War on terror? I think not.

[Ed]

I have a basic problem with the BS line put out by GW et al. They extoll their efforts to assure "Homeland Security" (which sound Orwellian on the face of it). They promulgate laws, some good, some bad, some inexplicable. They have you engage in improvised dance at airports. All so our fat asses are safe. They spend a fortune (an overused term) and bask in the glow of an appreciative population...

Then there is this:

The last amendment to the $30 billion homeland security bill approved Tuesday by House lawmakers would have denied federal money to so-called "sanctuary cities" that have passed ordinances freeing law-enforcement officials from reporting illegal immigrants.
After 90 minutes of debate, it failed to win approval but received 102 of 424 votes, all from Republicans who have espoused a hard line on punishing illegal immigrants.
"It is unbelievable that there could even be one 'no' vote," said Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, the Republican who introduced the amendment.
"It was simply a provision that required cities to enforce a federal law already on the books. This is the kind of thing that will become an issue at re-election time. I really don't know how anybody can defend that vote."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030625-102147-5109r.htm

For those of you who do not live here and may not think that you understand what is going on because it surpasses any political lunacy that you have encountered in your young lives let me explain:

Cops in certain major cities cannot turn over illeagal aliens to the immegration service. In LA, I understand, they may not even ask about residency.

So: we spend a bunch, we inconvience everyone, we give kudos to those lieing weasels in Washington and if Mohammad Atta were picked up in NY or LA he would be on the street again in a heartbeat.

Why? Simple, the thieving lieing goat abusing bastards that represent us want the hispanic vote.

Nice, huh?