Pastor attacked by travel Nazis for invoking Constitution

The thugs associated with Homeland Security and its various departments hate the Constitution because it limits their powers. Here is an example.

Pastor Steven Anderson is about as far away from what I believe as one can get. He's a fundamentalist Christian and one silly enough to think that only the King James version of the Bible is the right one. From reading his wife's blog I conclude they are nuts on lots of issues. But here is one issue where they are not nuts.

Anderson was driving from San Diego to Phoenix. In the middle of nowhere, far from the border, our border Nazis stop his car. They demand he answer questions which he is not legally obligated to answer. They demand he consent to a car search when they have no probably cause. He refuses on both counts—which is his constitutional right to do. The border Nazis then bring out a dog and claim it sniffed drugs—that was a lie. Then they smash the windows of the car, drag the pastor out of his car and push his face into the broken glass.

I had almost the same thing happen to me once though not quite this bad. I was driving through California and border Nazis stopped us about an hour north of San Diego. I spent the weekend in San Diego and had a small suitcase in the back seat. The border Nazi said he was going to search the suitcase. His only reason for searching it was he could see it. I asked him what his probably cause was. I asked calmly and made no sudden moves of any kind. I sat very, very still when asking. He went ballistic and started screaming. He literally became unhinged and dragged me from the car and threw me to the ground cutting my face. I had him push my face into the gravel with his boot as he shreiked: "You have no right to question me. You have no right to question me."

Pastor Anderson may be a fundamentalist nutter but he has rights like anyone else. In this video Anderson wants to know why things like this can happen in America. Based on past exeperience I would guess that one reason could be found the next time he looks in the mirror.

Listen carefully to Anderson's account of this violent attack by Border thugs. The excuses used are that the "dog" allegedly indicated that a person or drugs were in Anderson's car. Does Pastor Anderson support efforts to "round up" illegal migrant workers? Does he support drug prohibition? Those were the justifications given.

When you demand that government harass "illegals" and stop people from using drugs then you can't bitch when they use the powers necessary to accomplish their goals. In fact, the border thugs haven't gone nearly far enough as they having little impact on either goal. When you demand government wage war on specific groups of people then don't cry when there is collateral damage.

Perhaps Pastor Anderson would end the war on immigrants. Perhaps he would end the war on drugs. If so he would be a very unusual fundamentalist—in fact he would be only one I know taking that position.

Visas to leave the country?

Governments the world over are dishonest. They routinely lie to the public. And as long as the public is stupid enough to take it, the government will keep dishing it out. An example at the local level is how politicians will grant themselves raises, will expand their budgets, will go on junkets, will create endless agencies and meddle in areas where few people think they should be meddling.

But, when the time comes to pay for these ventures, and the funds are not there, the politicians will go to the public for approval on new taxes. But the new taxes are NEVER for the pay rises, the junkets, and the endless agencies. They can’t get those passed. So those are paid for out of the general budget. When the money runs out the politicians tell people they will cut back spending on fire services and police protection—unless, of course, the public grants them the extra taxes. Of course there is plenty of money for fire and public safety all along. There just isn’t plenty for fire protection, public safety, pay rises, junkets and endless agencies. Politicians, facing budgetary restraints first and foremost threaten cuts in the most popular programs not the least popular. And voters stupidly go along with it most the time.

Politicians are masters of deceit. Consider the “War on Terror” as an example at the national level. People were upset, and rightfully so, about the attack on 9/11, which is now a distant memory. Politicians talk about “stopping terrorism” and then pass measures that control you. The “war on terror” does little to terrorists; witness how Osama bin Laden has been free since the attacks. And 95% of the measures that are passed to control terrorism do nothing to terrorists but strip citizens of their freedoms.

One of the worst offenders, in this sort of deceitful assault on national freedom, has come for Britain’s authoritarian Labour Party government, first under the religious nutcase, Tony Blair, and now under Gordon Brown.

Now, England is tell everyone in the U.K., that if they plan to leave the country, by any means and for any purpose, that they must file with the government a detailed listing of their itinerary. Even people who sail the English Channel are required to file exactly where they will be, and when or face stiff penalties from the increasingly Soviet-style bureaucrats who run England. It has been noted that even those who wish to “swim the English Channel” are required to have their papers in order before stepping into the water or they face criminal prosecution.

This flagrant assault on the travel rights of British subjects will be phased in over the next few years. And anyone caught leaving without this paperwork being filed is open to prosecution. In essence, this amounts to an exit visa on the British public.

