U.S. House passes bill requireing troop pullout

He is going to veto that is not doubt about it. Let see what our congress is made off and if they will respect the people of this nation or they as the Bush administration are into the same agendas.

I have not faith on our government anymore no matter what party is in power.

At the end we must remember that our troops has no fault to be caught in the power, greed and corruption that is eating our political system away.

Originally posted by marg6043
I have not faith on our government anymore no matter what party is in power.

I have to agree with you there Marg,

Bush has already said he will veto, the question is will the Sentae override the veto, I think they need two-thirds majority for an override, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Will the override happen?

I think that at the end the congress will bend to Bush because politicians have a reputation and a career to protect over the people that elected them.

They want to look good and be all for the troops.

"staying in to stop alquadia is a huge brainwash"

based on your intelligence and nothing more...

"9/11 is a setup and a hoax"

Wheres your proof?

"the war in iraq is all based on lies.

Based on the intelligence the ENTIRE world had...disagrees with that assertion of yours entirely...Unless all the worlds governments were "in on it".

"two wrongs do not make a right
alquadia cannot attack the USA.
Give me a break"

Give me a break indeed.




[edit on 26-4-2007 by blueballs]

If they bend to Bush then this was a sham and how in the world could they claim they were thinking about the troops?

More like playing games with the troops welfare a piece of their game.

here you go blue balls
THE LIES THAT LED TO WAR
Since the US-led invasion four years ago, the fifth estate has covered Iraq and the war on terror from virtually every angle--the military, media, intelligence, politics--revealing aspects of the story that you didn't find anywhere else. Now, as the White House warns about the latest threat in the region, this time from Iran, it's worthwhile looking back to examine the deception, suspect intelligence, even lies, that convinced the world of the rightness of targeting Saddam Hussein.

The political decisions behind the invasion
The Lies That Led To War is drawn from these stories: In 2003's The Forgotten People, the fifth estate examined the human rights arguments used to make a case for war. We looked at the sale of technology by the US to Iraq during the 1980's despite the fact that this equipment could be, and was used eventually, in military operations by Saddam Hussein against Kurdish civilians. After the gassing of the Kurds in 1988, American business with Iraq actually increased.

In Act of Faith which aired that same year, the fifth estate examined how George Bush and Tony Blair struck a deal that would lead to the invasion of Iraq. It was a deal struck while UN diplomats worked to avert conflict in the weeks and months leading up to March 19, 2003.

In the widely acclaimed Conspiracy Theories and the Unauthorized Biography of Dick Cheney, which aired in 2003 and 2004 respectively, we looked at intelligence failures leading up to 9/11, Dick Cheney's power within the White House and his Halliburton connections, as well as the links between the Bush family, the Saudi Royal family and the Bin Ladens.

Selling the war in Iraq
In 2005's Sticks and Stones, we turned our attention to the American media and how they covered the ongoing war in Iraq, public dissent, as well as the increasingly hostile tone between left and right in American discourse.

Now, The Lies That Led To War provides context to the events of the previous six years, showing how political, diplomatic, media spin – which sometimes crossed the line into outright lies - have been used by the those in power to further their own agendas.

www.cbc.ca...

here you go blueballs

Record of Iraq War Lies to Air April 25 on PBS
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2007-04-12 05:10. Evidence | Media
By David Swanson

Bill Moyers has put together an amazing 90-minute video documenting the lies that the Bush administration told to sell the Iraq War to the American public, with a special focus on how the media led the charge. I've watched an advance copy and read a transcript, and the most important thing I can say about it is: Watch PBS from 9 to 10:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25. Spending that 90 minutes on this will actually save you time, because you'll never watch television news again – not even on PBS, which comes in for its share of criticism.

While a great many pundits, not to mention presidents, look remarkably stupid or dishonest in the four-year-old clips included in "Buying the War," it's hard to take any spiteful pleasure in holding them to account, and not just because the killing and dying they facilitated is ongoing, but also because of what this video reveals about the mindset of members of the DC media. Moyers interviews media personalities, including Dan Rather, who clearly both understand what the media did wrong and are unable to really see it as having been wrong or avoidable.

