some things and disagree on others (although your points are well taken); however, I believe that the “…America like the one my parents and I knew…” is no more. Women and minorities, particularly African Americans, probably think that’s a good thing.

    I could quibble on the finer points; however, that’s best done in a different venue. Suggest you pick up Dr. Tom Barnett’s book, “The Pentagon’s New Map”. It is what they are reading in the Pentagon to map out the future of, well, the world.

    The short answer is, if you shop at Walmart, you are promoting the globalization and the changes to our society that you mention. Their entire supply chain is based upon the least cost provider (and they stopped bragging about “made in USA” products a long time ago. That’s not necessarily a bad thing taken in the larger context of history.

  40. Just the Facts said on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian - interesting that you mentioned African-Americans, women and other minorities. The progress those groups had been making has been hurt most by the economic trends of recent years. In particular, growth of the African-American middle class has deteriorated substantially. You don’t help the weakest members of your society by throwing them into the pool of thrid-world labor to compete. They want the same America I described for themselves and their families rather third-world America.

    Barnett is interesting. I’ve seen him on C-Span and read his web site. However, as I’m sure you are aware, he discusses the security threat to the U.S. from burgeoning global population growth and the increasing competition that creates for jobs and resources. Barnett’s arguments do not obviate the problems unrestrained globalization creates for the American middle class.

  41. Advocator said on 24 Jun 2008 at 2:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian: Please explain why increased trade, decreased travel time, and instantaneous communications spell the end of borders and nations as we’ve known them since the dawn of civilization. I’m sorry, I just don’t see the connection.

  42. Libertarian said on 24 Jun 2008 at 4:30 pm:
    Flag comment

    Advocator, read The Pentagon’s New Map by Dr. Tom Barnett. If you still have questions, let me know.

  43. Advocator said on 24 Jun 2008 at 4:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Libertarian: Like I tell my clients, if you can’t explain your position to me in five minutes or less, you probably don’t have a case.

  44. freedom said on 25 Jun 2008 at 10:25 am:
    Flag comment

    Just because Libertarian WANTS borders to be obsolete (Lord only knows why) that does not make it so, Advocator. Borders are not obsolete, but it’s clear that while that’s true, love of country is severely under attack. :(

  45. Advocator said on 25 Jun 2008 at 10:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Agreed, Freedom. But we are at a point where the factors I’ve mentioned have rendered borders much harder to maintain than in the past. A much higher percentage of our GDP will have to go to maintaining them, or they will become, as Libertarian and his hero Dr. Barnett observe, irrelevant. It’s a decision that our government must face.

  46. Wine Please said on 25 Jun 2008 at 1:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    anon in dale city said on 24 Jun 2008 at 5:32 am:
    don’t you dare take away my wine!

  47. Henryk A. Kowalczyk said on 26 Jul 2008 at 12:50 am:
    Flag comment

    This is a professionally made video. Who paid for this?

Comments are closed.


Views: 1965