Where I stayed in England it was routine for people to hop the Channel to shop in France or Belgium. I considered taking the ferry once just to eat in the restaurant on board as a small excursion. (Please note that was only ferries where the French, not the English, were doing the cooking.) All this, under government proposals, will require one to file all the details of the trip: including your credit card numbers, with the British Travel Gestapo. Most importantly, note that if border officials can now prevent people from leaving the country, and these forms have to be filed before leaving, this gives the government the option to prevent people from exiting.

That will be coming. Of course, it will be justified by something horrendous. But in practice it will be used to control the average person. If you are behind in your property taxes then travel permits to France will be denied. Didn't pay your TV license? Well, then don't expect to attend that football match in Berlin. This measure will not be used to "secure the borders" at all. It will be used to force the British public to comply with the increasingly onerous rules of the Soviet-style regime that Labour has imposed.

I should remind readers that the reason for the explosion of “identity theft” in America is directly the result of measures meant to control “illegals” working in the country. By forcing Americans to divulge such critical information, in countless places (bank, work, apartment hunting, job applications) each citizen ends up giving away their identity by force of law. Identity theft is a problem created by government. In the UK this is even worse since the inept British bureaucrats have admitted that have lost the details of millions of citizens several times over. The more people forms you fill out with your private details the more likely it is that your identity will be stolen.

The London Telegraph claims: “Britain is not the only country to require such information from travel operators. The USA also demands the same information be supplied from passengers wishing to visit America.” Apparently the author of that claim doesn’t recognize the big difference. England is forcing British citizens to file detailed reports if they wish to leave the country. This is not the same thing. Asking visitors to a country to tell you who they are is quite different than controlling the travel plans of your own citizens.

The president of the Automobile Association, Edmund King, said: “Travellers will need to ensure that their passports are up to date and that details are input accurately if they don’t want to end up in a dark room being grilled by border officials.” True. And the very idea that they can happen to citizens spending a weekend in France tells you just how far down the road toward state fascism that England has gone under the Labour Party’s rule.

Of course an unnamed Border Agency spokesman—that is a lowlife liar paid to deceive the public—said this “allows us to secure the UK’s borders….” “Securing the borders” was sold to the public to protect against terrorists coming into the country, not to control the movement of British citizens wishing to leave the country.

As for America, just wait. England is harbinger of things to come to the United States unless people really fight back. I should also note that when you hear some conservative whining about “securing the borders” this is precisely the sort of controls that you should expect that will be imposed on you. Governments really aren’t looking to control people outside their borders. They are looking for ways to shackle their own citizens. And don’t expect Obama to be much different than Bush.

By the way, if I were English and had any options at all, the next trip out of England would be my last. Just don't go back. The same is increasingly applying to the United States as well.

Anti-immigration panic costs $2-$4 million per mile.

The cost of big government has gotten even bigger. You remember that damn Wall that conservatives want to erect on the border? It is not being built very quickly -- after all, it is government work. And it is coming in way over budget -- just as this blog predicted.

I argued that faux libertarians who support this Wall were going to inflict billions in taxes on the country. These fakes pretend they can authorize spending without authorizing taxing. You can’t separate the two. If you authorize $1 billion in new spending then you have to come up with $1 billion in new government revenue. And that is called taxes. It is basic economics but these days conservatives, even those in libertarian drag, don’t seem to know anything about economics.

The furhrers at Homeland Security had a goal of 670 miles of “secure border” for 2008. They have managed 341 miles. And you should consider the border they are trying to secure is about 2,000 miles long. At this point they are wanting an additional $400 million. Since 2005 Congress has flushed $2.7 billion down this toilet.

Now it is reported that the Government Accounting Office has said “the Homeland Security Department had no projections for the total cost of building or maintaining the fencing.” So the super agency that was hastily and stupidly created to solve all America’s problems by stripping away rights, just doesn’t have any idea how much they need to spend to build the Wall.

The GAO also says that the average cost per mile built has been steadily increasing. The more experience Homeland Security has the more they spend. In February of this year the GAO said the average cost for 1 mile of pedestrian fencing was $4 million. And if they built a mile of fencing to merely stop vehicles from driving through it was $2 million.

Now that Homeland Security has more experience the cost for one mile of pedestrian fencing is averaging $7.5 million. And the cost for vehicle barriers, which are just pipes stuck in holes in the ground to prevent cars from driving through, is now $4 million per mile. Think about that.