It's great to see an American media outlet tell this story so well, but it leads one to ask: When will Congress tell it? While the Democrats were in the minority, they clamored for hearings and investigations, they pushed Resolutions of Inquiry into the White House Iraq Group and the Downing Street Minutes. Now, in the majority, they've gone largely silent. The chief exception is the House Judiciary Committee's effort to question Condoleezza Rice next week about the forged Niger documents.

But what comes out of watching this show is a powerful realization that no investigation is needed by Congress, just as no hidden information was needed for the media to get the story right in the first place. The claims that the White House made were not honest mistakes. But neither were they deceptions. They were transparent and laughably absurd falsehoods. And they were high crimes and misdemeanors.

The program opens with video of President Bush saying "Iraq is part of a war on terror. It's a country that trains terrorists, it's a country that can arm terrorists. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country."

Was that believable or did the media play along? The next shot is of a press conference at which Bush announces that he has a script telling him which reporters to call on in what order. Yet the reporters play along, raising their hands after each comment, pretending that they might be called on despite the script.

Video shows Richard Perle claiming that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda and that Iraqis would greet American occupiers as liberators. Here are the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, William Safire at the New York Times, Charles Krauthammer and Jim Hoagland at the Washington Post all demanding an overthrow of Iraq's government. George Will is seen saying that Hussein "has anthrax, he loves biological weapons, he has terrorist training camps, including 747s to practice on."

But was that even plausible? Bob Simon of "60 Minutes" tells Moyers he wasn't buying it. He says he saw the idea of a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda as an absurdity: "Saddam, as most tyrants, was a total control freak. He wanted total control of his regime. Total control of the country. And to introduce a wild card like al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn't believe it for an instant."

Knight Ridder Bureau Chief John Walcott didn't buy it either. He assigned Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay to do the reporting, and they found the Bush claims to be quite apparently false. For example, when the Iraqi National Congress (INC) fed the New York Times' Judith Miller a story through an Iraqi defector claiming that Hussein had chemical and biological weapons labs under his house, Landay noticed that the source was a Kurd, making it very unlikely he would have learned such secrets. But Landay also noticed that it was absurd to imagine someone putting a biological weapons lab under his house.

But absurd announcements were the order of the day. A video clip shows a Fox anchor saying "A former top Iraqi nuclear scientist tells Congress Iraq could build three nuclear bombs by 2005." And the most fantastic stories of all were fed to David Rose at Vanity Fair Magazine. We see a clip of him saying "The last training exercise was to blow up a full size mock up of a US destroyer in a lake in central Iraq."

Landay comments: "Or jumping into pits of fouled water and having to kill a dog with your bare teeth. I mean, this was coming from people, who are appearing in all of these stories, and sometimes their rank would change."

Forged documents from Niger could not have gotten noticed in this stew of lies. Had there been some real documents honestly showing something, that might have stood out and caught more eyes. Walcott describes the way the INC would feed the same info to the Vice President and Secretary of Defense that it fed to a reporter, and the reporter would then get the claims confirmed by calling the White House or the Pentagon. Landay adds: "And let's not forget how close these people were to this administration, which raises the question, was there coordination? I can't tell you that there was, but it sure looked like it."

Simon from 60 Minutes tells Moyers that when the White House claimed a 9-11 hijacker had met with a representative of the Iraqi government in Prague, 60 Minutes was easily able to make a few calls and find out that there was no evidence for the claim. "If we had combed Prague," he says, "and found out that there was absolutely no evidence for a meeting between Mohammad Atta and the Iraqi intelligence figure. If we knew that, you had to figure the administration knew it. And yet they were selling the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam."

Moyers questions a number of people about their awful work, including Dan Rather, Peter Beinart, and then Chairman and CEO of CNN Walter Isaacson. And he questions Simon, who soft-pedaled the story and avoided reporting that there was no evidence.

Landay at Knight Ridder did report the facts when it counted, but not enough people paid attention. He tells Moyers that all he had to do was read the UN weapons inspectors reports online to know the White House was lying to us. When Cheney said that Hussein was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, Landay knew he was lying: "You need tens of thousands of machines called 'centrifuges' to produce highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. You've got to house those in a fairly big place, and you've got to provide a huge amount of power to this facility."

Moyers also hits Tim Russert with a couple of tough questions. Russert expressed regret for not having included any skeptical voices by saying he wished his phone had rung. So, Moyers begins the next segment by saying "Bob Simon didn't wait for the phone to ring," and describing Simon's reporting. Simon says he knew the claims about aluminum tubes were false because 60 Minutes called up some scientists and researchers and asked them. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post says that skeptical stories did not get placed on the front page because they are not "definitive."

Moyers shows brief segments of an Oprah show in which she has on only pro-war guests and silences a caller who questions some of the White House claims. Just in time for the eternal election season, Moyers includes clips of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry backing the war on the basis of Bush and Cheney's lies. But we also see clips of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy getting it right.

The Washington Post editorialized in favor of the war 27 times, and published in 2002 about 1,000 articles and columns on the war. But the Post gave a huge anti-war march a total of 36 words. "What got even less ink," Moyers says, "was the release of the National Intelligence Estimate." Even the misleading partial version that the media received failed to fool a careful eye.

Landay recalls: "It said that the majority of analysts believed that those tubes were for the nuclear weapons program. It turns out, though, that the majority of intelligence analysts had no background in nuclear weapons." Was Landay the only one capable of noticing this detail?

Colin Powell's UN presentation comes in for similar quick debunking. We watch a video clip of Powell complaining that Iraq has covered a test stand with a roof. But AP reporter Charles Hanley comments: "What he neglected to mention was that the inspectors were underneath watching what was going on."

Powell cited a UK paper, but it very quickly came out that the paper had been plagiarized from a college student's work found online. The British press pointed that out. The US let it slide. But anyone looking for the facts found it quickly.

Moyers' wonderful movie is marred by a single line, the next to the last sentence, in which he says: "The number of Iraqis killed, over 35,000 last year alone, is hard to pin down." A far more accurate figure could have been found very easily.

www.afterdowningstreet.org...

Bush Senior Met With Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11

Paul Joseph Watson

Comment: Despite studying September 11 for two years solid, one fact I only just discovered is that George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business just a few miles from where hijackers supposedly acting on behalf of Osama bin Laden would fly a plane into the Pentagon.

Recall that the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11. He also met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of the attacks, who would later go on to head the first 9/11 investigative committee.

www.propagandamatrix.com...

The Bush senior/bin Laden meeting was reported on by CBC. See www.propagandamatrix.com...

This was also reported by the London Observer. See the last paragraph at observer.guardian.co.uk...

"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."

www.prisonplanet.com...

gee I am doing good for a dumb canadian
not too stupid am I



[edit on 26-4-2007 by junglelord]

[edit on 26-4-2007 by junglelord]

Just for you Junglelord,

While I am sure your post after post of vitriolic pap is most fascinating, it is off topic. The topic is not "What were all the lies that our government told us" it is "US House Passes Bill Requiring Troop Pullout". Let's try to keep your remarks on topic and try to be civil in your exchanges or we all may have to join in a rousing chorus of thet famous South Park song: "Blame Canada"!!

Thank you for your cooperation.

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by marg6043
I have not faith on our government anymore no matter what party is in power.

I have to agree with you there Marg,

Bush has already said he will veto, the question is will the Sentae override the veto, I think they need two-thirds majority for an override, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Will the override happen?

I don't think they have the votes to override the veto, which does requires 2/3rds of the votes in the Senate, but Reid just said they expect Bush to veto the bill and if that happens they may have another proposal by June.

It may seem like a waste of time, but both Pelosi and Reid have said the pullout date was added because it was the will of the people. At least they are attempting to do something about the war, which is more than we have seen from congress in the last six years.

my apolgies, I am new here and I thought the way in has something to do with the way out, I therefore thought it was connected and on topic
forgive me for connecting the dots
I say that with the most respect

Originally posted by Hal9000
At least they are attempting to do something about the war, which is more than we have seen from congress in the last six years.

Is this effort political? In my mind it is, something those who seek election/re-election can have talking points to garner votes, when in reality it has nothing to do with the troops...

....if it did, an override would be in short order.....IMO

No wait! they will blame the republicans!!! Too easy, and too transparent.