If you want to stop a vehicle from driving through an area, and you are putting a metal pipe as a barrier into the ground it is not a particularly complex project. A pipe about every 3 feet is sufficient to prevent a car from driving through -- very few cars are less than 3 feet wide. You would need about 1,760 pipes in total for one mile.

Let’s say we get really heavy pipe and we dig a hole that is six feet deep. We then put the pipe in the hole so that about 3 feet of it are above ground. And we fill the hole with cement. If you were in the private sector what would that one pipe in that one hole cost you? I don’t know. But I can tell you that Homeland Gestapo is paying about $2,300 to dig that hole and plant a pipe. I bet they could do it for half that if they used undocumented workers from outside Home Depot.

With 2,000 miles to fence in we are spending between $2 million and $4 million per mile in order to protect America from busboys, gardeners and fast food clerks. But it sure makes the nativists, xenophobes and bigots feel good. Of course more than bigots benefit from the Wall. Add in the morons who think this Wall is somehow making them safe. It won’t help the economy -- quite the contrary, it is very harmful to the economy. But the emotional comfort that bigots and morons get from it has to be worth something. Unfortunately, like most government schemes the people who think they are benefiting have managed to pass the bulk of the cost off on other people. Let’s face it -- the Minutemen types and their closet supporters are major Welfare Queens. To give themselves comfort they are ripping off the taxpayers to the sum of between $2 million and $4 million per mile.

Securing the borders: Did anyone think this through?

So a gaggle of right-wing racists and faux libertarians want to build a wall on the border. They are going to “secure” the borders. Nice.

So what does securing the borders mean? Well, one taste of it is that the historic right of Americans to cross into Canada or Mexico without a passport is gone. To travel you have to a government document giving you permission to do so. You can see why I think the “libertarians” who support this measure are not really libertarians at all.

And they want to build a big wall on the Mexican border. Also nice. Real nice. (You do know I’m being sarcastic.)

Since the United States was founded (and before) the borders with Canada and Mexico were never “secure”. Never. So the communities developed often without regard of that imaginary line in the dirt.

Now the authoritarians want “secure borders” and that means problems. It doesn’t mean problems for would-be terrorists. After all the 9/11 criminals didn’t cross the border illegally. They came in with government permission. They had passports and the US government said to them: “Welcome to America. Want some flying lessons?”

No one came in through Canada or Mexico. They didn’t cross the borders but flew in and handed over their permission slips to the hall monitors at the airports. They were roaming around killing people because they passed government security and had state permission to be in the US. You would think the government would look at how they approve would-be terrorists to enter the US. Instead Americans are being forced to get passports to spend a few hours shopping in Mexico.

But with hundreds of years of open borders the problems of imposing a Berlin Wall of security around the country are immense and very costly. Now think of this Border Wall for a second. The estimated cost is $2.2 billion. Like most government boondoggles that is the estimated cost. The real cost no doubt will be significantly higher.

A 14-mile section of wall in the San Diego area has been in the works since 1996. That project spent $39 million to date and the government plans another $35 million for it. By my calculation that is about $5,286,000 per mile. This is in an area much more easily accessible than where the American “Berlin Wall” is being installed. Even if this new wall costs the same as the one in San Diego the final price will be closer to $4 billion. And the New York Times says the cost could reach $49 billion. I suspect the feds will still be building when I go to my grave and that ultimately it will be scrapped unfinished. It will only stand as a monument to the stupidity and waste of government and to the bigotry of the xenophobic Right.

Now that cost is for the wall itself. What isn’t counted is that the US government is going to purchase or confiscate by eminent domain miles of privately owned land abutting the border. Again the faux libertarians supporting the wall will tell you that they oppose eminent domain. Yet only a total moron would have to say this wall can be built without the use of eminent domain. No doubt some of these “new” libertarians will find a way to justify eminent domain the way they have justified their other non-libertarian policies.

How will the wall and the confiscated land be paid for? Taxes, of course. Yet one conservative Republican is telling everyone he has never voted for a tax increase. But he has voted to spend billions of dollars walling in America. In fact he has made the border hysteria a major focus of his campaign. He imposed billions of dollars in costs on the American people and wants to pretend it was done tax free. Sure I believe that.

The Tohono O’odham Indians are not happy with that border wall. And they are supposed to be somewhat sovereign on their own land. But they say the wall will prevent them from crossing onto their land in Mexico and prevent wildlife from crossing. But this tribe may have it easy compared to other Americans.