Originally posted by junglelord
my apolgies, I am new here and I thought the way in has something to do with the way out, I therefore thought it was connected and on topic
forgive me for connecting the dots
I say that with the most respect

No problem; please believe me when I say that I hold no hard feelings and hope you don't either. I don't expect everyone to agree with my views and don't mind being told so and given the reason why, as long as it is done with some small amount of courtesy. If I offended you with any of my remarks, I I hope you'll forgive me. Freinds?

Originally posted by JacKatMtn

Originally posted by Hal9000
At least they are attempting to do something about the war, which is more than we have seen from congress in the last six years.

Is this effort political? In my mind it is, something those who seek election/re-election can have talking points to garner votes, when in reality it has nothing to do with the troops...

....if it did, an override would be in short order.....IMO

No wait! they will blame the republicans!!! Too easy, and too transparent.

It would be a good thing if they could override it, but I don't think they have the votes. I agree it is political, but I don't think that the delay is in anyway putting our troops in harms way, at least not in the way Bush would lead us to believe. They will get their money, but at this point it will continue to be more difficult to get it as it should be after four years of war.

About time too!

Originally posted by Stormrider
I was not disounting that part of the 2nd Amendment, only pointing out that the active-duty armed forces of this country are not appropriate for service as policemen or border patrol officers, they have a totally different mandate as set forth in this country's military history and pointed out that the 2nd amendment decreed a national militia, ie the National Guard, which might be appropriate for border patrol duty but would normally only be used in times of national catastrophe or civil unrest.

Apparently then, you are not fully aware of the sheer magnitude of how serious the invasion is. There are already more illegals in America now than any nation's full military could field & it's constantly getting worse. IMO, to stop an invasion this serious, it would take the efforts of our national military because it's of the porportions of being an undeclared war already.
Besides that, as the Executive Branch of the government, the Bush Adminstration is charged with the primary duty to enforce the laws (believe it or not, this includes Immigration laws!)...By not doing so, Bush has committed (at the very least) a serious charge of Breech of Oath.

All in all, if/when the troops are pulled out, they should then be given the privilege of being stationed nation-wide to help protect their own families & friends! What soldier would not jump at the chance to be stationed so close to home & family, being able to fullfill his oath to "defend my nation against all enemies, foreign & domestic?"

[edit on 27-4-2007 by MidnightDStroyer]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by Stormrider
I was not disounting that part of the 2nd Amendment, only pointing out that the active-duty armed forces of this country are not appropriate for service as policemen or border patrol officers, they have a totally different mandate as set forth in this country's military history and pointed out that the 2nd amendment decreed a national militia, ie the National Guard, which might be appropriate for border patrol duty but would normally only be used in times of national catastrophe or civil unrest.

Apparently then, you are not fully aware of the sheer magnitude of how serious the invasion is.

It is not an invasion of armed terrorists or foreign military querrilas, it is an increasing number of iilegal aliens coming into the US. The only crime they have commited is trying to find a better life than they have now; that doesn't mean I agree with what they are doing or condone their illegal entry; it just means I understand what they are looking for. Many of those who come here end up over-taxing our social services and welfare system, I am aware of that and agree that it needs to be curtailed. I just happen to believe that using active duty army soldiers and marines to patrol the border and chase down fleeing mexicans with deadly force is not the answer.

There are already more illegals in America now than any nation's full military could field & it's constantly getting worse. IMO, to stop an invasion this serious, it would take the efforts of our national military because it's of the porportions of being an undeclared war already.

Again, not an invasion, not a war; mexican and other central american and south american nationals who come across the border are not our declared enemy; we are not at war with Mexico or any other country in that region and they are not at war with us. Armed response by active duty military personnel is not appropriate. Increasing the budget for the INS and Border patrol and hiring another 200 border patrol and INS agents IS the answer.

Besides that, as the Executive Branch of the government, the Bush Adminstration is charged with the primary duty to enforce the laws (believe it or not, this includes Immigration laws!)...By not doing so, Bush has committed (at the very least) a serious charge of Breech of Oath.

Under Article II of the US Constitution, the President is charged with seeing that the "Law" of the land is "faithfully executed." This is referring to the "Law" as set out in the Constitution as set forth in the various Articles and Amendments; and it is not the "primary function of the Executive", in fact it is one of the last to be mentioned and is the most vague of the powers and responsiblities listed.

There is no Article or Amendment, that I have been able to find, that prohibits the entry into the US by foreigners without passports or work visas. Those are laws set up by the individual state and federal government and come under the authority of the Atorney General and State and local law enforcement. It is not the Presidents job to personally and individually stop the tide of illegal immigration but to make sure that adequate funding and implementation of the INS and border patrol agency is assured. I believe that he could do a lot more along thos lines, as I mentioned above. If more agents were hired and trained it would help a lot.

All in all, if/when the troops are pulled out, they should then be given the privilege of being stationed nation-wide to help protect their own families & friends! What soldier would not jump at the chance to be stationed so close to home & family, being able to fullfill his oath to "defend my nation against all enemies, foreign & domestic?"

If you have ever been in the military, you know that would never fly with a career soldier or marine; that's not what their trained for anyway. Sure, they would be happy on the one hand to be state-side, but only a small number would really be close to family and friends and they would be going out of their minds with boredom as well

Originally posted by Stormrider
There is no Article or Amendment, that I have been able to find, that prohibits the entry into the US by foreigners without passports or work visas. Those are laws set up by the individual state and federal government and come under the authority of the Atorney General and State and local law enforcement. It is not the Presidents job to personally and individually stop the tide of illegal immigration but to make sure that adequate funding and implementation of the INS and border patrol agency is assured. I believe that he could do a lot more along thos lines, as I mentioned above. If more agents were hired and trained it would help a lot.

The point here is that it's still illegal. Wanton abandon for the laws of the land that you're entering only serve to harm your cause, since the people that you'll be interacting with will know that you're not here legally. First off, I'm sure that I'm in the majority when I say that I don't think it's fair that our fellow brothers and sisters are over fighting and dying for the security of a country, when we can't even secure our OWN borders. I think it's a terrible thing that's been allowed to happen to us ever since 9/11.

Now, I don't like bringing up 9/11, but it IS what started all of this, after all. It was the beginning of radical change in the government, as well as civil life. Our military has been stretched almost to a breaking point, and we're being stretched even further, with little or no support left here at home for if/when another attack occurs. I know this will sound selfish, and I guess it is, but we need to be thinking of our own safety before we recklessly sacrifice our own people to a war that no one but the elite wants.

I'd like to end this post with a question:

Why do you think that the President and his administration say that this war (Iraq) is a war to protect our freedoms? Excusing the WMD excuse, what kind of danger were we in that necessitated a full-scale preemptive strike and invasion?

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
The point here is that it's still illegal. Wanton abandon for the laws of the land that you're entering only serve to harm your cause, since the people that you'll be interacting with will know that you're not here legally. First off, I'm sure that I'm in the majority when I say that I don't think it's fair that our fellow brothers and sisters are over fighting and dying for the security of a country, when we can't even secure our OWN borders. I think it's a terrible thing that's been allowed to happen to us ever since 9/11.

I will agree with you that it's not fair that our brothers and sisters are dying unjustly. I do not support the war and have not since shortly after we went in. I have no argument with you on that point. Whether we can secure our own borders or not and how we go about doing that, is where the difficulties lie. We would still have the same problem with illegal immigration that we have now even if our troops were at home. The one has nothing to do with the other, IMO.

Now, I don't like bringing up 9/11, but it IS what started all of this, after all. It was the beginning of radical change in the government, as well as civil life. Our military has been stretched almost to a breaking point, and we're being stretched even further, with little or no support left here at home for if/when another attack occurs. I know this will sound selfish, and I guess it is, but we need to be thinking of our own safety before we recklessly sacrifice our own people to a war that no one but the elite wants.

Listen, I still worry about another terrorist attack occuring, I think, on one level or another, most Americans do; But let's be honest here, illegal immigration has been a very serious problem in this country for a lot longer than we have been stuck in Iraq and while I agree with you 100% on how thinly our military resources have been stretched, their being at home before the invasion of Iraq didn't prevent 9/11 from happening, did it?

And you are correct that no one wants this war to continue except the politicians and the large corporations getting rich off of government contracts; any one with any common sense can see that we need to bring our troops home, but let's do it in an orderly and gradual process, say over a 6-9 month period and at the same time work like hell to make the Iraqis as able as possible to govern and protect themselves against their neighbors.

I'd like to end this post with a question:

Why do you think that the President and his administration say that this war (Iraq) is a war to protect our freedoms? Excusing the WMD excuse, what kind of danger were we in that necessitated a full-scale preemptive strike and invasion?

TheBorg

I truly believe they say those things because to say anything else is to admit they were/are wrong and their arrogance and assinine pride will not let them do that. We were in no danger from Saddam and probably neither were his neighbors but Bush somehow has this messianic complex that makes him feel that he has to be the savior of the world. Nothing we are doing in Iraq is serving to protect the freedoms of Americans. Bush has to justify and rationalize our situation in the mid-east in some way, if only to himself and that is the way he has chosen to do it. It doesn't mean it's true, Although I believe Bush has convinced himself it is. But again, that's just my opinion.

Thanks for your post, TheBorg; I really appreciate your insights. I guess we'll just have to hope and pray that everything works out the way it is supposed to and that that ends up being better for us than the bad guys.

Originally posted by StormriderI just happen to believe that using active duty army soldiers and marines to patrol the border and chase down fleeing mexicans with deadly force is not the answer.

When did I ever use the term (or even remotely describe) "deadly force?" Can you find it? I can't.
No, the military should be used in cooperation with Immigration Services! This means identification, apprehension, then (if they refuse the choice to make their entry legal through the services of Immigration) deportation...Just as the law would proscribe!

Originally posted by StormriderIt is not an invasion of armed terrorists or foreign military querrilas, it is an increasing number of iilegal aliens coming into the US.

I never tried to make you think that it's a military invasion...But the sheer numbers of illegals involved doesn't make it an less of an invasion of the USA. It seems we're having some serious misinterpretations of posting context between us...

Originally posted by StormriderIncreasing the budget for the INS and Border patrol and hiring another 200 border patrol and INS agents IS the answer.

What? Another excuse to raise taxes? Aren't you aware that the Middle Class American has already been brought to extinction by excessive taxation?

Originally posted by StormriderIt is not the Presidents job to personally and individually stop the tide of illegal immigration but to make sure that adequate funding and implementation of the INS and border patrol agency is assured. I believe that he could do a lot more along thos lines, as I mentioned above. If more agents were hired and trained it would help a lot.

In accordance with what I just mentioned about raising taxes...
Yes, the Executive Branch's job is to "faithfully execute" the laws; But he also has the means available in also holding the title of Cheif Commanding Officer of the military. I would be a lot less onerous on the taxpayers for him to use the means he already has at his disposal, wouldn't you think?

Originally posted by StormriderIf you have ever been in the military, you know that would never fly with a career soldier or marine;

Yes, I have been in the military, so I think I'm qualified to know something about it...As a matter of fact, I'm a veteran of the "First Gulf War Era"...You know, during the "reign" of Daddy Bush!

Originally posted by TheBorgFirst off, I'm sure that I'm in the majority when I say that I don't think it's fair that our fellow brothers and sisters are over fighting and dying for the security of a country, when we can't even secure our OWN borders.

Yeah, what he said...
If they're not willing to legally "assimulate" (as TheBorg would obviously phrase it ), as the WW II refugees from Europe did, then there's no place for them in the USA! Are you even aware that the USA legally immigrates more people every year than all other countries combined?

Originally posted by StormriderWhether we can secure our own borders or not and how we go about doing that, is where the difficulties lie. We would still have the same problem with illegal immigration that we have now even if our troops were at home. The one has nothing to do with the other, IMO.

But don't you think that they proposition I voiced would have a better chance of working than the way the "government" would have it done? Can you think of a better, more practical way than what I've been describing?
The government is also proposing the formation of the North American Union...They've already got the "groundwork" laid for it, all under secrecy so that they can adopt a "no turning back" excuse to the American Public. Don't you see that it's their final solution to all of that "Constitutional nonsense" they've had to put up with from "the plebs" over the past couple of centuries? If that Union ever happens, it will destroy our national sovereignty & the Constitution that created it in the first place.

No, from what I see of the corruption in government (and there's far too much "synergy" among the government's actions to be anything other than corruption); The People need to secure our own borders, halt the "civilian invasion" & to "provide for the common defense" before it's too late to fix anything that the Tyranical Government have planned for us.