University of Texas vice president Antonio Zavaleta says the border fence is going to cause a problem for students. “Part of our university would be on the Mexican side of the fence.” He wants to know if students are going to need a passport to travel between classrooms. The New York Times reports:

In Brownsville, Dr. Zavaleta said, that path would cut off not only the International Technology, Education and Commerce campus of the University of Texas and Texas Southmost College, which is in a former shopping center about a mile from the main campus, but also its golf course and a national historic site, Fort Brown, where an upright cannon marks an opening skirmish of the Mexican War.

According to the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram “officials with the Department of Homeland Security mentioned its condemnation authority ‘within the first 15 words’ spoken to landowners” in the Rio Grande Valley where this Orwellian agency is “eyeing numerous private tracts for the wall.” Rep. Henry Cuellar says the landowners were told: “Keep in mind we can take away your property through eminent domain.”

Of course the border nazis insist they want to work with the landowners and that the landowners are “partners” with them. (Sort of the way a woman is a partner to a rapist.) Border Patrol spokesman Xavier Rios says: “The amount of property that would be used for this is only the property that has been identified as essential for completion of the project.” Now doesn’t that clear it up? In other words they will only take as much land as they think they need. Doesn’t everyone feel better now?

The Star-Telegram reports that in Rio Grande Valley section a 90 mile long wall is planned “most of it on private land and that the landowners “have expressed fears that a wall will disrupt cattle and ranching operations, block access to the Rio Grande and -- unless they agree to the government’s financial terms -- spur nasty court battles over the condemnation of private property.”

Noel Benavides, had a border patrol official show up at his ranch and show him a map indicating the wall would come right through his property. But Benavides was told he couldn’t have a copy of it. Benavides says: “What really got me upset was the individual mentioned eminent domain. We can’t stop Homeland Security. It is the law right now that we have to have a fence in this area. But to come in and say we will take it anyway we can, we can exercise eminent domain, that really got me upset and it still does.”

The land was in Benavides’ wife’s family since 1763 and includes large sections of untouched wilderness. And the Rio Grande was a river his family as uniting two countries, not dividing them. As a boy he swam in the river. Now he wonders if he will even be able to use the water rights he has to the river. “How are we going to be able to pump water if a fence separates us from the river? What is going to happen to all those animals that drink water from the river?” Benavides wonders which Mexican president is going to say: “Mr. President, tear down this wall... like Reagan said.”

Hey boys and girls! Aren’t you glad that those private property loving, small government conservatives (Ron Paul included) pushed through this idea?

It also appears that entire sections of Laredo, Texas are built up right to the border with Neuvo Laredo in Mexico. That would means wide sections of private property, people’s homes and businesses, will have to be confiscated to build the wall. We now have conservatives, who whined about the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain, proposing a wall that is only going to be built through the confiscation of thousands and thousands of pieces of private property. But don’t expect them to mention that.

So far there are no plans to wall in the Canadian border. But Americans are going to need passports to cross into Canada shortly. But how, for instance, will that work in the town of Derby Line, Vermont? Derby Line and Stanstead, Canada share common streets.

Over a century ago the Haskell Library was built there. As Associated Press reported:

Step through the front door of the Haskell Library and you're in the United States. Walk across the carpeted floor to the circulation desk and you're in Canada. But if you sit down on the couch, you're back in the U.S.

The two towns, in different countries, share a common water system, sewer system and emergency crews in both towns help one another. Will people need passports to go to the local library?

The residents of Canusa Avenue in Beebe Plain, Vermont have a bigger problem. This new found desire to “secure the borders” is one that troubles them. The street is named as it is as because it combines Canada and the USA (CanUSA). The residents on the south side of the street live in the US while those on north side live in Canada. Under the new Bush rules residents will need a passport to cross the street. As one lifelong resident of the street put it, referring to the new regulations: “This is quite a rats’ nest, if you think about.”

Ah, but in DC they never think about it and the Decider has decided and logic and reason never plays a role in his decisions. And what would Republicans campaign on if they didn’t have “illegals” around to scare their voters. They’ve already pretty much played their hatred of gays to death. It’s really time to move to on to another group of people to attack and why not the Mexicans?

Photos: 1) The wall, or one version of it. 2). Haskell Library, part in Canada, part in the US. 3) Canusa Ave: north side is Canada, south side is US. Passports will be need to borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor?